A Best Practice Framework For Implementing Residential Modular Integrated Construction Projects in Hong Kong

Copyright Undertaking
This thesis is protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
By reading and using the thesis, the reader understands and agrees to the following terms:
1. The reader will abide by the rules and legal ordinances governing copyright regarding the
use of the thesis.
2. The reader will use the thesis for the purpose of research or private study only and not for
distribution or further reproduction or any other purpose.
3. The reader agrees to indemnify and hold the University harmless from and against any loss,
damage, cost, liability or expenses arising from copyright infringement or unauthorized
usage.
IMPORTANT
If you have reasons to believe that any materials in this thesis are deemed not suitable to be
distributed in this form, or a copyright owner having difficulty with the material being included in
our database, please contact lbsys@polyu.edu.hk providing details. The Library will look into
your claim and consider taking remedial action upon receipt of the written requests.
Pao Yue-kong Library, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
http://www.lib.polyu.edu.hk
A BEST PRACTICE FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING
RESIDENTIAL MODULAR INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
IN HONG KONG
IBRAHIM YAHAYA WUNI
PhD
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
2022
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Department of Building and Real Estate
A Best Practice Framework for implementing Residential Modular Integrated

Construction Projects in Hong Kong
Ibrahim Yahaya Wuni
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy
November 2021
ii
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
it reproduces no material previously published or written, nor material that has been accepted for
the award of any other degree or diploma, except where due acknowledgement has been made in
the text.
Signature: ………………………………………..
Ibrahim Yahaya Wuni

Student Name: …………………………………...
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to three groups of people. The first group is my family (Father – Yahaya
Wuni; Mother – Salamatu Issaka; Big Brother – Salifu Yahaya Wuni; Younger Brother – Majeed
Yahaya Wuni; Sisters – Shediratu Wuni and Jameela Wuni). The second group is all homeless
people in the world. This research is the genesis of my commitment to promote housing justice.
The third group is those who died from the Covid-19 pandemic and their families. I never got the
Covid-19 virus, but the pandemic seriously undermined and challenged the progress of my
research.
iv
ABSTRACT
Modular integrated construction (MiC) is a modern construction method whereby free-standing
volumetric modules or building components (usually completed with fixtures, fittings, and
finishes) are manufactured and assembled in a factory and transported to a construction site for
installation in their final position. The Hong Kong Government started promoting the MiC method
in 2017 to address the structural, technical, and engineering limitations of prefabrications and
conventional modular construction for high-rise building construction. Outcomes of completed
overseas and local pilot projects have demonstrated that the MiC method offers enormous
opportunities to enhance residential project performance at multiple levels. However, the pilot
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong have encountered tremendous challenges and uncertainties.
Notable reasons include the incompatibility of the MiC method with some project types, the
unfamiliarity of many construction organizations and practitioners with the MiC method, lack of
standardized practices and guidelines for implementing the various stages of residential MiC
projects, and the difficulty of quantifying the performance improvements attributable to the MiC
method.
Against this backdrop, this research aims to develop a best practice framework for implementing
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong effectively and successfully. The study derived six specific
complementary objectives: (i) to develop a decision support system that enables project teams to
assess the compatibility and suitability of the MiC method for a residential building project; (ii) to
assess, simulate and model the critical risk factors for residential MiC projects; (iii) to assess and
model the critical success factors for residential MiC projects; (iv) to critically examine
representative local and international residential MiC cases to identify challenges encountered and
lessons learned; (v) to develop a performance measurement system that enables project teams to
v
assess the outcomes of residential MiC projects; and (vi) to consolidate the findings to develop a
best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
The study achieved the six complementary objectives using mixed methods, including in-depth
analysis of high-profile local and overseas residential MiC projects, structured questionnaire
surveys, and semi-structured interviews. The research data were analysed using thematic content
analysis, mean score ranking, risk significance index, factor analysis, Monte Carlo simulation,
fuzzy synthetic evaluation, and partial least squares structural equation modelling.
The results showed that twenty-one factors significantly determine the compatibility and suitability
of the MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. The top five significant
determinants include: (i) presence of repetitive layout in design; (ii) suitability of the design for
MiC; (iii) accessibility and availability of temporary storage areas at the site location; (iv)
structural integrity of modules; and (v) width of the transport network to site and traffic conditions
in the vicinity. The significant suitability and compatibility determinants were categorized into
four: project characteristics; project objectives and requirements; location and site attributes; and
organizational and industry readiness.
A Monte Carlo simulation revealed twenty-six significant critical risk factors for residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. The top five significant critical risk factors include: (i) late design
completion and freezing; (ii) unsuitable sites with restrictive space constraints; (iii) inadequate
planning and scheduling; (iv) heavy reliance on overseas factories; and (v) inaccurate MiC design
information. The simulation further revealed nine significant critical risk factors at 95% and 97.5%
risk tolerance levels within the high-risk exposure zone and 82.5% and 85% risk tolerance levels
within the medium-risk exposure zones of the risk matrix. Factor analysis derived five components
of the significant critical risk factors: (i) design risks, (ii) factory production risks, (iii)
vi
transportation and storage risks, (iv) supply chain risks, and (v) onsite assembly risks. A structural
equation modelling showed that design risks and supply chain risks generate the most profound
impact on the performance of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
The results further revealed twenty-one significant critical success factors for residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. The top five significant success ingredients include: (i) early design
completion and freezing, (ii) early understanding and commitment of the client, (iii) effective
leadership and support of specialist contractors, (iv) adequate knowledge and experience of the
project team, and (v) collaborative working and information sharing among project teams. Factor
analysis and fuzzy synthetic evaluation revealed five significant components of the success
ingredients: (i) supply chain management, (ii) early commitment, (iii) enabling environment, (iv)
suitable project characteristics, and (v) competency.
The case studies identified eighty-five (85) challenges encountered and fifty-five (55) lessons
learned from the six local and international residential MiC projects. Within-case and cross-case
analyses revealed the five most persistent and problematic challenges encountered at the predesign,
design, factory production, transportation, storage, and onsite assembly stages of residential MiC
projects. The dominant challenges encountered in the Hong Kong cases were associated with
logistics, site constraints, and immaturity of the local supply chain.
The results also revealed fourteen key performance indicators for quantifying the performance of
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong: (i) cost, (ii) time, (iii) premanufactured value, (iv) quality,
(v) productivity, (vi) health and safety, (vii) predictability, (viii) flexibility, (ix) material waste, (x)
resource consumption, (xi) environmental footprint, (xii) local disruption, (xiii) community
impact, and (xiv) industry impact.
vii
The findings of the first five objectives were triangulated and consolidated to develop and validate
a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects. The framework contains
three complementary components: (i) a suitability decision support system, (ii) best practices, and
(iii) a performance measurement system. The decision support system derived from Objective 1
enables project teams to assess the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with a proposed
residential project. The best practices derived from objectives 2 – 4 constitute specific processes,
delivery strategies, and technical guidelines for implementing the various stages of residential MiC
projects. The performance measurement system derived from objective 5 enables project teams to
evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in residential building projects.
Therefore, the five objectives collectively generated complementary findings to develop the best
practice framework.
The study findings have several theoretical, practical, managerial, pedagogical, and policy
implications. The study’s originality lies in developing and unifying the complementary functions
of a decision support system, best practices, and a performance measurement system for
implementing residential MiC projects. These three components can enable project teams and
construction organizations to align a proposed project to the requirements of the MiC method at
the outset, effectively implement the various stages, and measure the performance of residential
MiC projects to facilitate futureproofing, experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous
improvements. The study further codified and established a comprehensive set of standardized
practices, specific processes, delivery strategies, and technical guidelines for successfully
implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects.
Keywords: Best Practices; Best Practice Framework; Decision Support System; Modular
Integrated Construction; Performance Measurement System; Residential Projects; Hong Kong.
viii
LIST OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS
The author of this thesis made the following research publications during the Ph.D. study. The
thesis is a function of the research outputs that have been completely rewritten to ensure originality
and avoid repetitions in background and methodologies.
A. Refereed Journal Papers from Ph.D. Research (Published/Accepted): 2018 – 2022
1. Wuni, I.Y.* and Shen, G.Q.P. (2022). Developing critical success factors for integrating
circular economy into modular construction projects in Hong Kong. Sustainable Production
and Consumption, Vol. 29, No. Jan 2022, pp. 574-587. (IF = 5.032)
2. Saka, A.B., Chan, D.W.M, and Wuni, I.Y. (2022). Knowledge-Based Decision Support
System for BIM in Construction Projects by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in
Developing Economies. Automation in Construction (Accepted). (IF = 7.700)
3. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q. and Saka, A.B. (2022). Computing the severities of critical onsite
assembly risk factors for modular integrated construction projects, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. (IF= 3.531)
4. Osei-Kyei, R., Xiaohua, J., Nnaji, C., Akomea-Frimpong, I., and Wuni, I.Y. (2022). Review
of Risk Management Studies in Public-Private Partnerships: A Scientometric analysis.
International Journal of Construction Management, (Article-in-Press). (CiteScore = 4.7)
5. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., Ogungbile, A.J., and Ayitey, J.Z. (2022). Four-pronged decision
support framework for implementing industrialized construction projects. Construction
Innovation, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 263 – 283. (CiteScore= 3.6)
6. Wuni, I.Y.* and Shen, Q.P. (2022). Towards a decision support for modular integrated
construction: An integrative review of the primary decision-making factors. International
Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 929 – 948. (CiteScore = 4.7)
7. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., and Mahmud, A. T. (2022). Critical risks factors in the application
of modular integrated construction: A systematic review. International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 133 – 147. (CiteScore = 4.7)
8. Zafar, I., Wuni, I.Y., Shen, Q.P., Ahmed, S., Yousaf, T. (2022). A fuzzy synthetic evaluation
analysis of time overrun risk factors in highway projects of terrorism-affected countries: The
case of Pakistan. International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 732
– 750. (CiteScore = 4.7)
ix
9. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q. and Antwi-Afari, M.F. (2021). Exploring the design risk factors for
modular integrated construction projects. Construction Innovation, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print, pp. 1 – 35. (CiteScore = 2.0)
10. Wuni, I.Y.* and Shen, G.Q.P. (2021). Exploring the critical success determinants for supply
chain management in modular integrated construction projects. Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1 – 31. (CiteScore = 2.0 )
11. Wuni, I.Y.* and Shen, G.Q.P. (2021). Exploring the critical production risk factors for
modular integrated construction projects. Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. ahead-of-
print, No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1 – 33. (CiteScore = 3.1 )
12. Wuni, I.Y.*, Wu, Z., Shen, G.Q.P., Bugri, J. T., and Frimpong-Asante, J. (2021). Benefits
evaluation of design for excellence in industrialized construction projects. ASCE Journal of
Architectural Engineering, Vol. 27, No.4, pp.05021015. (IF = 2.05)
13. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., and Darko, A. (2021). Best practices for implementing
industrialized construction projects: Lessons from nine case studies. Construction Innovation,
Vol. Ahead-of-print, No. Ahead-of-print, pp. 1 – 40. (CiteScore = 2.0)
14. Wuni, I.Y.*, Wu, Z., and Shen, Q.P. (2021). Exploring the challenges of implementing design
for excellence in industrialized construction projects in China . Building Research and
Information, Vol. Article-in-Press, pp. 1 – 35. (IF= 5.356)
15. Antwi-Afari, M.F., Li, H., Anwer, S., Li, D., Yu, Y., Mi, H-Y., Wuni, I.Y. (2021).
Assessment of a passive exoskeleton system on spinal biomechanics and subjective responses
during manual repetitive handling tasks among construction workers. Safety Science, Vol.
142, No. 5, pp. 105382. (IF= 4.877)
16. Ogungbile, J. A., Shen, G.Q.P., Wuni, I.Y., Xue, J., and Hong, J. (2021). A hybrid framework
for direct CO2 emissions quantification in China’s construction industry. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol. 18, No. 22, pp. 11965. (IF= 3.390).
17. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., Osei-Kyei, R. (2021). Evaluating the critical success criteria for
prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction projects. Journal of Financial Management
of Property and Construction, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 279-297. (CiteScore = 2.1)
18. Kidido, J. K., Wuni, I.Y.*, and Ansah, S. (2021). Collapse of public buildings, stability
checks, and the roles of facility managers in Ghana. Property Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp.
546-564. (CiteScore = 1.4)
19. Wuni, I.Y.* and Shen, Q.P. (2020). Critical success factors for modular integrated
construction projects: A review. Building Research and Information, Vol. 48, No. 7, pp. 763
– 784. (IF= 5.356)
x
20. Wuni, I.Y.*, and Shen, Q.P. (2020). Fuzzy modelling of the critical failure factors for modular
integrated construction projects. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 264, No. August, pp.
121595. (IF= 9.297)
21. Wuni, I.Y.*, and Shen, Q.P. (2020). Barriers to the adoption of modular integrated
construction: Systematic review and meta-analysis, integrated conceptual framework, and
strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 249, No. March, pp. 119347. (IF= 9.297)
22. Wuni, I.Y.*, and Shen, Q.P. (2020). Critical success factors for management of the early
stages of prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction project life cycle. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management. Vol. 27, No. 9, pp. 2315 – 2333. (IF= 3.531)
23. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., Osei-Kyei, R. (2020). Sustainability of off-site construction: A
bibliometric review and visualized analysis of trending topics and themes. Journal of Green
Building, Vol.15, No. 4, pp. 131-153. (IF= 0.855)
24. Wuni, I. Y.*, and Shen, Q.P. (2020). Stakeholder management in prefabricated prefinished
volumetric construction projects: Benchmarking the key result areas. Built Environment
Project and Asset Management. Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 407 – 421. (CiteScore =2.4)
25. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., Osei-Kyei, R. (2020). Quantitative evaluation and modelling of
the critical success factors for modular integrated construction projects. International Journal
of Construction Management, (Article-in-Press). (CiteScore = 4.7)
26. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., Osei-Kyei, R. and Agyeman-Yeboah, S. (2020). Modelling the
critical risk factors for modular integrated construction projects. International Journal of
Construction Management, (Article-in-Press). (CiteScore = 4.7)
27. Zafar, I., Wuni, I.Y., Shen, Q. P. (2020). A decision support framework for sustainable
highway alignment embracing variant preferences of stakeholders: case of China Pakistan
economic corridor. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 63, No. 9, pp.
1550-1584. (IF= 2.735)
28. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, Q. P. and Hwang, B. G. (2020). Risks of modular integrated construction:
A review and future research directions. Frontiers of Engineering Management. Vol. 7, pp.
63–80. (CiteScore = )
29. Osei-Kyei, R., Wuni, I.Y., Bo, X., and Trinh, M. T., (2020). Research trend on retirement
village development for the Elderly: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Aging and
Environment. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 402 – 416. (CiteScore = 2.0)
30. Abille, A. B., Mpuure, D. M-N, Wuni, I.Y., and Dadzie, P. (2020). Modelling the synergy
between fiscal incentives and foreign direct investment in Ghana. Journal of Economics and
Development. Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 325 – 334. (CiteScore = 2.0)
xi
31. Wuni, I.Y.*, Shen, G.Q.P., Osei-Kyei, R. (2019). Scientometric review of global research
trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy and Buildings.
Vol. 190, No. May, pp. 69–85. (IF= 5.879)
32. Wuni, I.Y.* and Shen, Q.P. (2019). Holistic review and conceptual framework for the drivers
of offsite construction: A total interpretive structural modelling approach. Buildings, Vol. 9,
No. 5, pp.117. (IF= 2.648)
33. Adeloye, A.J., Wuni, I.Y., Soundharajan, B-S., Kasiviswanathan, K. S., Dau, Q.V. (2019).
Height–area–storage functional models for evaporation-loss inclusion in reservoir-planning
analysis. Water. Vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 1413. (IF= 3.103)
B. Refereed Journal Papers (Under Review for the First or Second time): 2018 – 2021
1. Wuni, I.Y*., and Shen, G.Q.P. (Under Review). Intelligent suitability decision support system
for modular integrated construction in a high-density metropolis. Automation in Construction.
Manuscript ID: AUTCON-D-21-00955.
2. Wuni, I.Y., Umer, W., and Jamal, A. (Under Review). Safety in offsite construction: A state-
of-the-art review. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Manuscript
ID: COENG-11943R1.
3. Wuni, I.Y., (Under Review). Developing a probabilistic risk assessment and resource
allocation scheme for modular integrated construction projects. Benchmarking: an
International Journal. Manuscript ID: BIJ-01-2022-0027
4. Wuni, I.Y., (Under Review). Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the
construction industry: A systematic review, Pareto analysis, and strategy map. Building and
Environment. Manuscript ID: BAE-D-22-01910.
C. Refereed Conference Papers (Published): 2018 – 2021
1. Wuni, I. Y.* and Shen, Q. P. (2020). Key success factors for implementing modular integrated
construction projects - A literature mining approach. Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Construction Engineering and Project Management (ICCEPM2019), December
8-10, 2020, Hong Kong (Virtual).
2. Wuni, I. Y.* and Shen, Q. P. (2020). Evaluating the critical failure factors for implementing
residential modular integrated construction projects. Proceedings of the 2020 International
Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management (ICCREM2020), Aug 24 - 25, 2020,
Stockholm, Sweden (Virtual).
xii
3. Wuni, I. Y.* and Shen, Q. P. (2019). Making a case for modular integrated construction in west
Africa: Rethinking housing supply in Ghana. Proceedings of the 10th West Africa Built
Environment Research Conference 2019, Accra, Ghana.
4. Wuni, I. Y.* and Shen, Q. P. (2019). Risk identification and allocation in the supply chain of
modular integrated construction. Proceedings of the 2019 Modular and Offsite Construction
(MOC) Summit, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
D. Technical Workshops (Presented ): 2018 – 2021

1. Wuni, I. Y.* (2021). Ecological civilization and the sustainability manifesto of modular
integrated construction in urban areas. Workshop on Sustainable Urban Systems, April 19,
2021, Hong Kong.
2. Wuni, I. Y.* (2020). McDonaldization of modular building systems in Ghana: Exposing the
beauty of design for excellence. Workshop #10. Professional Services Advancement Support
Scheme (PASS) Workshop Series: Improving and Exporting Hong Kong Industrialized
Construction Services under the Belt and Road Initiative.
E. Awards and Recognitions during the PhD Study: 2018 – 2021
1. Best Presentation Award at the 10th West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER)
Conference, 5th – 7th August 2019, Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences, Accra, Ghana.
2. One-off Cash Award of HK$70,000.00 (Max.) in April 2021 under the Award and Funding
Scheme for Recognizing the Research Outputs of Hong Kong PhD Fellowship (HKPFS)
Students with Excellent Performance (2020/21), The HK PolyU, Hong Kong.
3. International Journal of Construction Management Featured Article entitled “Critical risk

factors in the application of modular integrated construction: a systematic review” on 21 March
2022. The has been translated to Chinese and shared to researchers weekly through IJCM
official WeChat account developed in 2021.
4. International Journal of Construction Management Featured Article entitled “Towards a

decision support for modular integrated construction: an integrative review of the primary
decision-making actors” on 25 April 2022. The has been translated to Chinese and shared to
researchers weekly through IJCM official WeChat account developed in 2021.
5. Overall GPA for course credits in partial requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
= 4.0/4.0
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am obliged to recognize the people and institutions who contributed (in)directly to the completion
of the research. I remain externally grateful to Allah (SWT) for the gift of life, sustained
motivation, unparalleled energy, and the winning mindset that I have been endowed with. I bear
witness that there is no deity worthy of any act of worship, except Allah, the one and only true
Rabb who has no comparable.
I would like to thank my Chief and only Supervisor – Prof. Geoffrey Shen for his remarkable
guidance and training throughout the Ph.D. study. Prof. Shen provided me an excellent
environment to learn, unlearn, grow, and develop myself. I must also thank Prof. Shen for his
compassion and financial support during the difficult times of my Ph.D. I am most grateful and
indebted to you.
I must recognize the support of my big brother – Salifu Yahaya Wuni and mother – Salamatu
Issaka, who stood by me during the most challenging time of my Ph.D. when my health threatened
to terminate the study. I am very indebted to you for your family love and support when almost all
hope seemed lost. Equally worthy of acknowledgement is the family of Dr. Irfan Zafar. Your wife
saved me several times with her delicious food and your family provided me a home away from
home when you were in Hong Kong. May Allah bless you and your family.
I also owe an unreserved appreciation to staff and colleagues at the Department of Building and
Real Estate and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. I would like to especially thank Prof.
Tarek Zayed and Prof. Patrick Lam who examined my Ph.D. candidature and confirmed my study.
I must also express my heartfelt appreciation and thanks to Ms. Chloe Shing and Ms. Irene Pang
of BRE. The two of you are angels and amazing people who deserve far more appreciation. Your
indefatigable secretarial services in BRE made life easier, better, and memorable. You are making
xiv
lots of sacrifices for many staff and students almost outside your scope of responsibilities. I really
appreciate you. I would like to thank Dr. Amos Darko, Dr. Emmanuel O. Kingsford, Dr. Yussuf
Adenle, and all BRE colleagues who were kind to share thought-provoking and scholarly
discussions with me.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest and sincerest appreciation to the Research Grants
Council for awarding me the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme to pursue my Ph.D. at the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. The Fellowship not only tagged me with additional signature of
academic excellence but offered me peace of mind to conduct my Ph.D. research without hitches.
Your generous award was well-utilized throughout the Ph.D. study.
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Explanation – Full Form Acronym Explanation – Full Form

AACSB Architectural and Associated KBDSS Knowledge-based Decision
Consultants Selection Board Support System
AC Average cost KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test of
sampling adequacy
ACEHK Association of Consulting KPD Key project descriptor
Engineers of Hong Kong
AFR Accident frequency rate KPI Key performance indicators
ANOVA Analysis of Variance LLP Limited Liability Partnership
ARCHSD Architectural Services Department LPPI Labour productivity performance
index
ARCHSD Architectural Services Department LTHS Long Term Housing Strategy
AVE Average variance extracted LV Latent variable
BAU Business – as – usual M–W Mann – Whitney U test
BCA Building and Construction M&E Mechanical and electrical
Authority
BIM Building information modelling MC Monte Carlo simulation
BPF Best practice framework MEP Mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing
BS Building Services MF Membership function
BSC Balanced scorecard method MFA Modularised floor area
C&D Construction and demolition MIC Modular integrated construction
CA Cronbach’s Alpha MS Mean score
CC Cost certainty NCI Normalized critical index
CFA Confirmatory factor analysis NMV Normalized mean value
CFA Construction floor area NTU Nanyang Technological
University
CFRI Construction field rework index OAR Onsite assembly risks
CI Confidence interval OSC Offsite construction
CLD Causal loop diagram OSP Offsite Production
CPI Cost performance index P–I Probability – Impact risk model
CPI Composite performance index PCC Precast concrete construction
CPSI Composite project success index PCRF Principal critical risk factors
CR Cost ratio PDMF Principal Decision-Making
Factors
CR Composite reliability PI Predictability index
CRF Critical Risk Factor PLE Personal Learning Edition
CSF Critical Success Factor PLS Partial least square
CSP Critical success processes PLS- Partial Least Square Structural
SEM Equation Modelling
CSPI Client satisfaction performance PM Performance measures
index
CV Cost variance PMV Premanufactured value
CVAR Conditional Value at Risk PO Project outcome
xvi
D Omission distance PQQ Project quality quotient
DFA Design for assembly PR Production risk
DFLSC Design for logistics and supply PSF Principal success factor
chain
DFM Design for manufacture PV Planned value
DFMA Design for manufacture and RFID Radio Frequency Identification
assembly
DFMTA Design for manufacture, RS Risk signature
transportation, and assembly
DMF Decision-making Factor RSI Risk significance index
DR Design risks RT Risk tolerance
DSS Decision Support System S–W Shapiro – Wilk test
EACSB Engineering & Associated SCR Supply chain risks
Consultants Selection Board
EFA Exploratory factor analysis SD System dynamics
EPI Environmental performance index SD Standard deviation
ER Earned revenue SDC Suitability Decision Criteria
EV Earned value SDC Suitability decision criteria
FSE Fuzzy synthetic evaluation SEM Structural equation modelling
GHG Greenhouse gases SFI Schedule factor index
GIFA Gross internal floor area SFPI Safety performance index
GUI Graphical User Interface SLR Systematic literature review
HKCA Hong Kong Construction SPI Schedule performance index
Association
HKIA Hong Kong Institute of Architects SPSS Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences
HKIBM Hong Kong Institute of Building SSE Sum of squares total
Information Modelling
HKICM Hong Kong Institute of SSE Sum of square errors
Construction Managers
HKIE Hong Kong Institution of TOE Technology – organization –
Engineers environment theory
HKSTPC Hong Kong Science & Technology TPI Time performance index
Park Corporation
HTA Hunt Thompson Associates TSPI Team satisfaction performance
index
HTMT Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of TSR Transportation and storage risks
correlation
IPMA Importance – performance analysis UC Unit cost
JIT Just-in-time VAR Value at Risk
K–S Kolmogorov – Smirnov test VBA Visual Basic for Applications
K–W Kruskal – Wallis H test VIF Variance inflation factor
xvii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................................. iii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS ..................................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... xiv
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... xvi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... xviii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... xxvii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xxix
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 The Research Problem ............................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 11
1.5 Research Aim and Objectives ................................................................................................ 12
1.5.1 Research Aim .................................................................................................................... 12
1.5.2 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................... 12
1.5.3 Linkages of the Research Objectives ................................................................................ 13
1.6 Research Scope ...................................................................................................................... 14
1.7 Research Methodology Deployed .......................................................................................... 15
1.8 Significance and value of the Study ...................................................................................... 20
1.9 Structure of the Thesis ........................................................................................................... 22
1.10Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................. 26
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORIES, AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
....................................................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 27
6.2 Operational Definitions of Key Concepts .............................................................................. 27
2.2.1 Modular integrated construction ....................................................................................... 27
2.2.2 Project risks ....................................................................................................................... 29
2.2.3 Project success .................................................................................................................. 31
xviii
2.2.4 Performance measurement ................................................................................................ 31
2.2.5 Best practices .................................................................................................................... 33
2.2.6 Best practice framework ................................................................................................... 35
6.3 Distinction between Site-based Construction and the MiC Method ..................................... 36
6.4 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 41
2.4.1 Theory of project management ......................................................................................... 42
2.4.2 Technology – Organization – Environment Theory ......................................................... 44
2.4.3 Theory of construction project risks ................................................................................. 46
2.4.4 Theory of critical success factors ...................................................................................... 48
2.5 Suitability Decision-making Factors for MiC Projects.......................................................... 49
2.5.1 Project characteristics and requirements ........................................................................... 51
2.5.2 Location and site attributes ............................................................................................... 54
2.5.3 Labour considerations ....................................................................................................... 55
2.5.4 Industry readiness factors.................................................................................................. 56
2.5.5 Appraisal of the literature.................................................................................................. 57
2.6 Critical Risk Factors for MiC projects ................................................................................... 57
2.6.1 Predesign risks .................................................................................................................. 59
2.6.2 Design risks ....................................................................................................................... 60
2.6.3 Production risks................................................................................................................. 63
2.6.4 Transportation and storage risks ....................................................................................... 64
2.6.5 Onsite assembly risks ........................................................................................................ 66
2.6.6 Supply chain risks ............................................................................................................. 67
2.7 Critical Success Factors for MiC Projects ............................................................................. 69
2.7.1 Competency....................................................................................................................... 71
2.7.2 Suitable project characteristics.......................................................................................... 74
2.7.3 Early commitment ............................................................................................................. 75
2.7.4 Enabling environment ....................................................................................................... 77
2.7.5 Supply chain management ................................................................................................ 79
2.8 Key Performance Indicators for MiC Projects ...................................................................... 81
xix
2.8.1 Cost performance .............................................................................................................. 83
2.8.2 Time (schedule) performance ........................................................................................... 85
2.8.3 Pre-manufactured value .................................................................................................... 87
2.8.4 Quality performance.......................................................................................................... 89
2.8.5 Productivity performance .................................................................................................. 91
2.8.6 Health and safety performance.......................................................................................... 92
2.8.7 Predictability ..................................................................................................................... 93
2.8.8 Flexibility .......................................................................................................................... 94
2.8.9 Material waste ................................................................................................................... 95
2.8.10 Resource consumption ...................................................................................................... 96
2.8.11 Environmental performance .............................................................................................. 97
2.8.12 Local disruption ................................................................................................................ 98
2.8.13 Local community impact................................................................................................... 99
2.8.14 Industry impact................................................................................................................ 100
2.8.15 Appraisal of the literature................................................................................................ 102
2.9 The Delivery Chain of Residential MiC Projects ................................................................ 102
2.9.1 Predesign stage ................................................................................................................ 104
2.9.2 Design stage .................................................................................................................... 104
2.9.3 Production stage .............................................................................................................. 105
2.9.4 Transportation and storage stage ..................................................................................... 106
2.9.5 Onsite assembly stage ..................................................................................................... 107
2.9.6 Closure stage ................................................................................................................... 107
2.10Conceptual Best Practice Framework for Residential MiC Projects ................................... 108
2.11Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 109
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 110
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 110
4.2 Research Paradigm and Philosophy ..................................................................................... 110
4.2.1 Definition of paradigm .................................................................................................... 110
4.2.2 Composition of a research paradigm .............................................................................. 112
4.2.3 Paradigms in construction engineering and management research ................................. 114
4.2.3.1 Positivism ..................................................................................................... 114
xx
4.2.3.2 Interpretivism ............................................................................................... 116
4.2.3.3 Pragmatism ................................................................................................... 117
4.2.4 The research paradigm adopted ...................................................................................... 118
4.3 Research Strategy and Design ............................................................................................. 119
4.4 The Research Process .......................................................................................................... 124
4.5 Research Methods ................................................................................................................ 127
4.5.1 Systematic literature reviews .......................................................................................... 128
4.5.2 Questionnaire survey ....................................................................................................... 129
4.5.2.1 Questionnaire design .................................................................................... 130
4.5.2.2 Sample size determination ............................................................................ 131
4.5.2.3 Sampling technique and selection of respondents ........................................ 133
4.5.3 Semi-structured interviews.............................................................................................. 137
4.5.4 Case studies ..................................................................................................................... 138
4.5.5 Document analysis .......................................................................................................... 140
4.6 Data Analysis Techniques ................................................................................................... 141
4.6.1 Thematic content analysis ............................................................................................... 141
4.6.2 Reliability test ................................................................................................................. 142
4.6.3 Shapiro-Wilk test ............................................................................................................ 142
4.6.4 Kruskal Wallis H test ...................................................................................................... 143
4.6.5 Mean score ranking ......................................................................................................... 144
4.6.6 Risk Significance Index .................................................................................................. 145
4.6.7 Factor analysis ................................................................................................................. 146
4.6.8 Fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) ................................................................................... 147
4.6.9 Partial least square – structural equation modelling ....................................................... 151
4.6.10 Monte Carlo simulation .................................................................................................. 154
4.7 Statistical Pretesting of the Questionnaire Dataset .............................................................. 155
4.7.1 Reliability Analysis of the Questionnaire Data ............................................................... 155
4.7.2 Distribution of the Datasets and Agreement among the Respondents ............................ 155
4.7.2.1 Suitability decision-making factors .............................................................. 155
4.7.2.2 Critical risk factors ....................................................................................... 157
4.7.2.3 Critical success factors ................................................................................. 158
xxi
4.7.3 Verification of the Suitability of the Datasets for Factor Analysis ................................. 159
4.8 Data Analysis Tools and Software....................................................................................... 160
4.9 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 161
CHAPTER 4 – SUITABILITY DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR RESIDENTIAL MiC
PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................. 162
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 162
4.2 Significant Suitability DMFs for the MiC Method .............................................................. 162
4.3 Principal Components of the Significant Suitability DMFs for the MiC Method ............... 164
4.3.1 Project characteristics (PDMF1) ..................................................................................... 165
4.3.2 Project objectives and requirements (PDMF2) ............................................................... 167
4.3.3 Organizational and industry readiness (PDMF3) ............................................................ 167
4.3.4 Location and site attributes (DMF4) ............................................................................... 169
4.4 Quantifying the Impact of the Principal DMFs for the MiC Method .................................. 170
4.5 Developing the Suitability Decision Support System.......................................................... 173
4.5.1 Knowledge-based decision support system .................................................................... 173
4.5.2 Developing the MiC suitability scoring system .............................................................. 174
4.5.3 MiC suitability scoring technique ................................................................................... 175
4.6 The Intelligent-MiC System ................................................................................................ 177
4.6.1 Objectives of the Intelligent-MiC System,...................................................................... 177
4.6.2 The Architecture of the Intelligent-MiC System ............................................................ 178
4.6.2.1 Knowledge base............................................................................................ 178
4.6.2.2 Decision support system ............................................................................... 179
4.6.2.3 User interface................................................................................................ 181
4.6.3 Validation ........................................................................................................................ 183
4.7 Discussion and implications ................................................................................................ 186
4.8 Summary of the Chapter ...................................................................................................... 188
CHAPTER 5 – DERIVING BEST PRACTICES FOR RESIDENTIAL MiC PROJECTS ..... 189
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 189
5.2 Assessing, Simulating and Modelling the CRFs for Residential MiC Projects................... 189
5.2.1 Significance and Exposure of the CRFs for Residential MiC projects ........................... 189
5.2.2 Monte Carlo Simulation of the CRFs for Residential MiC projects ............................... 193
xxii
5.2.2.1 Discrete probability distributions of the P – I ratings of the CRFs ............. 194
5.2.2.2 Simulated relative importance of risks across defined risk tolerance levels 200
5.2.2.3 Criticalities, signatures, and resource allocation for the various CRFs ........ 202
5.2.2.4 Discussion and implications ......................................................................... 206
5.2.3 Principal Components of the CRFs for Residential MiC Projects .................................. 208
5.2.3.1 Design risks .................................................................................................. 209
5.2.3.2 Factory production risks ............................................................................... 211
5.2.3.3 Transportation and storage risks ................................................................... 213
5.2.3.4 Onsite assembly risks ................................................................................... 213
5.2.3.5 Supply chain risks......................................................................................... 214
5.2.4 Quantifying the Impact of the Principal CRFs for Residential MiC Projects ................. 216
5.2.5 A Structural Risk-Path Model for Residential MiC Projects in Hong Kong .................. 218
5.2.5.1 Establishing a conceptual structural model and hypotheses development ... 218
5.2.5.2 Measurement model ..................................................................................... 222
5.2.5.3 Structural model estimation .......................................................................... 226
5.2.5.4 Assessment of effect sizes (f2) ...................................................................... 232
5.2.5.5 Evaluation of predictive relevance (q2) ........................................................ 233
5.2.5.6 Importance-performance analysis ................................................................ 234
5.2.5.7 Discussion of the structural risk-path model ................................................ 237
5.3 Evaluating, Modelling, and Quantifying the CSFs for Residential MiC projects ............... 240
5.3.1 Significant CSFs for Residential MiC Projects ............................................................... 240
5.3.2 Principal Components of the CRFs for Residential MiC Projects .................................. 244
5.3.2.1 Supply chain management (PSF1) ............................................................... 246
5.3.2.2 Early commitment (PSF2) ............................................................................ 247
5.3.2.3 Enabling environment (PSF3) ...................................................................... 248
5.3.2.4 Suitable project characteristics (PSF4) ......................................................... 248
5.3.2.5 Competency (PSF5)...................................................................................... 249
5.3.3 Quantifying the Impact of the PSFs for Residential MiC Projects ................................. 250
5.4 Challenges and Lessons Learned from Real-World Residential MiC Projects ................... 253
5.4.1 Description of Selected Residential MiC Case Studies .................................................. 253
5.4.1.1 Case study 1 – InnoCell Project at Science Park .......................................... 253
xxiii
5.4.1.2 Case study 2 – Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department ............. 255
5.4.1.3 Case study 3 – Newcastle Mercure Apartments Project .............................. 256
5.4.1.4 Case study 4 – Clement Canopy ................................................................... 257
5.4.1.5 Case study 5 – Student Residence in Nanyang Technological University ... 258
5.4.1.6 Case study 6 – Student Residence in North London .................................... 259
5.4.2 Challenges Encountered in the Six Real-world MiC Projects ........................................ 260
5.4.2.1 Case study 1 – InnoCell Project at Science Park .......................................... 260
5.4.2.2 Case study 2 – Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department ............. 262
5.4.2.3 Case study 3 – Newcastle Mercure Apartments Project .............................. 265
5.4.2.4 Case study 4 – Clement Canopy ................................................................... 267
5.4.2.5 Case study 5 – Student Residence in NTU ................................................... 268
5.4.2.6 Case study 6 – Student Residence in North London .................................... 270
5.4.3 Lessons Learned from the Six Real-World Residential MiC Projects............................ 272
5.4.3.1 Predesign stage ............................................................................................. 273
5.4.3.2 Design stage.................................................................................................. 275
5.4.3.3 Factory production stage .............................................................................. 278
5.4.3.4 Transportation and storage stage .................................................................. 279
5.4.3.5 Onsite assembly stage................................................................................... 280
5.4.3.6 Completion stage .......................................................................................... 282
5.5 Best Practices for implementing Residential MiC Projects ................................................. 282
CHAPTER 6 – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR RESIDENTIAL MiC
PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................. 284
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 284
6.2 Performance Measurement of Residential MiC Projects ..................................................... 284
6.3 Key Project Descriptors ....................................................................................................... 285
6.4 Key Considerations .............................................................................................................. 286
6.5 Challenges of Performance Measurement of Residential MiC Projects.............................. 287
6.6 Specific Characteristics of the Performance Measurement System .................................... 289
6.7 Selection of Key Performance Measures ............................................................................. 290
6.8 Computerized Performance Measurement System .............................................................. 290
xxiv
6.8.1 Objectives of the MiC – PMS ......................................................................................... 291
6.8.2 Architecture of the MiC – PMS ...................................................................................... 291
6.8.3 Application and validation of the MiC – PMS................................................................ 296
6.9 Discussions .......................................................................................................................... 301
6.10Summary of the Chapter ...................................................................................................... 301
CHAPTER 7 – DEVELOPING AND VALIDATING A BEST PRACTICE FRAMEWORK FOR
RESIDENTIAL MiC PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 302
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 302
7.2 Stage-based Key Considerations for Residential MiC Projects........................................... 302
7.3 A Best Practice Framework for implementing Residential MiC Projects ........................... 305
7.4 Validation of the Best Practice Framework ......................................................................... 312
7.4.1 Validation questionnaire design and expert survey ........................................................ 313
7.4.2 Validation results ............................................................................................................ 315
7.5 Discussions and Implications............................................................................................... 317
CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 320
8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 320
8.2 Review of Research Objectives and Conclusions................................................................ 320
8.3 Novelty and Contributions of the Study .............................................................................. 330
8.3.1 Originality of the study ................................................................................................... 330
8.3.2 Theoretical contributions ................................................................................................ 331
8.3.3 Managerial implications .................................................................................................. 332
8.3.4 Pedagogical contributions ............................................................................................... 333
8.3.5 Policy implications .......................................................................................................... 334
8.4 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 334
8.5 Future Research Opportunities ............................................................................................ 335
8.6 Summary of the Thesis ........................................................................................................ 335
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 337
APPENDIX A: PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TEMPLATE ....................................... 337
APPENDIX B: HONG KONG QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TEMPLATE ........................... 342
xxv
APPENDIX C: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDES ............................................... 347
APPENDIX D: VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................. 348
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 358
xxvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Factors determining MiC suitability for construction projects. .................................. 49
Table 2.2: Potential risks in residential MiC projects .................................................................. 58
Table 2.3: List of potential CSFs for residential MiC projects .................................................... 70
Table 2.4: Relevant key performance indicators and metrics for MiC projects .......................... 82
Table 3.1: Search keywords for retrieving relevant articles from Scopus ................................. 128
Table 3.2: Background information of the international MiC experts ....................................... 135
Table 3.3: Codebook for context analyses of the cases.............................................................. 139
Table 3.4: Relevant government publications and industry guidelines used in the study ......... 140
Table 3.5: Test statistics for verifying the suitability of the dataset for EFA ............................ 147
Table 3.6: Cronbach Alpha values of the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs data ................................... 155
Table 3.7: S – W and K – W tests of the suitability DMFs for residential MiC projects .......... 156
Table 3.8: S – W and K – W tests of the CRFs for residential MiC projects ............................ 157
Table 3.9: S – W and K – W tests of the CSFs for residential MiC projects ............................. 158
Table 3.10:Test statistics for verifying the suitability of the data for EFA ................................ 160
Table 4.1: Suitability decision-making factors for the MiC method in Hong Kong. ................. 162
Table 4.2: Factor loadings and eigenvalues of the suitability DMFs for the MiC method ........ 165
Table 4.3: Weighting and membership functions of the DMFs for MiC in Hong Kong ........... 170
Table 4.4: Significance and impact indices of the PDMFs for MiC in Hong Kong .................. 172
Table 4.5: MiC suitability scores of different DMFs at different assessment levels ................. 176
Table 4.6: Recommended action plans for various ranges of MiC Suitability Scores ............... 179
Table 4.7: Validation results of the Intelligent-MiC system...................................................... 184
Table 5.1: Significance ranking of the CRFs for residential MiC projects ................................ 190
Table 5.2: Risk matrix with partitions of various risk exposure zones ...................................... 191
Table 5.3: Probability distributions and exposure profiles of the various CRFs ....................... 195
Table 5.4: Signature, metrics, and proportional allocation of risk management resources ....... 205
Table 5.5: Factor loadings of the CRFs for residential MiC projects ........................................ 209
Table 5.6: Membership functions of the CRFs for residential MiC projects ............................. 216
Table 5.7: Impact indices of the principal CRFs for residential MiC projects .......................... 217
Table 5.8: Relevant critical risk factors for residential MiC projects ........................................ 219
Table 5.9: Measurement model results ...................................................................................... 222
xxvii
Table 5.10: Fornell and Lacker criterion .................................................................................... 224
Table 5.11: Indicator item cross loadings .................................................................................. 224
Table 5.12: Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlation values .................................................... 226
Table 5.13: Variance inflation factor values of the indicators of the structural model .............. 228
Table 5.14: Direct relationships for hypothesis testing .............................................................. 231
Table 5.15: Ranking of the CSFs for residential MiC projects .................................................. 241
Table 5.16: Factor loadings of the CSFs for residential projects ............................................... 244
Table 5.17: Membership functions of the CSFs for residential MiC projects ........................... 250
Table 5.18: Impact indices and coefficients of the PSFs for residential MiC projects ............. 252
Table 5.19: Salient details of the six representative case studies ............................................... 253
Table 5.20: Challenges and lessons learned from Project A ...................................................... 261
Table 5.21: Challenges and lessons learned from Project B ...................................................... 263
Table 5.22: Challenges and lessons learned from Project C ...................................................... 265
Table 5.23: Challenges and lessons learned from Project D ...................................................... 267
Table 5.24: Challenges and lessons learned from Project E ...................................................... 268
Table 5.25: Challenges and lessons learned from Project F ...................................................... 270
Table 6.1: List of KPDs for project characterization during performance measurement .......... 285
Table 6.2: Cost performance outcomes of the case projects across three metrics ..................... 297
Table 7.1: Background information of the validation expert panel ........................................... 314
Table 7.2: Best practice framework validation results ............................................................... 315
xxviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Linkages among the research objectives ................................................................... 13

Figure 1.2: Summary of the major stages of the research process ............................................... 17
Figure 1.3: Ordered structure of the chapters in the thesis .......................................................... 24
Figure 2.1: Conceptual structure of the determinants of MiC suitability for a project ................ 46
Figure 2.2: Conceptual structure of the suitability decision criteria for MiC .............................. 52
Figure 2.3: Conceptual structure of the risk factors in residential MiC projects ......................... 61
Figure 2.4: Conceptual structure of the CSFs for MiC projects .................................................. 72
Figure 2.5: Major stages of the residential MiC project delivery chain .................................... 103
Figure 2.6: A conceptual best practice framework for residential MiC projects ....................... 108
Figure 3.1: Applying epistemology, methodology, and methods .............................................. 113
Figure 3.2: Research paradigms, research strategies, and research methods ............................. 115
Figure 3.3: Mixed research process model ................................................................................ 122
Figure 3.4: Flowchart of the research processes of the thesis .................................................... 125
Figure 3.5: Demographic information of the respondents ......................................................... 136
Figure 5.1: CRFs with low-medium and medium-high risk exposure zones marked ............... 192
Figure 5.2: Probability distribution of the P – I ratings and exposure profile of CRF9 ............ 199
Figure 5.3: Probability distribution of the P – I ratings and exposure profile of CRF23 .......... 199
Figure 5.4: Significant CRFs at 95% and 97.5% RT levels in the high-risk exposure zone ..... 201
Figure 5.5: Significant CRFs at 82.5% and 85% RT levels in the medium-risk exposure zone 202
Figure 5.6: A conceptual path model of the causal relationships between risk constructs ........ 220
Figure 5.7: A structural model with path coefficient values ...................................................... 227
Figure 5.8: Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis .......................................................... 229
Figure 5.9: Bootstrapping analysis results of the structural model. ........................................... 230
Figure 5.10: IPMA map of other risk constructs against onsite assembly risks ........................ 235
Figure 5.11: IPMA map of risk indicators against onsite assembly risks .................................. 236
Figure 5.12: Total effects, actual performances, and potential performances of risk indicators 237
Figure 5.13: InnoCell at Hong Kong Science Park (Credit: HKSTP Corporation) ................... 255
Figure 5.14: Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department (Credit: ArchSD) ................. 256
Figure 5.15: Clement Canopy in Singapore (Credit: BCA of Singapore) ................................. 258
Figure 5.16: 12 – Storey Student Residence at NTU (Credit: NTU in Singapore).................... 259
xxix
Figure 5.17: Apex House, Wembley, London, UK (Credit: HTA Design LLP) ....................... 260
Figure 5.18: Persistent challenges encountered in the various stages across all cases .............. 272
Figure 6.1: The architecture of the MiC – PMS ........................................................................ 291
Figure 6.2: User Interface of the MiC – PMS system showing introduction and instructions .. 292
Figure 6.3: User Interface of the MiC – PMS system showing the data entry component........ 294
Figure 6.4: User Interface of the MiC – PMS system showing the output component ............. 295
Figure 6.5: Time performance outcomes of the case projects across four metrics .................... 297
Figure 6.6: Quantified labour productivity performance of the two case projects .................... 298
Figure 6.7: Premanufactured value indices of the two cases ..................................................... 299
Figure 6.8: Outcomes of the remaining KPIs for the two case projects .................................... 300
Figure 7.1: Key considerations in the first three major stages of residential MiC projects ....... 303
Figure 7.2: Key considerations in the last three major stages of residential MiC projects ........ 304
Figure 7.3: Significant suitability determinants in the decision support system ....................... 306
Figure 7.4: Best practices for the predesign stage of residential MiC projects ......................... 307
Figure 7.5: Best practices for the design stage of residential MiC projects............................... 308
Figure 7.6: Best practices for the production stage of residential MiC projects ........................ 309
Figure 7.7: Best practices for the transportation – storage stage of residential MiC projects ... 309
Figure 7.8: Best practices for the onsite assembly stage of residential MiC projects................ 310
Figure 7.9: Best practices for the closure stage of residential MiC projects ............................. 311
Figure 7.10: Key performance indicators in the performance measurement system ................. 312
xxx
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter, which is an overview of the thesis, describes the research context regarding the
background of the study and the research problem to be addressed. It justifies the research gap and
illuminates the research questions that warrant critical considerations. Subsequently, the research
aim, and objectives are presented, followed by a summary of the research methodology adopted.
Thereafter, the chapter presents the research scope where the research's focus and boundaries are
specified, followed by a statement of the significance of the research findings. The chapter
concludes with an explanation of how the thesis is organized and structured.
1.2 Research Background
The global construction industry faces profound performance challenges, including stagnating
productivity, surging construction costs, pervasive time overruns, increasing fatalities, persistent
defects, dissatisfaction of clients, and significant adverse environmental impact (Arcadis, 2018;
Farmer, 2016; McKinsey Global Institute, 2017). As a high-density city with scarce developable
land, the Hong Kong construction industry suffers even severer and unprecedented performances
and sustainability challenges, including skyrocketing construction costs, huge construction and
demolition wastes, increasing site constraints, and enormous housing shortage (Jaillon et al.,
2009). As the city’s construction industry depends heavily on almost local labour, the rapidly
ageing workforce, increasing requirements for new skills, and the associated shortage of skilled
manpower impose an acute risk with sustained manpower (Construction Industry Council, 2016).
These challenges together present significant threats to the competitiveness of the local
1
construction industry and engender tremendous risks to creating a sustainable and modern built
environment in the city (Kamali and Hewage, 2016; Wuni and Shen, 2020a).
Authoritative scientific literature and industry reports have established sufficient longitudinal
evidence linking the long-standing ills, poor competitiveness, and pervasive market failures of the
construction industry to the business model of the site-based construction technique (Egan, 1998;
Farmer, 2016; Latham, 1994). There is overwhelming corroborating scientific evidence that
undertaking all major construction activities on site presents limited and unstructured opportunities
to control and regulate project performances (Arcadis, 2018; Bertram et al., 2019; Farmer, 2016).
The site-intensive construction processes emits higher greenhouse gases, unhealthy particulate
matter (Mao et al., 2013; Quale et al., 2012), consumes and pollutes water resources (Cao et al.,
2015), disrupts ecosystems and natural habitats, generates noise pollutions and neighbourhood
disturbances (Jaillon and Poon, 2008), and expose construction workers to accidents, incidents,
and health risks due to the need to work at height (McKay, 2010).
The leaders of construction innovation posited that adapting and re-engineering the site-intensive
construction processes, such as moving major construction activities away from the site to a more
controlled factory environment and integrating manufacturing principles could address some of
the ills of the construction industry (Gibb, 1999; Tatum et al., 1986). Consequently, modern
construction methods such as offsite production, industrialized construction, modular construction,
industrialized building systems, and prefabrication has been promoted to improve the performance
of the construction industry (Ayinla et al., 2019; Wuni and Shen, 2020a). These construction
techniques have a shared principle of moving major construction activities away from a site to a
more controlled factory environment, where a building is constructed and substantially completed
offsite, using the same materials and designing to the same codes and standards as conventional
2
buildings, but with improved performances (Blismas et al., 2006). Building are produced in
‘modules’ that when assembled and installed on site, reflect the identical design intent and
specification of the most sophisticated conventional building, without compromise in project
objectives and stakeholder requirements (Modular Building Institute, 2017).
However, offsite production (OSP), which involves shifting many aspects of building activities
away from construction sites and into offsite factories is not entirely a new technology in the
building construction civilization trajectory (Arif and Egbu, 2010). OSP principles are more than
a century old in the construction industry, and throughout its lifespan, the methods have been
readapted and evolved to meet specific needs of different eras and civilizations. For instance, the
big boulders used to erect the great Egyptian Pyramids in 2600BC are not significantly different
from prefabricated wall panels (Arif, 2009). Prefabricated components were used to construct the
London Crystal Palace in 1851 (Gibb, 2001), the Quaker (Society of Friends) Meeting House in
North Adelaide of South Australia in 1840; the 22-storey prefabricated Ronan Point Tower block
in East London in 1968, and the iconic Eiffel Tower in Champ de Mars of Paris in France in 1887
(Wuni and Shen, 2020a). Thus, OSP have witnessed a storied past and promising future.
Though OSP is not a new concept in principles and philosophy, technological improvements,
digital revolution, economic demand, and the rapid changing industry mindset, culture, and
business models during the last three decades galvanized and attracted an unprecedent wave of
interest and investment in the OSP techniques (Bertram et al., 2019; Blismas et al., 2006). The
Hong Kong Housing Authority introduced the prefabricated construction method in 1988 to
expedite the construction of high-rise buildings, minimize construction waste and inefficiencies,
enhance quality, and improve health and safety of construction workers (Chiang et al., 2006).
However, prefabrication for high-rise building construction in Hong Kong suffered several acute
3
technical and engineering limitations, including poor water tightness performance, dimensional
irregularities between prefabricated components, geometric inconsistencies of prefabricated
components sizes, and inadequate structural integrity and robustness to accommodate strong wind
loads and seismic forces (Tam et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2020).
In the 2017 policy address, the Hong Kong government committed to modular integrated
construction (MiC) to encourage innovation, enhance construction productivity, address the
deficiencies of typical prefabrication for high-rise building construction, tackle the housing crisis,
improve the cost-effectiveness of construction projects, enhance competitiveness of the
construction industry, and respond to the ‘much-lamented’ increasing skills shortage and shrinking
workforce (Office of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, 2017). MiC refers to an innovative OSP
method that integrates higher levels of manufacturing principles into the construction process,
whereby free-standing integrated modules (completed with finishes, fixtures, and fittings) are
manufactured in a prefabrication factory and then transported to a site for installation in a building
(Building and Construction Authority 2017). It constitutes the most advanced modern construction
method which extends the modular construction approach to integrate advanced manufacturing
principles and smart production technologies, resulting in the significant adaptation and re-
engineering of the traditional construction process (Pan and Hon, 2018).
Adopting MiC in a project generates several performance improvements, including shortened
superstructure construction time, reduced overall construction schedule, elimination of weather
delays, built to code with quality materials, greater flexibility and reuse, less material waste,
improved air quality, minimal water consumption, safer construction, better engineered buildings,
improved construction quality control, limitless design opportunities, potential cost savings with
economies of scale, improved labour productivity, and enhanced environmental sustainability
4
(Modular Building Institute, 2017). Given the benefits and opportunities, the MiC method has
become mandatory for new building works of suitable building types with a total construction
floor area larger than 300m2 under the Capital Works Programme (Development Bureau, 2020).
Although the MiC method is applicable to several building types (e.g., commercial and
institutional buildings), it has prominence in residential building projects, which are repetitive in
nature (Mao et al., 2016; Wuni and Shen, 2019). Residential MiC is appealing to the Hong Kong
government because of the intersection of the acute labour shortages and large-scale unmet
demand for housing in the city (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2021). According to the latest
projections of the rolling ten-year housing supply target under the Long Term Housing Strategy
(LTHS), the Hong Kong government’s total housing supply target for the 10-year period from
2021/22 to 2030/31 is 428 000 units (~ 430 000 units), with an upper and lower range of 451 000
and 405 000 units, respectively (Transport and Housing Bureau, 2020).
The projected 430 000 units required under the LTHS translates into the need to produce
approximately 3 583 units in every month over the next 10-year period. Meanwhile, the relatively
longer housing production cycle of the site-based construction method is incapable of matching
the rapid spate of the increasing shortfall. The nature of the projected housing needs in Hong Kong
require a construction business model which can offer a triadic capability of quality, speed, and
economies of scale. Considering that the pressure of housing shortage will remain a big challenge
in Hong Kong in the foreseeable future, technologies such as MiC capable of addressing the canker
or providing relief is appealing to the government (Jockey Club Design Institute for Social
Innovation, 2020). Generally, the MiC method is considered an efficient and suitable approach for
residential building construction in many countries (Bertram et al., 2019; Li et al., 2013).
5
However, residential MiC projects are different from conventional residential building projects in
several ways, including delivery chain, supply chain configuration, stakeholders composition and
ecosystems, design strategies, project objectives, and organizational structures (Wuni et al., 2019).
The differences between MiC and the site-based construction approach reinvents the frameworks,
strategies, and performance evaluation systems required to implement residential MiC projects
(Khang and Moe, 2008; Li et al., 2013). Thus, it is imperative to develop bespoke frameworks and
strategies reflecting the unique delivery requirements of residential MiC projects. As a result,
researchers have recognized the necessity to develop best practice frameworks for implementing
MiC projects (Hwang et al., 2018b). However, there are limited studies that have developed
integrated frameworks of best practices providing practical guideline and specific strategies for
implementing residential MiC projects to meet planned objectives and various expectations of
stakeholders effectively and efficiently.
Therefore, this thesis seeks to develop a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. The thesis leverages several complementary methods and analytical
techniques to investigate and triangulate findings from the opinions of domain practitioners and
high-profile cases studies to understand how best to implement residential MiC projects. The
robustness of the methods generates compelling findings that make credible scientific
contributions to knowledge and industry practice. The best practice framework constitutes an
integrated strategy containing the much-needed technical know-how and specific delivery
guidelines to successfully implement residential MiC projects, whilst facilitating experiential
learning, benchmarking, and continuous improvements. As the MiC method is relatively new in
Hong Kong, the study outcomes provide timely knowledge and the required technical know-how
to improve the adoption of the MiC method in the construction industry.
6
1.3 The Research Problem
The pilot residential MiC projects in Hong Kong encountered tremendous challenges and
uncertainties (Li, 2020). Notable reasons include the incompatibility of the MiC method with some
project types under certain conditions and constraints, unfamiliarity of many construction
organizations and practitioners with the MiC method, lack of standardized practices and guidelines
for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects, and difficulty of measuring the
exclusive benefits of the MiC method in residential building projects. These challenges reflect the
lack of integrated best practice framework providing guidance on how to successfully implement
residential MiC projects to facilitate continuous improvements. This grand challenge comprises
three specific knowledge and practice gaps.
First, there is limited understanding of the factors that must converge to render the MiC method
compatible with and suitable for a residential building project (Goodier et al., 2019; Hwang et al.,
2018b). For many residential building projects, the MiC method is increasingly becoming a
preferred alternative construction method. However, the unique requirements of the MiC method
and the prevailing challenges means that the technology is not always physically possible,
appropriately supported, and financially feasible under all circumstances, conditions, contexts, and
project scales (Wuni and Shen, 2019). It is efficient in project types which are repetitive in nature,
where significant cost reduction is achieved through a high level of module standardization,
industrialization, and economies of scale (Development Bureau, 2020; Li, 2020). Economy of
scale is difficult to achieve in projects with great complexity and non-repeating spaces, such as
medical facilities requiring several highly specified rooms and varied sizes (Li, 2020). However,
the suitability of the MiC method for a residential building project extends beyond mere project
characteristics (Blismas et al., 2005; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
7
Whether the MiC method applies to a specific residential building project depends on several
project characteristics, constraints, site conditions, and other factors (Abdul Nabi and El-Adaway,
2020; Wuni and Shen, 2019). A suitable project is one in which effective use of the MiC method
is expected to yield benefits that justify the inputs and development costs, without unacceptable
risks of failure at the outset, significant financial losses, divergence from planned objectives, and
dissatisfaction of stakeholders. However, it remains both inadequate and obscure to quantify the
suitability of the MiC method on projects, especially based on their specific characteristics and
constraints alone (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). The decision path of determining whether
the MiC method is suitable and justified for a residential building project constitutes a complex
problem due to the multidimensionality of the determinants, some of which are entirely case-
dependent (Chen et al., 2010; Sharafi et al., 2018). The multidimensional factors and conditions
affecting the MiC usage demand the aid of decision support systems to determine when to use the
MiC method in residential building projects (Hwang et al., 2018b). The suitability decision support
tools for the MiC method in residential building projects are currently limited or outdated, leading
to decisions based mainly on capital cost, limited experience, checklists, or intuition (Goodier et
al., 2019; Sharafi et al., 2018). Thus, the literature is deficient in a bespoke decision support tool
that would enable project teams and construction organizations to ascertain the suitability of the
MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. Therefore, the suitability and
compatibility of the MiC method with a residential building project have a significant but still
poorly understood impact on the outcomes of residential MiC projects.
Second, there is inadequate knowledge of the best practices (i.e., specific processes and technical
know-how) for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects to consistently achieve
desired outcomes (Hwang et al., 2018b). According to the World Health Organization (2017), best
8
practices are derived from the consolidated understanding of the critical risk factors, critical
success factors, challenges, and lessons learned from implementing a project or initiative. On the
other hand, the MiC method reinvents relationships between construction methods and the risks,
success factors, and challenges associated with implementing for residential building projects.
Although the MiC method provides a streamlined approach to project delivery and opportunities
for improved performances, it also presents unique risks and uncertainties that must be considered
and managed when implementing the residential MiC projects (Li et al., 2013; Wuni et al., 2019).
Despite some considerable documentation of risks associated with the OSP approach, no rigorous
attempt has been made to investigate the critical risk factors that capture the specific characteristics
of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. As such, project partners are unaware of the impact of
the different risk events and uncertainties on the costs of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Also, the literature commonly used deterministic techniques such as risk matrices to generate a
two-dimensional mapping of probability – impact (P – I) rating to assess the overall exposure of
risk factors for MiC projects (Duijm, 2015). However, the risk matrix-based prioritization scheme
uses a single-point statistical estimates to capture the exposure, quantify impacts, and prioritize
risks (Qazi and Simsekler, 2021). Consequently, there are four limitations of risk matrix-based
prioritization scheme: (i) it overlooks the consequences of tail risks (i.e., low-probability, high-
impact risks) leading suboptimal decisions in selecting risk response strategies; (ii) it fails to
recognize the condition where the probability of occurrence and severity of risks on project
fundamentals are unknown to the decision-maker; (iii) it cannot capture and retain the profiles,
probability distributions, and uncertainties associated with risks; and (iv) it cannot capture and
allocate risk management resources based on varied risk tolerance levels (Qazi and Simsekler,
2021). A simulation-based prioritization scheme can facilitate probabilistic risk assessment to
9
address the limitations of risk matrix-based single-point statistical estimates of risk exposure.
Furthermore, the literature documented that the risk events have chain reactions and
interdependencies, such that risks in previous stages can reinforce and increase the impact of risks
in the subsequent stages of residential MiC projects. While the theoretical positions of the
relationships between risks in the various stages are well-established in the literature, no study has
modelled and verified the chain reactions of the critical risk factors.
Moreover, there are several conditions and factors must converge to guarantee the success of
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Understanding the critical success factors could assist
residential MiC project teams to forecast the future status of the project, diagnose the problem
areas, and devote their attention and scarce resources to ensure successful completion of the
projects (Khang and Moe, 2008). These critical success factors for residential MiC projects are not
well-established in the literature (Wuni and Shen, 2020b). As such, residential MiC project
members in Hong Kong cannot progressively measure performance early in the project lifecycle
to timely diagnose project problems. This knowledge gap could fuel misallocation of resources
and impose significant threats to project success.
Third, there is limited knowledge of how to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC
method in residential building projects to facilitate experiential learning, benchmarking, and
continuous improvements (Blismas et al., 2006; Kamali et al., 2018). Measuring the performance
and outcomes of residential MiC projects is extremely essential to monitor and control the health
of projects to meet the requirements of stakeholders (Beatham et al., 2004; Neely et al., 1995).
Few industry reports that have developed detailed key performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics
for measuring the outcomes and performance of residential MiC projects (Horner et al., 2019; Pan
et al., 2020; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Although the literature have attempted to measure
10
the performance of MiC projects (Pan et al., 2020), no study have developed a performance
measurement system for residential MiC projects to facilitate benchmarking and continuous
improvement (Neely et al., 1995). In attempting to measure the benefits of the MiC method, the
literature failed to recognize and account for the relevant key project descriptors (KPDs), which
are factors and conditions that can influence the performance of a residential building projects
irrespective of the construction method (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Without considering
and filtering the effects of the KPDs (e.g., level of BIM), existing studies have grossly
underestimated or overestimated the impact of the MiC method in the performance of residential
building projects. Thus, it is imperative to develop a performance measurement system for
residential MiC projects incorporating relevant KPIs and accounting for KPDs to ensure accurate
evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in a project.
1.4 Research Questions
Based on the scientific, theoretical, and practical knowledge gaps articulated in the background
and research problem, five main research questions warrant critical consideration in this thesis:
a. What are the set of factors and conditions that render the MiC method suitable for a residential
building project and to what extent do they determine when to implement the MIC method in
residential building projects in Hong Kong?
b. What are the unique risk factors for the MiC method and how do they interact with each other
across the various stages of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong?
c. What are the critical success factors for the MiC method in residential building projects in Hong
Kong?
d. What are the notable challenges, lessons learned, and critical success processes derived from
completed real-world residential MiC projects?
11
e. How can the performance of residential MiC projects be measured to quantify the outcomes
and facilitate experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous improvements?
1.5 Research Aim and Objectives
1.5.1 Research Aim
This research aims to develop a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong, leveraging local and international expert knowledge and case studies.
1.5.2 Research Objectives
The following specific research objectives are pursued to address the research questions and
achieve the aim of the study:
1. To develop a decision support system that enables project teams to assess the suitability of
the MiC method in a residential building project.
2. To assess, simulate and model the critical risk factors for residential MiC projects.
3. To assess and model the critical success factors for residential MiC projects.
4. To critically examine representative local and international residential MiC cases to identify
challenges encountered and lessons learned.
5. To develop a performance measurement system that enables project teams to assess the
outcomes of residential MiC projects.
6. To consolidate the findings to develop a best practice framework for implementing
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
12
1.5.3 Linkages of the Research Objectives
The six research objectives of the study are complementary. Figure 1.1 shows the linkages among
the objectives. Objective 1 enables the project team to explicitly ascertain the suitability of the
proposed residential project for the MiC method. The decision support system offers the project
team the opportunity to identify and resolve deficient areas at the outset to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the MiC method in the project. It avoids implementing a project whose
characteristics and external environment are inconsistent with the MiC method.
Research Objective (s) Deliverables (Outputs)
Objective 1: To develop a decision support

system that enables project teams to Decision Support
assess the suitability of the MiC method for System
a residential building project
Objective 2: To assess, simulate and

model the critical risk factors for residential
MiC projects
Objective 6: Best
Objective 3: To assess and model the practice framework
critical success factors for residential MiC
Best practices (Decision support
projects
system, Best practices,
Objective 4: To critically examine and Performance
representative local and international measurement system)
residential MiC cases to identify challenges
encountered and lessons learned.
Objective 5: To develop a performance

measurement system that enables project Performance
teams to assess the outcomes of measurement System
residential MiC projects.
Figure 1.1: Linkages among the research objectives
The findings of Objectives 2 – 4 were triangulated, reconciled, and integrated to develop the best
practices for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects. Once the proposed
13
residential project is aligned with the MiC method (Objective 1), the best practices (Objectives 2
– 4) constitute specific processes, strategies, and guidelines that can enable project teams to
implement residential MiC projects to consistently achieve desired outcomes.
Objective 5 formed the basis for developing a performance measurement system, which
incorporate detailed KPIs, metrics, and KPDs to quantify the absolute outcomes of residential MiC
projects and filters the performance improvements attributable to the MiC method in the project.
Thus, once the best practices (Objectives 2 – 4) provides the much-needed technical know-how
and guidelines to implement the various stages, the performance measurement system (Objective
5) provides a convenient tool to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method to
inform benchmarking and continuous improvements.
The outputs of the Objectives 1 – 5 are consolidated to develop the best practice framework
(Objective 6). Thus, the best practice framework comprises three novel components: suitability
decision support system (Objective 1), best practices (Objectives 2 – 4), and a performance
measurement system (Objective 5). Therefore, the best practice framework unites the
complementary functions of a decision support system, best practices, and a performance
measurement system, enabling project teams and construction organizations to align a proposed
residential building project to the MiC method, implement the various stages of the project, and
quantify the outcomes of the residential MiC project to inform benchmarking, experiential
learning, and continuous improvement.
1.6 Research Scope
The research has geographic, scale, and sectorial delimitations. Geographically, Hong Kong was
the study’s focus. The Hong Kong government coined the term “modular integrated construction”
14
in 2017. Hong Kong is promoting the MiC method in the construction industry and has made
significant investment in the technology through capacity and pilot demonstration projects. Thus,
Hong Kong constitutes an appropriate context to study the MiC method.
The MiC method is promoted at various scales, including the industry, organizations, and project
levels. This study was limited to the adoption of the MiC method at the building scale. Thus, wider
industry issues associated with adoption of the MiC method in Hong Kong were not explored into
detail in this study.
The study focused on the residential building sector, excluding commercial and institutional
buildings. Hong Kong constitutes a typical high-rise metropolis, with scarce developable land,
driving high-rise building development in the urban area. Consequently, the study focused on high-
rise residential MiC projects, quintessentially those with ten (10) or more stories, constructed
mostly of volumetric modules. As such, the research findings may not apply to the transitional
MiC social housing projects, which are typically temporary modular buildings, with a maximum
of 4 to 5 stories of MiC units (Jockey Club Design Institute for Social Innovation, 2020). The
transitional MiC projects are specifically designed for relocatability because they often occupy a
site temporarily before being used for permanent development. They are required to be relocated,
typically after 3 years or more (due to short term land tenure), and expected to be reused 2 to 6
times according to the suppliers and structural system employed (Jockey Club Design Institute for
Social Innovation, 2020).
1.7 Research Methodology Deployed
A careful selection of appropriate research paradigm, design, methods, and approaches is essential
to generate credible scientific evidence that makes verifiable contributions to knowledge and has
15
practical relevance and industrial applications in the construction industry (Walker, 1997). The
research adopted pragmatism as a philosophical stance and implemented a mixed research design,
comprising literature reviews, semi-structured interviews, questionnaire surveys, simulation,
programming, and case studies. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the research
methodology of the thesis. Figure 1.2 shows the five major stages of the overall research process
of the study.
Stage 1 involved preliminary research activities. The study conducted an extensive literature
review, informal discussions with practitioners in Hong Kong, and brainstorming sessions with
the thesis supervisor to establish the research gap, define the pertinent research questions to be
addressed, establish the research aim, deconstruct the aim into six complementary objectives, and
identify appropriate methods to address the research questions. The study further conducted series
of systematic literature reviews to extract potential suitability decision-making factors (DMFs),
critical risk factors (CRFs), critical success factors (CSFs), and key performance indicators (KPIs)
for residential MiC projects.
Stage 2 involved data collection and associated research activities. Prior to the data collection, the
study conducted a two-stage robust pilot study. First, the study organized discussions with relevant
senior domain industry practitioners and academics to validate the relevance, applicability, and
representativeness of the potential DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, and KPIs for residential MiC projects
identified from the systematic literature reviews. Second, a pilot questionnaire survey of fifty-six
international MiC experts, located in seventeen countries was conducted to test and quantify the
significance of the shortlisted DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, and KPIs from the discussions. Twenty-five
DMFs, twenty-six CRFs, twenty-three CSFs, and fourteen KPIs obtained aggregate mean scores
16
exceeding 3.50 on a 5-point Likert scale, forming the basis for the final questionnaire survey in
Hong Kong.
• Extensive literature review

Stage 1 Preliminary research • Informal discussions
• Systematic literature reviews
• Questionnaire surveys
• Semi-structured interviews
Stage 2 Data collection
• Policy documents
• Case studies
• Thematic content analysis

• Mean score ranking
• Risk significance index
Statistical pretesting • Factor analysis
Stage 3
and data analysis • Monte Carlo simulation
• Fuzzy synthetic evaluation
• Structural equation modelling
• Programming
• Triangulation of literature
reviews, surveys, and case
Framework study findings
Stage 4 development and • Review of the delivery chain of
validation residential MiC projects
• Developing and validating the
best practice framework
• Review of aim and objectives

• Summary of key findings
Stage 5 Conclusions • Major conclusions
• Limitations of study
• Future research opportunities
Figure 1.2: Summary of the major stages of the research process
17
Subsequently, a structured questionnaire survey of MiC practitioners and experts was conducted
in Hong Kong to assess the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs. One-hundred and seventeen (117)
respondents assessed the significance of the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong on a 5-point Likert scale. The study further conducted semi-structured interviews
with industry practitioners in Hong Kong to obtain in-depth and rich insights into the DMFs, CRFs,
and CSFs for residential MiC projects. The interview outcomes complemented the findings of the
questionnaire survey. The study also analysed relevant government publications, technical reports,
and industry guidelines from Hong Kong (3), Singapore (1), and the United Kingdom (3) to extract
relevant technical guidelines for implementing residential MiC projects. The study further
gathered data from six representative residential MiC cases in Australia, Hong Kong, the United
Kingdom, and Singapore to complement the findings of the surveys, interviews, and analysis of
the technical reports. These three data sources formed the basis for developing the best practice
framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Stage 3 involved statistical pretesting and data analysis. The questionnaire data was pretested for
reliability, distributions, agreement among the respondents, and suitability of the data (i.e., DMFs,
CRFs, CSFs) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The verified questionnaire data was analysed
using various complementary statistical techniques.
The study used mean score ranking, EFA, and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) to assess and
quantify the DMFs for residential MiC projects. The significant DMFs formed the basis for
developing the suitability decision support system, which was programmed in Microsoft Visual
Basic for Applications and executed in Microsoft Excel. The study used risk significance index,
EFA, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, FSE, and partial least squares structural equation modelling
(PLS – SEM) to assess, simulate, model, and quantify the impact of the CRFs for residential MiC
18
projects in Hong Kong. The study used mean score ranking, EFA, and FSE to assess, model, and
quantify the CSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
The data from the semi-structured interviews, policy documents, and cases studies were analysed
using thematic content analysis. Recurrent themes from the data were developed and sorted
according to frequencies of occurrences. The thematic content analyses provided very rich data,
which complemented the findings from the questionnaire surveys.
The study also designed and programmed the performance measurement system for residential
MiC projects using Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications and executed in Microsoft Excel. The
application of the decision support system and performance measure system were demonstrated
and validated using real-world residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Stage 4 involved development and validation of the best practice framework. The findings of
objective 1 formed the basis for developing the suitability decision support system for residential
MiC projects. The findings of objectives 2 – 4 were consolidated, triangulated, integrated, and
reconciled to develop the best practices for implementing residential MiC projects. The study
reviewed delivery chain and allocated the best practices across the various stages of residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. The identified KPIs (objective 5) formed the basis for developing
the performance measurement system for residential MiC projects. Overall, the best practice
framework comprised three complementary components: a decision support system, best practices,
and a performance measurement system. The developed framework was validated using feedback
from five MiC experts and industry practitioners in Hong Kong.
Stage 5 concluded the study and closed the research loop. The study reviewed the objectives of
the thesis, evaluated the findings, and drew appropriate conclusions. It established the originality,
19
scientific contributions, and practical significance of the research findings. The study
acknowledged limitations and recommended areas for future research.
1.8 Significance and value of the Study
While required and overdue, a study establishing an integrated practice framework for
implementing residential MiC projects in a high-density metropolis such as Hong Kong is non-
existent. Therefore, the findings of the study along with the developed best practice framework
have significant theoretical, practical, managerial, and policy implications for the adoption of the
MiC method in building projects.
First, the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with a building project have a significant
but still poorly understood and unrecognized influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the
MiC method in residential building projects. This study deconstructed the MiC suitability
assessment problem and developed a decision support system that enables project teams and
construction organizations to align a proposed residential building project to the MiC method.
Thus, it provides an important tool enabling the project teams to identify and resolve deficient
areas which could compromise the full benefit of the MiC method in residential building projects.
Second, industry practitioners and project teams in Hong Kong and overseas have encountered
unprecedented challenges in delivering residential MiC projects due to the limited knowledge and
technical know-how to implement the MiC method. This study developed stage-based best
practices offers project teams the much-needed specific delivery strategies, technical know-how,
and guidelines to successfully implement the various stages of residential MiC projects to achieve
desired outcomes. Thus, the study findings can improve success and adoption of the MiC method
in the construction industry.
20
Third, the best practices contain technical guidelines and critical success processes, which can be
incorporated into MiC policy guidelines and standards to inform and regulate the MiC community
of practice. The best practices can also inform reforms in undergraduate and postgraduate building
technology, construction engineering, and construction management curriculum design and
revisions to equip the next generation of the construction industry leaders to better understand how
to implement MiC projects.
Fourth, industry practitioners and project teams have struggled to filter the performance
improvements in residential MiC projects attributable to the MiC method alone. This study
developed a performance measurement system containing qualitative and quantitative KPIs and
relevant KPDs, enabling project teams to assess the absolute outcomes of residential MiC projects
and filter the performance improvements attributable to the MiC method alone. Thus, the study
provides a relevant tool to strengthen the business case for the MiC method in building projects.
Fifth, the developed best practice framework united the complementary functions of a suitability
decision support system, best practices, and a performance measurement system. Thus, it provides
an integrated framework which can guide effective implementation, experiential learning,
benchmarking, and continuous improvements of residential MiC projects.
Finally, the study developed and transformed an extended checklists of suitability DMFs, CRFs,
CSFs, KPIs, practical challenges, and lesson learned into a best practice framework, enabling
project teams to align a proposed building project to the MiC method, guide effective
implementation of the project, and quantify the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC method in
the building project. Thus, this study bridges the gap between scientific rigor and practical
relevance of academic research, leading to a significant contribution to knowledge and a better
practical understanding of how best to implement residential MiC projects.
21
1.9 Structure of the Thesis
The thesis comprises eight complementary chapters (Figure 1.3), organized as follows:
Chapter 1 – General Introduction: This chapter, which is an overview of the thesis, introduced the
central themes of the study, presented the background of the study, and defined the research
problem the study seeks to address. It illuminated the research gap and presented the pertinent
research questions, aim, and specific study objectives. Subsequently, it described the contextual
and geographic delimitations, summarized the research methodology adopted, and stated the
significance of this study.
Chapter 2 – Critical Literature Review, Theories, and Conceptual Frameworks: This chapter
established the study's theoretical underpinning and conceptual basis. It offered operational
definitions of key concepts. The chapter also presented systematic reviews, and a comprehensive
theoretical checklist of suitability decision-making factors (DMFs), critical success factors (CSFs),
critical risk factors (CRFs), and key performance indicators (KPIs) tested empirically in residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. It further developed a conceptual best practice framework for
implementing residential MiC projects.
Chapter 3 – Research Methodology: This chapter described the research process and methods
employed in the study. It defined the research paradigm, the research design, data collection
methods, and data analysis techniques implemented in the study. It described the research methods
adopted and analytical techniques used in the study. It pretested the questionnaire data for
reliability, distributions, agreement among the respondents, and suitability for exploratory factor
analysis. The chapter also specified the data analysis tools and software used in the study.
22
Chapter Chapter Title Chapter Scope
• Research background
• Research problem
• Research aim and objectives
Chapter General
• Linkages of the research objectives
1 Introduction
• Brief description of research methodology
• Significance and value of study
• Structure of the thesis
• Operational definitions of key concepts
• Distinctions between site-based construction and the MiC method
Literature • Relevant theories
Review, • Suitability decision making factors
Chapter
Theories, and • Critical risk factors
2
Conceptual • Critical success factors
Frameworks • Key performance indicators and metrics
• Delivery chain of residential MiC projects
• Conceptual best practice framework
• Research paradigm and philosophy
• Research strategy and design
• Research process
Chapter Research
• Research methods
3 Methodology
• Data analysis techniques
• Statistical pretesting of questionnaire data
• Data analysis tools and software
• Significant suitability decision-making factors
• Principal components of decision-making factors
Suitability
Chapter • Impact of principal decision-making factors
Decision Support
4 • Developing the suitability decision support system
System
• The Intelligent-MiC system
• Discussions and implications
• Simulating and modelling the critical risk factors
Deriving the Best
• Evaluating, modelling, and quantifying the critical success factors
Chapter Practices for
• Challenges and lessons learned from real-world residential MiC
5 Residential MiC
projects
Projects
• Best practices
• Performance measurement
• Key project descriptors
• Key considerations
Performance
Chapter • Challenges of performance measurement
measurement
6 • Specific characteristics of the performance measurement system
System
• Selected key performance measures
• Computerized performance measurement system
• Discussions
Developing and • Stage-based considerations for residential MiC projects
Chapter Validating the • A best practice framework for residential MiC projects
7 Best Practice • Validation of the best practice framework
Framework • Discussions and implications
Conclusions, • Review of research objectives and conclusions

Chapter Contributions, • Novelty and contributions of the study
8 and Future • Limitations of the study
Research • Future research opportunities
23
Figure 1.3: Ordered structure of the chapters in the thesis
Chapter 4 –Suitability Decision Support System for Residential MiC Projects: The chapter
examined the suitability problem when implementing the MiC method in building and construction
projects in Hong Kong. It evaluated and identified twenty-one significant DMFs determining the
suitability of the MiC method in a building project. It developed and quantified the impact of
principal components of the suitability decision-making factors. It further developed, tested, and
validated a decision support system for suitability assessment of the MiC method in residential
projects in Hong Kong.
Chapter 5 – Deriving the Best Practices for Residential MiC Projects: The chapter rigorously
examined the CRFs, CSFs, challenges, and lessons learned from represent projects to derive the
best practices for residential MiC projects. It quantified and prioritized significant CRFs for
residential MiC projects. It simulated the distributions and exposure profiles to identify and
prioritized significant CRFs for residential MiC projects at various risk tolerance levels in the
medium-risk and high-risk exposure zones of the risk matrix. It used exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) to generate and quantify the impact of five principal
components of the CRFs. It used partial least squares structural equation modelling to verify the
chain reactions among the principal CRFs for residential MiC projects. The chapter also quantified
and prioritized significant CSFs for residential MiC projects. It used EFA and FSE to derive and
quantify the significance of five principal components of the CSFs for residential MiC projects.
The chapter further examined six representative residential MiC projects in Australia, Hong Kong,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom to identify practical challenges encountered and lessons
learned from the six projects. The chapter triangulated, consolidated, and reconciled the identified
24
CRFs, CSFs, challenges, and lessons learned to derive best practices for implementing the various
stages of residential MiC projects.
Chapter 6 – Performance Measurement System for Residential MiC Projects: This chapter focused
on developing a performance measurement system for residential MiC projects (MiC – PMS) in
Hong Kong. The system contains both quantitative and qualitative performance measures along
with user interface allowing project teams to verify key project descriptors and inputting relevant
data to compute the outcomes of various KPIs. The MiC – PMS system contains a performance
measurement algorithm, which automatically computes the various KPIs across several metrics
from the available data.
Chapter 7 – Developing and Validating a Best Practice Framework for Residential MiC Projects:
This chapter integrated the findings of Chapters 5 – 10 to develop a best practice framework for
implementing residential MiC projects. The framework has three novel components: a decision
support system, best practices, and a performance measurement system. The best practice
framework is validated using the feedback of experts in Hong Kong.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions, Contributions, and Future Research Directions: This chapter closed the
research loop and drew conclusions based on the research findings. It reviewed the research
objectives and the associated findings from the research study. The chapter outlined the novelty
and contributions of the study to theory, practice, policy, and pedagogy. It recognized research as
an unending science, elucidated the research limitations, and recommended opportunities for
further research.
25
1.10 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented an overview of the thesis and introduced the central research theme. It
presented the research context in terms of the background of the study and the research problem
to be addressed. It defined the research gap, and identified pertinent research questions, aim, and
specific objectives of the study. The research scope is illuminated, and a summary of the research
methodology deployed is presented. Subsequently, significance of the research findings are
described. The chapter concludes with an explanation of the thesis structure, including an
organization of the different chapters. The next chapter, (i.e., chapter 2) provides a detailed
description literature review, theories, and conceptual framework relevant to the study’s aim.
26
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORIES, AND CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORKS
6.1 Introduction
Chapter one broadly introduced the central research theme, defined the research aim and
objectives, and presented the thesis structure. This chapter presents a review of the related
literature, descriptions of relevant theories, and propositions of conceptual frameworks. It opens
with the operational definition of key concepts to provide a shared understanding of their usage
throughout the thesis, followed by a brief description of the differences between MiC and the site-
based construction approach. Subsequently, the chapter reviews and discusses the set of theories
underpinning the overall and various components of the research. The chapter further provides a
systematic review of the DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, CSC, and KPIs for MiC projects, leading to the
development of several conceptual frameworks evaluated in the ensuing chapters of the thesis. It
concludes with a summary of the chapter.
6.2 Operational Definitions of Key Concepts
2.2.1 Modular integrated construction
The MiC method integrates and incorporates the principles of complex systems, modularity,
modularization, and lean production into building construction. It considers a building as a
complex system comprising several standardized units or components interacting with each other
such that the whole system functions more effectively than the sum of the unit parts in the weak
(Simon, 1962). Theoretically grounded on the complexity theory, the MiC methods translate
buildings into complex systems whose components can be designed independently, but still
function together as an integrated whole (Gosling et al., 2016). The modularity concept measures
the extent to which a complex system (i.e., building project) can be decoupled into manageable
27
units that are easily assembled into a working whole through standardized interfaces, rules, and
specifications (Baldwin and Clark, 2003). The MiC method incorporates modularity principles
into the design to disintegrate the building project into modules (i.e., standardized units or
components), which can be independently manufactured, separated, recombined, mixed, and
matched with other modules to provide diversified functional requirements meeting disparate
needs (Baldwin and Clark, 2000). Modularization is the process of breaking the complex system
into several components that can be designed and manufactured independently but integrated to
generate the building project (Gosling et al., 2016).
MiC is a compound concept embodying the terms ‘modular’, ‘integrated,’ and ‘construction’ (Pan
and Hon, 2018). The ‘modular’ concept in MiC transforms and re-engineers the series of linear
site-based construction of building components into an integrated offsite production of modules
that can be assembled onsite through standardized interfaces, rules, and specifications. The term
‘integrated’ in the MiC concept describes the process of integrating different construction activities
and players in the vertical design and supply chains, leveraging the functions of various
stakeholders in co-creating the project. The term ‘construction’ in the MiC concept describes the
art and science of engineering and creating projects through a lifecycle lens, including planning,
design, production, transportation, onsite assembly, facility management, operations, and
deconstruction.
Therefore, the MiC method constitutes the most advanced modern construction method that
integrates advanced production engineering techniques, manufacturing principles, innovative
processes, and smart digital technologies into building construction (Pan and Hon, 2018). In this
thesis, MiC constitutes an innovative construction method, whereby free-standing prefabricated
prefinished volumetric modules (i.e., room-like units), completed with finishes, fixtures, and
28
fittings are manufactured in an offsite workshop, following any accredited fabrication method and
assembled (including fitting out) in an accredited fabrication facility, and then transported to a
construction site for installation under building works (Building and Construction Authority, 2017;
Construction Industry Council, 2019a). Thus, it adapts the traditional construction process and re-
engineers the typical modular approach to incorporate advanced manufactured principles and
innovative processes.
The MiC method is not a mutually exclusive alternative to site-based methods in a project (van
Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Varying levels and degrees of the MiC method are integrated with
some onsite traditional work packages in constructing building projects (Bertram et al., 2019). The
extent of MiC used in a project is known as pre-manufactured value (van Vuuren and Middleton,
2020). In Hong Kong, the three main structural systems of the MiC method include reinforced
concrete, steel frame, and hybrid systems. This study focused on residential building projects
constructed using the MiC method, including apartments, houses, university residences or
dormitories, hotels, prisons, among others. Specifically, the study focused on high-rise residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong, usually ten or more stories. Hence, it excludes the transitional MiC
projects, typically temporary modular buildings, with a maximum of 4 to 5 stories of MiC units
and supported mainly by raft foundations to evade the higher cost of substructure construction
(Jockey Club Design Institute for Social Innovation, 2020).
2.2.2 Project risks
What precisely constitutes risk has been a long-standing debate in the project risk management
genre. Debates over the universal definition of risk are inevitable because it is not a homogenous
phenomenon (Zhang, 2016) and constitutes such an abstract event that is obscure to universally
define, delineate boundaries, and measure precisely (Baloi and Price, 2003). The nucleus of the
29
debate concerns whether risks should be construed as an objective fact or a subjective construction.
These two schools of thought have resulted in disparate definitions, epistemological traditions, and
analytical risk philosophies (Zhang, 2016). The subjective tradition perceives risk as a subjective
phenomenon graced with multiple epistemological constructions. In contrast, the objective school
considers risk as an objective event with a probabilistic epistemology.
Though the objective school has a higher status and substantial supporters within the risk research
community, each tradition is justifiable depending on the context and the analyst’s viewpoint,
experience, and attitude towards risk (Baloi and Price, 2003). This study is situated within the
interface of the two schools because risk is highly subjective in perspective, but objective
approaches are prioritized in its assessment. The adopted position is quite flexible and most
certainly reflects the nature of risks in MiC projects.
Typically, constructing residential building projects using the MiC method involves several
complex activities, stages, players, processes, and resources, resulting in some uncertainties and
events that could derail the realization of planned objectives and expectations of stakeholders. The
factors that have the probability of generating adverse implications, consequences and
uncertainties in the fundamentals of the project are considered risks (Baloi and Price, 2003). In
this thesis, risk is defined as an uncertain event, process, or condition whose occurrence engender
a positive or negative impact on the objectives of the residential MiC project (Project Management
Institute, 2017). Thus, risk could offer opportunities or generate adverse implications on the
fundamentals of the project.
However, there is a consensus that risk is associated chiefly with detrimental outcomes in
construction projects. Stakeholders often equate risks to threats (Bryde and Volm, 2009). Thus,
risk is construed in the negative sense in this study. Risk management aims to identify, evaluate,
30
categorise, prioritize, plan, and respond to these uncertain events, processes, or conditions whose
occurrence can disrupt the residential MiC project delivery or adversely affect the fundamentals
of the project.
2.2.3 Project success
The concept of project success in the construction industry is a long-standing, unresolved debate
(Baccarini, 1999; Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Pinto and Prescott, 1988). The debate has outlived the
pioneers and is still active (Chan and Chan, 2004; Lim and Mohamed, 1999). Fundamentally,
success refers to accomplishing the goal, missions, and objectives of a project (Belassi and Tukel,
1996). However, construction projects have multiple objectives, stages, activities, and
stakeholders (Chua et al., 1999; Pinto and Prescott, 1988). Different stakeholders have unique
goals, aims, and value systems in the same project (Chan and Chan, 2004). There are multiple
objectives in the different phases of the project delivery chain. Thus, success represents different
things to different stakeholders and at different stages of the project. In other words, success is
extremely sensitive to contexts, objectives, project types, project phases, and stakeholders. This
sensitivity and complexity inhibits development of a construction project success theory. This
study defines project success as the extent to which a project and its management meets planned
objectives and a defined range of expectations of stakeholders at various stages of the project. This
definition provides the legitimacy for using multidimensional critical success criteria to measure
project success in the construction industry (Chan and Chan, 2004).
2.2.4 Performance measurement
It is widely acknowledged that if stakeholders cannot measure the performance of construction
projects or companies, they cannot manage or improve performance (Beatham et al., 2004). Some
31
quantitative purists have even gone to the extent of indicating that if it cannot be measured and
expressed in figures or numbers, it is not science; it is opinion. Lord Kelvin [1824 – 1907] wrote:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
it…[otherwise] your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely in thought advanced to the stage of science.”
The above quote underscores the importance of performance measurement in MiC projects
because the associated outcomes can be used to track progress over time and against benchmarks,
communicate positions of construction companies, delineate business priorities, and demarcate
areas for continuous improvement (Beatham et al., 2004). However, performance measurement
has been rarely defined in the construction management literature. This study argues that the
fundamental object of measurement is to reduce uncertainty. Hence, credible performance
measurement can be intuitive and in qualitative terms (Hubbard, 2014). Loosely, performance
refers to the health of a project in the context of planned objectives and expectations of
stakeholders. It usually describes the attainment of the goals, including the expected outcomes of
a project (Bergek and Norrman, 2008). As such, project performance describes the extent to which
the project outcomes correspond to the project goals, including the expected outcomes. Therefore,
project performance measurement refers to the process of quantifying performance.
Measuring the performance of the MiC method involves quantifying the extent to which the
technique delivers projects that satisfy the requirements of clients with greater efficiency and
effectiveness. The effectiveness of the MiC method refers to the degree to which it delivers projects
that meets the requirements of stakeholders. In contrast, efficiency measures how economically
the MiC method uses resources to meet the requirements of the stakeholders (Neely et al., 1995).
Therefore, this study defines performance measurement as the process of quantifying the
efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC methods in high-rise residential building projects (Neely
32
et al., 1995). Hence, the metrics used to quantify its effectiveness and efficiency are considered
performance measures, whereas the set of the metrics are considered a performance measurement
system.
2.2.5 Best practices
The concept of best practices has been used interchangeably with terms such as evidence-based
practices, effective solutions, innovative practices, research-based practices, science-based
practices, best outcomes, promising practices, probably effective practices, better practices, and
good practices (Ng and De Colombani, 2015; Osburn et al., 2011). The recurrent and
interchangeable use of these ill-defined and relatively undifferentiated concepts generates their
misinterpretation, misuse, and abuse in the literature. They have subtle differences in their usage
across different fields, but such distinctions are beyond the scope of this study and can be found
elsewhere (Osburn et al., 2011; Peters and Heron, 1993).
In education, best practices have been defined as innovative and exemplary strategies empirically
linked to achieving specific desired outcomes (Peters and Heron, 1993). In the context of
information technology, best practices are considered the most efficient and effective strategies
for delivering projects that meet planned objectives and expectations, based on repeatable
procedures that have proven themselves over time in several projects (Graupner et al., 2009). In
the context of incubating companies, best practices constitute processes and reusable practices of
an organization that have proven capable of delivering particular results more effectively and
efficiently than others (Bergek and Norrman, 2008).
In the context of health care delivery, best practices have been defined as the best ways of
implementing health care initiatives, measuring performance, and promoting continuous
33
improvement (Perleth et al., 2001). They encompass delivery strategies or practices that have
demonstrated effectiveness in generating desired outcomes of programs or initiatives when
implemented in a specific real-life setting and are likely to be replicable in other settings (Ng and
De Colombani, 2015). In other words, best practices are effective and efficient strategies or
processes for achieving desired results in specific situations and contexts, forming adaptable
solutions to similar problems in other situations (World Health Organization, 2017). They
represent practices which have worked in one or more cases, and which, given the resemblance of
other contexts, or inertia of certain localised institutions, are assumed to work well in other
contexts and circumstances as well. These processes have proven reliable to lead to the desired
results through experience and research.
Though the concept of best practices has gained prominence and widespread usage in various
professions, there is no generally accepted operational definition and conceptualization of the term
(Osburn et al., 2011). However, the underlying principle in the definitions is that best practices are
strategies that produce the desired results without using excessive resources. Hence, they are
efficient, effective, relevant, replicable, adaptable, sustainable, transferrable, and ethically sound
(Ng and De Colombani, 2015; World Health Organization, 2017). However, best practices should
not be considered a state of perfection, gold standards, or distinctive processes contributing to
success. They must not be construed from the superlative sense of the term “best” (Ng and De
Colombani, 2015) because strategies producing desired results effectively and efficiently in a
specific situation and contexts may result in catastrophic outcomes in certain situations and times.
In other words, best practices are better understood as effective and efficient strategies proven to
produce the desired project outcomes to varying degrees and reflect the industry priorities over
time.
34
This study defines best practices as delivery strategies and process management practices that
domain practitioners and experts have found to consistently deliver the required project outcomes,
when carefully applied. Thus, the best practices are strategies and processes that have proven
effective and efficient in consistently delivering desired outcomes in residential MiC projects.
More specifically, they are residential MiC project delivery practices and strategies that most
domain practitioners and experts prefer at the moment and accord higher status during
implementation (Osburn et al., 2011). Generally, best practices are a product of theories, expert
opinion, empirical research, and social values (Ng and De Colombani, 2015; Peters and Heron,
1993). In implementing innovative technologies in construction projects, however, best practices
are products of systematic and continuous benchmarking of delivery practices across several
projects implemented in real-life settings in a particular context (Infrastructure and Projects
Authority, 2019). Hence, they are not standards, but much more specific guidelines reflecting the
best know-how about what works at a given moment. Best practices can, however, be misleading
unless they systematically incorporate measurable criteria or indicators (Peters and Heron, 1993).
Consequently, this study developed both best practices and indicators across the different phases
of the residential MiC project delivery chain.
2.2.6 Best practice framework
Best practice frameworks (BPFs) have been rarely defined in the literature, including studies that
purportedly developed those frameworks for implementing public-private partnerships (Cheung,
2009; Osei-Kyei, 2017). Basically, a BPF constitutes a framework of the best practices. It refers
to a collection of well-established and documented strategies or processes that are more effective
and efficient at meeting certain objectives or outcomes in a context than others (Graupner et al.,
2009). In this study, a BPF refers to a structured body of effective and efficient strategies for
35
guiding an organized implementation of residential MiC projects that meets planned objectives
and expectation of stakeholders. As such, BPFs are excellent knowledge management and sharing
vehicles (Alwazae et al., 2020). A useful BPF must embody a reasonably comprehensive set of
effective and efficient strategies that guides the relevant players from conception to onsite
assembly to maximize value in residential MiC projects. Thus, while not a recipe for guaranteed
success, these practices comprise a roadmap for systematically implementing residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong more effectively and efficiently that encourage continuous improvement.
However, as BPFs usually provide generic guidance for organizing the implementation of projects
(Alwazae, 2015; Alwazae et al., 2020), the strategies are frequently presented at an abstract level
instead of detailed actionable processes and tasks to implement a project (Alwazae et al., 2015).
They usually delineate and describe how processes and scope of work associated with the initiative
should be organized and performed. In this study, the BPF bridges the gap between the usual
abstraction of the scope of work and actions that relevant project participants must perform in a
repeatable manner. It transforms the generic concepts embodied in the typical BPFs into actionable
concepts such as specific tasks, actions, or processes that relevant project participants should
perform at each stage of the delivery chain. Specifically, the BPF captures specific processes,
scope of work, and performance indicators in each stage of the residential MiC project delivery
chain, defines how they should be organized, and assigns responsibilities and roles to relevant
project participants at each stage.
6.3 Distinction between Site-based Construction and the MiC Method
The MiC method is not a reciprocally exclusive alternative to the site-built approach. Varying
levels and degrees of modularization are integrated with some traditional onsite work packages
when constructing building projects (Bertram et al., 2019; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
36
However, there are subtle differences between the MiC method and traditional site-built approach
to residential building construction. The two methods have significantly varied project objectives,
delivery chains, design strategies, supply chain configurations, stakeholder configurations, and
engineering requirements (Wuni et al., 2019). Understanding the unique characteristics would
inform and guide development of efficient and effective strategies for implementing residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong
First and foremost, the MiC method is implemented in Hong Kong to address the ills of the site-
based construction methods and prefabrication (Xu et al., 2020). It aims to improve the
competitiveness of the Hong Kong construction industry, hedge against the rapidly aging local
workforce, and provide a solution to the increasing housing shortfall (Pan and Hon, 2018). It is
also promoted to improve the performances of construction projects such as reducing construction
time, lifecycle costs, greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste footprint, and pollution. Most of these
objectives and desired performance improvements are inherently non-financial, with deliverables
less visible and difficult to measure (Wuni and Shen, 2020a). Given the increasing pressure to
adopt sustainable construction practices, technologies, and business models to mitigate climate
change, the business benefits of these wide-ranging non-financial performance improvements are
increasingly becoming a priority to stakeholders when evaluating MiC project performance
(Blismas et al., 2006). Effective consideration and incorporation of these wide-ranging financial
and non-financial benefits requires an adaptation and modification of existing project management
practices to include bespoke tools capable of monitoring, managing, and measuring the extent to
which the MiC method produce the desired outcomes in residential projects in Hong Kong.
Another unique characteristic of the MiC method relative to the site-built approach is the nature
of its delivery chain. A typical delivery chain of the MiC method include project design, statutory
37
approval, factory production of modules, logistics (i.e., transportation, storage, buffer), and onsite
assembly (Luo, Jin, et al., 2020). While some of these stages (e.g., planning, design, statutory
approval) are shared between the two methods, there are varied scope of works and activities in
the various stages in each method. For instance, the MiC method employs advanced manufacturing
principles and production engineering strategies in the delivery of projects. Residential MiC
projects have significant pre-manufactured value, translating them into nearly manufactured
products. Unlike the traditional buildings, residential MiC projects incorporate design for
manufacture and assembly (DfMA) principles, comprising design for manufacture (DfM) and
design for assembly (DfA). DfMA is a design approach that simplifies the design of a product to
facilitate effective manufacture and efficient assembly of its components (Gao et al., 2018). It
incorporates specific rules, specifications, and parameters to ensure that the detailed project design
is amenable to effective factory production and efficient onsite assembly of the modules (Gao et
al., 2019). DfM facilitates the economic offsite production of the constituent elements of a module,
whereas DfA facilitates efficient installation of the modules on site.
There is the increasing consideration of design for manufacture, transportation, and assembly
(DfMTA) and design for logistics and supply chain (DfLSC) to incorporate downstream
transportation, logistics, and supply chain constraints in the MiC project design. These proactive
design approaches usually require engagement of suppliers, production engineers, consultants, and
local contractors at the outset to effectively anticipate and design out downstream challenges and
constraints early upfront. While DfMA principles are applicable to traditional building projects to
a certain extent (Fox et al., 2001; Tan et al., 2020), they are compulsory in MiC projects (Building
and Construction Authority, 2017). Such requirement present unique opportunities and additional
layers of challenges that must be considered when implementing residential MiC projects. Unlike
38
the case of traditional projects where the major superstructure construction activities can
commence after some progress in the design, MiC is less receptive of this practice. It is required
to complete and freeze the detailed design early to commence the factory production of the
modules (Wuni and Shen, 2020b). As such, the superstructure construction in MiC projects cannot
commence until the modules have been delivered to the site.
Also, factory production of modules is non-existent in traditional construction. The modules are
the main drivers of MiC projects, making the production stage an important aspect of the delivery
chain. At this stage, the factory production team produce the modules based on the detailed design
and must adhere to statutory requirements regarding tolerance limits, alignment configurations,
quality standards, and transport restrictions (Construction Industry Council, 2019a). These unique
delivery requirements demand strategies to effectively produce desired outcomes during the
production stage. Usually, the production stage operates concurrently with onsite activities such
as site preparation and substructure construction, including foundation works and external
underground utility works (Building and Construction Authority, 2017). This concurrent operation
enables the MiC method to shorten construction time, but requires careful coordination of both
onsite and offsite work packages (Hwang et al., 2018a). The factory production is followed by
module transportation, storage, and installation on site, which are not required in traditional
construction. Notably, Hong Kong has an incomplete MiC supply chain resulting in limited local
expertise and heavy reliance on overseas factories, requiring complex logistics, expensive cross-
border transportation of modules, and extensive supply chain management. These local
characteristics present unique challenges and risks, requiring effective management when
39
A third unique characteristic of MiC projects is the complex ecosystem of stakeholders involved
in the project delivery. The introduction of factory production, transportation, and onsite assembly
of modules into the project delivery chain introduces new stakeholders and project participants,
including production engineers, fabricators, logistics companies, specialist contractors, assembly
subcontractors, and crane operators. Although some of these stakeholders are prevalent in
traditional construction, they have unique roles, responsibilities, and scope of works in residential
MiC projects. They introduce new requirements for bespoke tools, equipment, resources, and
supply chain configuration. In traditional projects, the owner or client specifies requirements for
the design, provides the resources, and expects benefits from the deliverables from the contractor
financed to manage the project delivery. MiC projects, however, are co-created, requiring a more
sustained collaboration among several stakeholders to effectively coordinate and manage the hosts
of onsite and offsite work packages required to deliver the project. Hence, irrespective of the
adopted procurement system, collaboration is required at each distinct stage of the MiC project
delivery chain (Luo, Jin, et al., 2020; Wuni and Shen, 2020b). The collaborative working
requirements in MiC projects stems from the interdependences between the stages of the delivery
chain, such that disturbances, disruptions, failure points, and vulnerabilities in upstream stages can
significantly compromise the continuity of the entire chain and performance of downstream
segments.
The unique characteristics of the MiC method presents additional layers of opportunities and
challenges in residential building projects. The differences translate into bespoke suitability DMFs,
CRFs, CSFs, KPIs, and best practices for implementing residential MiC projects. Thus, it is
imperative to modify and adapt existing implementation and evaluation frameworks to provide
bespoke tools that enables the relevant project participants and business partners to manage,
40
deliver, and assess the performance of residential MiC projects in a structured and consistent
manner. The developed framework should guide the relevant stakeholders to implement
residential MiC projects efficiently and effectively in Hong Kong.
6.4 Theoretical Framework
Using well-established theories to guide and inform practice individuates a well-established
profession from a craft (Koskela and Howell, 2002). There is an intricate nexus between theory
and practice. Deficiencies in theoretical foundations are recipes for self-inflicted heinous problems
in practice because of implicit reliance on those deficient theories and attendant methods. It has
been vehemently argued that the poverty of bespoke theories of construction project management
espouses the pervasive project failures and long-standing performance ills of the construction
industry (Koskela and Howell, 2008; Söderlund, 2004). Thus, it is essential to adopt relevant
theories to inform the development of the best practice framework for implementing residential
MiC projects.
Within the pragmatic research paradigm and mixed methods research, it is possible and defensible
for more than one theory to fit a single set of empirical data that addresses a research problem
(Johnson et al., 2004). Thus, this study adopted an overarching theory to inform investigation of
the overall research problem and three specific theories to inform investigation of its various
components. The study used the theory of project management to inform investigation of the best
practices for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The various aspects of
residential MiC project delivery in Hong Kong were investigated through three specific theoretical
lenses: technology – organization – environment theory, theory of construction project risks, and
theory of critical success factors.
41
2.4.1 Theory of project management
The theory of project management integrates two theories: theory of project and theory of
management (Koskela and Howell, 2008). The theory of project explains the product-oriented
processes (i.e., technical processes involved in creating the project), whereas the theory of
management explains the management processes (e.g., initiation, planning, execution, controlling,
and closure processes) (Söderlund, 2004). The theory of management further integrates three sub-
theories: theory of planning (management-as-planning & management-as-organizing), theory of
execution (classical communication theory & language/action perspective), and theory of
controlling (thermostat model & scientific experimentation model) (Koskela and Howell, 2002).
Detailed description of the deficiencies associated with the underlying theoretical foundations of
these theories using evidence from competing theories and empirical studies can be found in the
literature (Koskela and Howell, 2002, 2008).
The theory of project postulates that project management involves decomposing the project
delivery process into adequate, manageable chunks of interdependent activities and tasks, whilst
dealing with uncertainties and eliminating waste (i.e., unnecessary work is not done) from the flow
processes of transforming resources (e.g., raw materials, labour, money) into outputs that
eventually meet the requirements of clients and delivers business purpose (Koskela and Howell,
2002; Pinto and Slevin, 1988). It argues that a project represents the transformation of complex
sets of activities, relationships, regulations, information, resources, and processes into deliverables
(i.e., project) that meet well-defined objectives and expectation of stakeholders in a specified time
frame under budgetary constraints. It recognizes that uncertainties abound in the outset regarding
the exact nature of the client requirements and accepts that commitments, dependencies, and
42
expectations developing in the process of interaction drive the project to realization (Koskela and
Howell, 2002).
The theory of management embodies the theories of planning, execution, and controlling. It
postulates that project management is concerned with reconciling the goals of stakeholders (i.e.,
management, workers, external agents) and coordinating dynamic processes (e.g., plans, scope of
work) through job dispatching and work authorization system under continuous performance
evaluation, learning, and improvement to meet planned objectives and expectations of stakeholders
(Koskela and Howell, 2002, 2008). Hence, the theory considers a building project as a product of
coordinated set of core and facilitated processes that encompasses the tools, techniques, and
knowledge-based practices in a closed-loop delivery chain that meets organizational goals in
delivering specified output(s) with specific performance characteristics in a given time frame
under budgetary constraints (Koskela and Howell, 2002).
Therefore, the theory of project management states that the value-laden outputs of organizational
inputs result from reconciling the goals of stakeholders and transforming manageable chunks of
interdependent, complex activities, relationships, regulations, resources, and processes, through
job dispatching and work authorization system under continuous performance evaluation, learning,
and improvement into a deliverable(s) (i.e., project) that meet well-defined objectives and
expectations of stakeholders in a specified time frame under budgetary constraints. Thus, it
decomposes the residential MiC project delivery chain into several processes, including initiation
(i.e., conceptualization), planning, execution (i.e., design, production, transportation, buffering,
storage, and onsite assembly), controlling (i.e., performance measurement, learning, and
continuous improvement), and closure (Project Management Institute, 2017). The specific scope
43
of work, tasks, and processes required to deliver desired results in residential MiC projects formed
the basis for developing the best practice framework.
2.4.2 Technology – Organization – Environment Theory
The technology-organization-environment (TOE) theory emerged from the contingency theory of
organization and embodies a framework of three dimensions that influence the adoption of
technological innovations at the organizational level (Tornatzky et al., 1983). It postulates that the
interactions of environmental factors, technological characteristics, and organizational needs
influence the adoption of innovations at the organizational level (Drazin, 1991). The TOE theory
has received far more robust empirical and theoretical validations in decision sciences than many
celebrated theories and frameworks such as the innovation diffusion theory (Rogers, 1983), theory
of planned behaviour, technology acceptable model, and unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (Awa et al., 2017). Though relevant, the alternative theories have focused more on
attitudinal factors, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use in the adoption of technologies
and ignored the critical relevance of social and psychological factors (ibid). The TOE theory offers
a more superior theoretical information than innovation diffusion theory in investigating
technology adoption. However, the TOE theory has been censured for failing to provide specific
information but rather uses taxonomies to categorize factors into contexts (Awa et al., 2017).
A major strength of the TOE theory is its non-deterministic perspective of technology adoption.
Instead of roles, the TOE framework explicitly recognizes the exclusive significance of people in
technology adoption and thus incorporate social and psychological components in the factors that
determine the adoption of innovation. The TOE framework encompasses technology development,
organizational conditions, business and organizational reconfiguration, and industry environment
(Awa et al., 2017). The central hypothesis of the TOE framework is that an organization is
44
consistent with its surroundings and environmental needs such that internal and external factors
including environment, organization size and strategy define its strength (Bryan and Zuva, 2021).
The TOE framework focuses on innovative technology adoption at the organizational level. As
this study focuses on the adoption of the MiC method at the project level, the dimensions of the
TOE framework are not directly applicable. However, the robustness of the framework and its
applicability at the project level has received consideration in construction management literature.
For instance, Qin et al. (2020) used the TOE framework to explore the factors that influence the
decision to adopt building information modelling in construction projects. Thus, the TOE theory
constitutes a suitable theoretical lens to investigate the factors that determines the suitability and
compatibility of the MiC method with residential building projects in Hong Kong. Based on the
central hypothesis of the TOE framework, this study hypothesizes that various factors such as
project characteristics (conditions), project environmental attributes, labour considerations, and
industry environmental factors influence the decision to implement the MiC method in
construction projects. Figure 2.1 shows a conceptual framework of the factors that determines the
compatibility of the MiC method with residential building projects.
The proposed framework conceptualizes project contexts in terms of characteristics and
requirements of a project (i.e., client needs) that renders the MiC method more appropriate. For
industry environment, the framework considered the readiness and enabling environment in the
local construction industry that support the MiC method adoption. For project environment, the
framework factored characteristics of the proposed site (i.e., minimal traffic condition for
transportation of modules) that favours the use of the MiC method. The labour consideration
dimension of the framework considered the availability of the bespoke skills and technical
expertise required to implement the MiC method.
45
Project
Characteristics
• Presence of
repetitive
layout in design
• Client needs
• Suitability of
the design for
MiC
•
Environmental
Environment
Transport network and
•
Attributes
Industry
traffic conditions in the MiC Adoption Availability and capacity
Project
site location suitability in a of fabricators

• Site layout and • Organizational readiness
Project
characteristics
• Skilled and
experienced
labour force
• Competent
project
management
team
Labour
Considerations
Figure 2.1: Conceptual structure of the determinants of MiC suitability for a project
2.4.3 Theory of construction project risks
Risk theory originated from insurance organizations who were concerned about changes in the
state of events in the future due to stochastic disorder (Almer, 1967). However, the theory of risk
have drawn on several fields, including mathematical statistics, probability, insurance problems,
46
decision science, and actuarial science (Borch, 1967). Thus, risk theories have grown from several
theories, including the theory of statistical decision functions, theory of rational decisions,
probability theory, and the theory of insurance. Inheriting the lack of generally accepted definition
of risk, there is no general theory of risk applicable to all industries and fields (Pollatsek and
Tversky, 1970).
In prior literature, it is generally observed that there is no explicit theory of construction project
risks. Nevertheless, it is possible to find statements from the treatises of leading researchers of
construction risk management that approximate the axioms of a theory and from which a theory
of risks can be deduced. Based on such core statements, this study discovered that risks have been
well-established as unavoidable in construction projects (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997;
Macomber, 1989; Winch, 2010) and usually linked to uncertainties and probabilities of
divergences of outcomes from planned objectives (Project Management Institute, 2017).
Therefore, it can be deduced that the fundamental axiom of risk theory in construction projects is
that there are planned and unplanned events that could have significant positive or negative impact
on the outcomes of current decisions or processes in the future.
To this end, the theory of construction project risks states that the numerous planned and unplanned
activities and trades associated with the changing participants and dynamic project environment
generate stochastic disorders and probability distributions of outcomes diverging from planned
objectives and expectations throughout the delivery chain (Bryde and Volm, 2009; Zhang, 2016).
This theorem is appropriate because a building project is completed from a combination of
complex and symbiotic events, processes and activities drawing on resources and services of
several players dedicated to the project (or individual) goal(s) and objective(s) over the
construction period (Pinto and Slevin, 1988). A building projects has at least 200,000 components
47
or activities (Gann, 1996), translating construction into the riskiest process or service (Macomber,
1989). Risks abound in any construction project; thus, project managers do not aim to eliminate
risks, but to control its occurrence and impact on project outcomes (Baloi and Price, 2003).
2.4.4 Theory of critical success factors
D. Ronald Daniel of McKinsey & Company and John F. Rockart of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology developed the theory of CSFs (Pollard and Cater-Steel, 2009; Zwikael and Globerson,
2006). It was developed to explain the factors, processes, conditions, and strategies making the
greatest contribution to the success of enterprises or organizations (Dickinson et al., 1984; Martin,
1982; Rockart, 1982). The theory of CSFs states that there are certain areas in which satisfactory
results will generate successful competitive performance for the individual, department, or
organization (Rockart, 1982). It emphasizes that there are few key areas of activity that should
receive dedicated attention and sustained resources commitment from management to guarantee
the success of the organization (Freund, 1988). The theory of CSFs has been applied to many
industries, business units, organizations, departments, management, individuals, activities, and
product development (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006), including construction projects (Belassi and
Tukel, 1996; Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Sanvido et al., 1992).
In construction projects, the theory of CSFs states that there are few key delivery aspects in which
satisfactory results will ensure successful implementation of a project that meets planned
objectives and expectations of stakeholders. It recognizes that CSFs are sensitive to contexts,
project types, stages, and objectives (Pinto and Prescott, 1988). The theory forms the basis for
identifying the few key delivery practices and processes that lead to residential MiC project
success in Hong Kong. The pioneering literature established five basic types or sources of CSFs,
including industry (i.e., specific industry characteristics), environmental (i.e., environmental or
48
technological changes), strategic (i.e., the chosen competitive strategy of the business), temporal
(i.e., internal organizational needs and changes), and managerial (i.e., roles of individuals) factors
(Rockart, 1982). These sources are considered in benchmarking the CSFs for residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. Noteworthy is that CSFs must be specific and expressed or written in the
appropriate lexicon, drawing on a good understanding of the MiC industry, project environment,
and strategies of the implementing organization(s) to ensure that the selected success factors result
in observable differences. CSFs could be writing as an activity statement, a requirement or key
influence factor. Action verbs (e.g., attract, perform, monitor, manage) are used to open the
description of CSFs to clearly convey what is important and should be done.
2.5 Suitability Decision-making Factors for MiC Projects
A dedicated systematic literature review was conducted to derive relevant factors determining the
suitability of the MiC method for building projects. Using the keywords in Table 3.1, the study
retrieved 91 documents from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in July 2021. A
thorough screening revealed sixteen articles addressing potential suitability DMFs for the MiC
method. Table 2.1 summarizes the relevant suitability DMFs extracted from the literature. The
identified DMFs were clustered into four principal DMFs: project requirements, location and site
characteristics, labour considerations, and industry readiness factors. Figure 2.1 shows a
conceptual structure of the suitability DMFs. These components are described as follows.
Table 2.1: Factors determining MiC suitability for construction projects.

No. Suitability decision-making Relevant Sources
factors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Expediting construction X X X X X X X X X X
time
2 Minimizing accidents and X X X X X X X X
fatalities on site
3 Improving project quality X X X X X X X
control
49
4 Cost predictability X X X X X X X X X X X
5 Reducing environmental X X X
impact
6 Dimensions and number of X X
required MiC units
7 Lead time for MiC modules X X
8 High standard of quality of X X X X X X X X X
internal and external finishes
9 Project procurement and X X
contract type
10 Presence of repetitive design X X X X
layout
11 Suitability of design for X X X X
MiC
12 Availability of construction X X X X X X X
equipment
13 Structural integrity of X X X
modules
14 Nature, size, scope, and type X X
of project
15 Transport network width X X X X
and traffic conditions in the
vicinity
16 Remote and difficult site X X X
location
17 Site layout, accessibility, X X X X X X
and characteristics
18 Availability of temporary X X X X
storage areas at site location
19 Availability and capacity of X X X
fabricators
20 Severe local area condition, X X X X
harsh weather, and climate
21 Supportive building and X X X X X X X
planning regulations
22 Capability of local MiC X X X
supply chain
23 Availability of skilled and X X X X X X
experienced labour force
24 Availability of competent X X X X X X
and skilled management
team
25 Marketability and X X X X X
acceptability of MiC
26 Presence of competent X X X
inspectors for supervising
modules
27 Minimizing environmental X X X X X
nuisance and neighbourhood
noise
50
28 Reducing construction waste X X X X X
footprint
29 Organizational readiness X X X X
30 Use of building information X X X X
modelling
31 Business needs, client X X X X
contract or regulatory
requirement
32 Local industry X X
communication and
collaborative culture
33 Number of stories X X
34 Competences of the project X X X X X
team in the MiC method
35 Reducing embodied energy X X X X
and carbon emissions
A = Murtaza et al. (1993); B = Gibb and Isack (2003); C = Abu Hammad et al. (2008); D = Blismas and
Wakefield (2009); E = Chen et al. (2010a); F = Azman et al. (2013); G = Zhai et al. (2014); H = Wong et
al. (2017); I = Sharafi et al. (2018); J = Hwang et al. (2018b); K = Zakaria et al. (2018); L = Daget and
Zhang (2019); M = Li et al. (2019); N = Wuni and Shen (2019); O = Abdul Nabi and El-Adaway (2020);
P = Bendi et al. (2020)
2.5.1 Project characteristics and requirements
The objectives of a proposed project could make it more amenable to the MiC method than the
site-based approach (Chen et al., 2010). For instance, projects that have stringent budgetary
constraints, requiring a higher degree of cost predictability is more amenable to the MiC method
(Zhai et al., 2014). Building and construction projects with demanding schedules offers an ideal
opportunity for MiC adoption because it minimizes time spent on site, expedites the construction
process, and improves certainty of the project completion date (Blismas and Wakefield, 2009). As
MiC allows for industrialized assembly that happens concurrently with site preparation, the total
time it takes to build a structure can be dramatically reduced. Often by the time the site is ready
(foundation levelled, plumbing in place, concrete poured, etc.) the factory-built modules are ready
to be placed. Thus, the MiC method becomes a suitable technique for projects that simply need to
be built along a faster timeline than is typically feasible for a traditional construction project. For
51
instance, the MiC method was used to rapidly build health centres, hospitals, and quarantines
centres in China (including Hong Kong SAR), USA, UK and elsewhere during the Covid-19
pandemic because there was the need to provide such facilities within a shorter time frame as
response mechanisms (Luo, Liu, et al., 2020).
Project characteristics and requirements Industry readiness factors

• Expediting construction time
• Minimizing accidents and fatalities on site
• Availability and capacity of
• Improving project quality control
fabricators
• Cost predictability
• Supportive building and
• Reducing environmental impact
planning regulations
• Dimensions and number of required MiC units
• Capacity of local MiC
• Lead time for MiC modules
supply chain
• High standard of quality of finishes
• Marketability and
• Project procurement and contract type
acceptability of MiC
• Presence of repetitive design layout
• Organizational readiness
• Suitability of design for MiC
• Local industry
• Structural integrity of modules
communication and
• Nature, size, scope, and type of project
collaborative culture
• Minimizing environmental nuisance and noise
• Competences of the project
• Reducing construction waste footprint
team in the MiC method
• Business needs, client contract or regulatory requirements
• Availability of construction
• Number of stories
equipment
• Reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions
• Use of building information modelling
Suitability
Decision
Criteria for
MiC
Location and site attributes Labour considerations
• Transport network width and traffic
• Availability of skilled and
conditions in the vicinity
experienced labour force
• Availability of temporary storage areas at
• Availability of competent
site location
and skilled management
• Remote and difficult site location
team
• Site layout, accessibility, and
• Presence of competent
characteristics
inspectors for supervising
• Severe local area condition, harsh
modules
weather, and climate
Figure 2.2: Conceptual structure of the suitability decision criteria for MiC
52
The MiC method constitutes a preferred construction approach when a project has strict
requirements for quality control. The MiC technology leverages a controlled factory environment
to generate control the quality of the modules, leading to fewer defects and quality problems in the
constructed project (Blismas et al., 2006). Certain characteristics of a project render it more
suitable for the MiC method. For example, the MiC method generates maximum benefits when
the project design explicitly considered downstream offsite production and assembly of
components. Hence, the project must be designed based on DfMA principles to make it more
amenable to the MiC method. Additionally, MiC is suitable for projects that are repetitive in nature
(Hwang et al., 2018b).
The repetition provides opportunities for a high level of standardization and industrialization of
the modules to achieve the cost reduction associated with economies of scale (Li, 2020). Similarly,
projects with repetitive design layout leverages significant benefits with the MiC method (Murtaza
et al., 1993). The suitability of the MiC method also depends on the dimensions, sizes, and number
of modules. For instance, the width of traffic lanes in Hong Kong are typically 3.3m and can be
less than 3m at some local road sections (Construction Industry Council, 2020). These dimensions
of the road restricts the sizes of loaded vehicles in the city to 2.5m(w) x 4.6m(h) under transport
regulations. Even though the Transport Department has recently relaxed the width of the loaded
vehicles to 3.2m to support the MiC technology, typical MiC modules are usually constrained to
a maximum size of 2.8m(w) x 12m (l) x 3.1m(h) for daytime transport and 3.2m(w) x 12m (l) x
3.1m(h) for night-time location (Li, 2020). Similarly, building regulations such as the minimum
requirement of 4.5m floor-to-floor height for laboratories in Universities in Hong Kong exceeds
the allowable height for transportation. As such, a building type of repetitive nature may be
unsuitable for the MiC method if the dimensions and sizes of the modules in the design are not
53
consistent with local building regulations (Wuni and Shen, 2019). Therefore, a critical criterion
for suitability is the design of project for explicit use of the MiC method with due considerations
of local building regulations.
2.5.2 Location and site attributes
The characteristics of site location for a project influences the suitability of implementing the MiC
method. Selection of a suitable site is considered an extremely essential for MiC projects in Hong
Kong due to the numerous site constraints (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2021). Due to transport
restrictions and size limitations of traffic lanes, the width of roads to the site should be greater than
the maximum width of the MiC modules (Li, 2020). A suitable MiC site must have simple terrain
to facilitate ease and convenient transportation of the modules (Hong Kong Housing Authority,
2021). The site location should have a favourable layout and adequate accessibility (Sharafi et al.,
2018). Though the MiC method provide opportunities to build in sites with a relatively limited
space, it is essential that the site is accessible to trucks transporting the modules and cranes
installing the modules. In high-density cities like Hong Kong where there is limited land for
developing manufacturing plants, overseas production of modules is a critical consideration. Under
just-in-time delivery arrangement, the modules are usually transported to the MiC site and stored
temporarily for subsequent installation (Zhang et al., 2018). Hence, the suitability of MiC also
depends on the availability of temporary storage areas at the site location (Chen et al., 2010). There
are also some characteristics of site locations that render the MiC method more feasible,
economical, and appropriate alternative construction method. For instance, remote and difficult
site locations (e.g., desert, extreme snow) with severe local area conditions, harsh weather, and
climate could expose workers to adverse health risks under longer project durations (Murtaza et
al., 1993). The MiC method becomes obvious when certain project constraints prevail, such as
54
underdeveloped and remote construction site with hostile environmental conditions and projects
requiring special tools, skills, or techniques only available in a controlled factors environment
(Murtaza et al., 1993; Wuni and Shen, 2019). In these circumstances, the MiC method constitutes
an economic and feasible option it requires fewer workers on site, improves quality control, and
significantly shortens construction cycle to minimize the adverse impact of the weather on project
costs and workers’ health (Jaillon and Poon, 2008).
2.5.3 Labour considerations
The MiC method has a specialist labour requirements (Wuni and Shen, 2019). Although few
unskilled workforces may be required to handle delivery of materials to the usage point, the MiC
method demands specialist technical knowledge at various levels of the project delivery chain. For
instance, the design team must have technical knowledge of manufacturing principles, production
engineering, and DfMA (Wuni and Shen, 2020c). The factory manufacturing team must have
technical knowledge of DfMA, production engineering, process efficiency, and precision modular
production technologies (Fraser et al., 2015). The assemblers must have a good knowledge and
experience of working with powerful crane under tight tolerances and micro-move fine positioning
(Blismas, 2007). Hence, the suitability of MiC for a project depends on the availability of skilled
and experienced onsite and factory labour force, skilled management team to coordinate onsite
and offsite work packages, and competent inspectors for supervise the factory production of
modules (Wuni and Shen, 2019), especially when overseas manufacturers are engaged (Hwang et
al., 2018b; Pan and Hon, 2018). The inspectors, usually a technical team from the local building
authority inspect the modules at the factory during production for quality control and onsite before
installation to ensure adherence to building standards.
55
2.5.4 Industry readiness factors
The extent to which construction organizations and professionals are technically, financially, and
professionally prepared to implement innovative and disruptive processes of the MiC method also
influence its suitability for building and construction projects in any construction industry (Weiner,
2009). The MiC method requires changes in the business-as-usual (BAU) way of designing,
constructing, and managing building and construction projects. Hence, the project designers,
contractors, and consultants should have the capacity, readiness, and technical competence to
effectively implement the MiC method in a project (Bendi et al., 2020; Fraser et al., 2015). The
local building and planning regulations should be favourable to the MiC method because every
project requires statutory approvals and permits to proceed (Zhai et al., 2014). Thus, it is essential
to consider local building standard, planning regulations, and bespoke MiC design codes of
practice, technical guidelines, standards, and specification for the design team to reference when
developing the MiC project design. Whilst most building regulations support the MiC method,
they are usually restrictive (Li, 2020)l. The feasibility of MiC also depends on the availability of
supportive construction equipment such as moulds, carcass, jigs, powerful cranes, and heavy-duty
trucks because they are required at various stages of the project delivery chain (Murtaza et al.,
1993). Whilst these are readily available in economies (e.g., Singapore, United Kingdom, Hong
Kong), there equipment may not be accessible in developing countries (Zakaria et al., 2018). The
MiC method is also economical when there is a complete local supply chain (Daget and Zhang,
2019), especially adequate capacity of fabricators to cope with possible increase in demand for
modules in the short term (Li, 2020). Significant advantages of having a complete local MiC
supply chain include minimal reliance on overseas manufacturers, elimination of costs and
complications associated with cross-border transportation, and reduced logistical challenges (Pan
56
and Hon, 2018; Wuni and Shen, 2019). The MiC method could also be a more preferred option
where there is there is acceptance and market for MiC projects (Azman et al., 2013) and higher
degree of local industry communication and collaborative culture (Zakaria et al., 2018).
2.5.5 Appraisal of the literature
The preceding literature synthesis revealed that the suitability DMFs of various modern
construction methods received a sustained scholarship attention from 1993 to 2021. The reviewed
studies have investigated the suitability of implementing various modern construction methods in
various types of building and construction projects in developing (e.g., China, Malaysia, Ethiopia)
and developed economies (e.g., Canada, Singapore, Australia, United Kingdom). Previous studies
have used various data collection methods, including interviews, questionnaires, and case studies
to investigate relevant suitability DMFs for modern construction methods. However, none
specifically addressed the MiC suitability decision-making problem in building and construction
projects in a high-density metropolis such as Hong Kong. Additionally, except for Murtaza et al.
(1993), Abu Hammad et al. (2008), Hwang et al. (2018a), and Goodier et al. (2019), none
developed a decision support system for assessing the suitability of adopting modern construction
methods in construction projects. Thus, it is imperative to develop a bespoke tool that enables
construction organizations to evaluate the suitability of implementing MiC in building and
construction projects, capturing the local climate, constraints, and expert knowledge of
professionals in Hong Kong.
2.6 Critical Risk Factors for MiC projects
A dedicated systematic literature review was conducted to identify risks relevant to residential
MiC projects. Using the keywords in Table 3.1, the study retrieved 56 documents from Scopus,
57
Web of Science, and Google Scholar in August 2021. A thorough screening revealed fifteen
articles addressing risks relevant to MiC projects. Table 2.2 summarizes the relevant potential risks
influencing the costs of residential MiC projects. The identified risk factors were grouped into six
principal risk factors: pre-design risks, design risks, production risks, transportation and storage
risks, supply chain risks, and onsite assembly risks. Figure 2.2 shows a conceptual structure of the
principal risk factors. These components are described as follows.
Table 2.2: Potential risks in residential MiC projects

No. Risks Relevant Sources
A B C D E F G H I J K L
1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories X X
2 Limited MiC expertise and experience X X X X X
3 Supply chain disruptions X X
4 Stakeholder fragmentation and X
complexity
5 Higher initial capital requirement X X X
6 Delay in modules delivery to the site X X X X X
7 Defective design and change order X X X X X X X
8 The unsuitability of design for MiC X X
9 Late design completion and freezing X X
10 Inadequate planning and scheduling X X X X
11 Unsuitable procurement system and X X X
project delivery method
12 Incomplete local MiC supply chain X X X X X
13 Poor information sharing between X X X
stakeholders
14 Shortages of modules on site X X X X X
15 Restrictive site with space constraints X X
16 Complex interfacing between modules X X X
17 Inaccurate MiC design information X X
18 Inappropriate structural system and X
construction materials
19 Module installation errors X X X X
20 Misplacement of stored modules X X X X
21 Dimensional and geometric X X
inconsistencies in modules
22 Inadequate project funding X
23 Mechanical malfunction of cranes X X X X
58
24 Poor cooperation between multi- X
interfaces
25 Poor workflow control X X
36 Inadequate supervision of factory X X X
works
27 Contractual disputes X
28 Inaccurate materials specifications and X X
cost estimation
29 A design information gap between X X X
designer and manufacturer
30 Module design complexity X X X
31 Limited capacity of manufacturers and X
suppliers
32 Absence of standardized modules X X X
33 Weather disruptions at site X X X X
34 Transportation restrictions and X X X
constraints
35 Module production errors and system X X X X X X
failure
A= Li et al. (2013); B= Luo et al. (2015); C= Li et al. (2016); D= Lee and Kim (2017); E= Li et al.
(2017); F= Li et al. (2018); G = Luo et al. (2019); H= Sutrisna and Goulding (2019); I= Wuni et al.
(2020); J= Abdul Nabi and El-adaway (2021); K= Yang et al. (2021); L= Zhao et al. (2021);
2.6.1 Predesign risks
The pre-design stage includes the conceptualization and planning activities in residential MiC
projects. As these stages and associated activities precede and provides relevant information for
the detailed design phase, various uncertainties and risks can affect project objectives. Risks in
MiC projects reinforce each other, such that upstream jeopardies can propagate detrimental
consequences throughout the delivery chain to undermine downstream objectives (Li et al., 2013;
Sutrisna and Goulding, 2019). A notable predesign risk constitutes the failure to ascertain
suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with residential building project (Abdul Nabi and
El-Adaway, 2020; Hwang et al., 2018b). The MiC method offers economies of scale and
significant cost savings in projects with repetitive layout. In case the planning and conceptual
phases did not consider this condition, it may become prohibitively cost intensive to deliver the
59
residential MiC project. Another widely cited predesign risks is inadequate planning and
scheduling of offsite and onsite activities (Luo et al., 2015; Wuni et al., 2019). Failure to plan
extensively for activities and workflows in the interdependent stages of the delivery chain exposes
the residential MiC project to uncertainties such as shortages of modules, transport delays, and
shortages of funding commensurate with the tight schedule.
2.6.2 Design risks
The design stage constitutes the core invisible engine of residential MiC projects. It is situated at
the interface between the project concept and manufactured modules in which the requirements of
the client transformed into blueprint specifications of materials, geometry, and structural
configurations embodying the core objectives of the project. The quality and accuracy of the
working drawings have direct impact on the modules to be produced and the objectives of the
project (Sutrisna and Goulding, 2019). Project performance decisions matter most at the design
stage because it controls and drives the project objectives significantly (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021).
The most cited design risks is unsuitability of the design for MiC. Principles of DfMTA of modules
must be incorporated into the design. This design requirements differentiates the MiC method from
site-based construction techniques (Tan et al., 2020). Failure to incorporate these DfMTA
principles will render the detailed working drawings less amenable to offsite production and
assembly of the building components. Another significant design risk is inaccurate MiC design
information (Sutrisna and Goulding, 2019). Feeding inaccurate site information, transport
restrictions, dimensional specifications, and geometry configuration leads to uninformative and
faulty design. Using such design to produce the components will compromise the objectives of the
residential MiC project. The inaccurate design information produces further risks such as
dimensional and geometric inconsistencies in the modules (Shahtaheri et al., 2017) and
60
inappropriate specification of structural system and construction materials (Yang et al., 2021).
Installing modules with dimensional irregularities would generate significant additional costs for
rectification works and site-fit reworks.
Predesign risks Design risks

• Inadequate planning and scheduling • Unsuitability of the design for MiC
• Failure to ascertain suitability of • Defective design and change order
MiC with the project • Late design completion and freezing
• Higher initial capital requirement • Inaccurate MiC design information
• Inaccurate materials specifications and
cost estimation
• Inappropriate structural system and
• Module design complexity
Supply chain risks
• Limited MiC expertise and
experience
• Supply chain disruptions Production risks
• Stakeholder fragmentation and • A design information gap between
complexity designer and manufacturer
• Unsuitable procurement system and • Heavy reliance on overseas factories
project delivery method • Dimensional and geometric
• Incomplete local MiC supply chain inconsistencies in modules
• Poor information sharing between Risk factors in • Inadequate supervision of factory
stakeholders MiC projects works
• Inadequate project funding • Limited capacity of manufacturers and
• Poor workflow control suppliers
• Contractual disputes • Absence of standardized modules
• Module production errors and system
failure
Onsite assembly risks

Transportation and storage risks
• Shortages of modules on site
• Complex interfacing between • Delay in modules delivery to the site
modules • Transportation restrictions and
• Module installation errors constraints
• Mechanical malfunction of crane • Damages to modules during transport
• Poor cooperation between multi- • Restrictive site with space constraints
interfaces • Limited space for site storage
• Absence of standardized modules • Misplacement of stored modules
• Weather disruptions
Figure 2.3: Conceptual structure of the risk factors in residential MiC projects
The most profound sources of the design risks include limited planning and poor communication
between designers and downstream project participants (Luo et al., 2015). An associated risk is a
61
design information gap between designers and manufacturers. With the exceptions of collaborative
procurement system and integrated project delivery methods (e.g., design-build), designers and
manufacturers rarely collaborate at the design stage. In residential MiC projects, the manufacturers
(i.e., production engineers) are the immediate users of the detailed work drawings of the design
team. The non-involvement of manufacturers in the design generates “over-the-wall” syndrome
where the production engineers must manufacture modules from drawings to which they were not
privy. The non-inclusion of production engineers terminates the opportunities to proactively
identify, resolve, and incorporate factory production constraints and onsite assembly challenges
into the design. More frequently, the design lapses from the limited collaboration between
designers and manufacturers become immediately apparent during the factory production stage
where majority of the engineering challenges of MiC projects are encountered (Boothroyd, 1994).
Another source of design risk is limited relevant knowledge and technical expertise of designers
(i.e., architects, engineers) in DfMA, production engineering, connection systems, dimensional
tolerance risk management, and onsite installation requirements of modules (Fraser et al., 2015).
The MiC method demands greater design and engineering input to be completed upfront. Thus, it
requires the relevant project teams, especially the designers and contractors to understand the
engineering behind the production and erection of modules (Hong Kong Housing Authority,
2021). The limited knowledge, change orders, and excessive demands of clients or owners further
generate risks such as late design completion and defective design (Gibb and Isack, 2003; Wuni
and Shen, 2020a). Late design completion and freezing directly influence the production lead time
and tighter schedules of MiC projects.
62
2.6.3 Production risks
The modules are the main driver of MiC projects (Rentschler et al., 2016). While bespoke risk
abound, production stage often inherit risks from the design stage and if left unresolved, are
transmitted to the onsite assembly stage. This configuration explains the systemic nature of risks
in MiC projects. A key source of risk is limited capacity of MiC manufacturers and suppliers (Wuni
et al., 2019). The inability of fabricators to cope with the rapid demand for modules to meet tight
schedules increase construction cost due to the forces of demand and supply (Li, 2020). It also
generates uncertainties about reliable supply of modules to meet demand on site during
installation. The limited capacity of fabricators has translated into incomplete local MiC supply
chain in many economies, including Hong Kong (Yang et al., 2021). The incomplete supply chain
have further generated heavy reliance on overseas factories for production of MiC modules (Wuni
et al., 2019) with the attendant complex and expensive problems of cross-border transportation,
logistical challenges, inspection of modules in overseas factories, and adherence to local building
regulations (Pan and Hon, 2018). Notably, the risk and impact of inadequate supervision of
overseas factory works become more detrimental (Li, Shen, et al., 2017). Apart from the associated
direct costs, the increased complexity of cross-border supply chain coordination and integration
generate additional uncertainties that could significantly impact the fundamentals of the project.
Another critical production risk is dimensional and geometric inconsistencies in the modules
(Abdul Nabi and El-adaway, 2021). Failure to accurate specify the allowable tolerance in the MiC
module design could result in excessive geometric variability risks in the factory production of the
modules (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2021). Module production errors will require additional
design rework and costs to correct the errors in the modules (Luo et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2021).
Another significant risk event is failure or malfunction of factory production systems and
63
equipment (Li et al., 2016). In cases where there is no safety stock of modules on site, disruptions
in the factory production systems may halt onsite assembly of modules and significantly extend
the schedules of the project and costs of hired equipment and labour.
2.6.4 Transportation and storage risks
The literature also discussed risks in the transportation and storage stages of MiC projects. A
notable risk is transportation restrictions and constraints (Lee and Kim, 2017; Luo et al., 2015). In
most economies, including Hong Kong, the MiC modules are usually transported by road to site.
There is generally heavy traffic in most neighbourhoods in Hong Kong. Also, existing bridges,
roads, and tunnels were constructed with previous highways standards which have constraints to
the MiC delivery (Li, 2020). In Hong Kong, width of traffic lane is typically 3.3m and can be less
than 3m at some local road sections, limiting the size of a loaded vehicle to 2.5m(w) x 4.6m(h) by
Regulation 55 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G), unless a Wide Load
Permit has been applied for haulage of the modules. Though the Transport Department has recently
relaxed the width of the loaded vehicles to 3.2m to support MiC adoption in construction projects,
this is limited to night-time transport only. The transport restrictions forces the typical MiC unit
to be usually constrained to a maximum size of 2.8m(w) x 12m(l) x 3.1m(h) and 3.2m(w) x 12m(l)
x 3.1m(h) for daytime and night-time transportation, respectively. The size limitation of MiC units
renders MiC adoption obscure or inappropriate for some building types set out in the List of Annex
II of the Technical Circular (Works) No. 2/2020 (Development Bureau, 2020). For instance, the
floor-to-floor height for laboratories in universities is usually 4.5m minimum, exceeding the
allowable height for transportation (Li, 2020). Though strategies such as convoluted adaptions
such as vertical divisions of units can be made, but it usually generate further risks and other
64
complications such as more connection joints and therefore a higher risk of water seepage and
possible prohibition of installation building services on site (Hong, 2020).
Another relevant transport risks is damages to modules during the movement from factory to
construction site (Blismas, 2007). Concrete, steel and hybrid modules can be damaged during
transportation due to poor handling, inadequate protection, or bad nature of transport network (Li
et al., 2016). Damaged modules are usually be replaced, generating additional costs and extension
of schedules. Nature of construction site also presents a significant risk. There are several
challenges with projects without sufficient transportation network, undulating site terrain, and
absence of storage area nearby (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2021). Typically, project sites
which are either too small or bound by different site constraints (e.g., hilly terrain, limited storage
areas, etc) become inappropriate for the MiC method. Thus, it is imperative to carefully select sites
in high-density cities such as Hong Kong where site constraints are severe. A closely related
storage risk is limited space for site storage (Blismas, 2007). A principal resolution is the just-in-
time delivery arrangement, but it relies on the traffic conditions, availability of buffer zones and
capacity of manufacturers. In cases of production system failure, the absence of safety stock of
modules could halt onsite installation progress and negatively affect the tighter schedules of MiC
projects (Zhai et al., 2018). Another critical risk is improper placement (i.e., packing) or
misplacement of stored modules (Li et al., 2016; Luo et al., 2015). This negligent practice makes
it difficult to locate appropriate modules for installation at site when required. Considering that the
modules are usually heavy, additional operations, time, and cost may be incurred to unpack all
modules to identify the required modules. The negative impact of this risk becomes more
pronounced when the project does not incorporate effective inventory management and control of
stock and document systems (Blismas, 2007).
65
2.6.5 Onsite assembly risks
The onsite assembly constitutes the last major stage of the MiC construction process. It involves
hoisting and installing the required modules based on an assembly plan and final finishing works.
However, there are various risks that could compromise the objectives of the onsite assembly
stage. A major risk occurs when unresolved modular geometric conflicts during production and
between modules and site interfaces translate into problematic dimensional and geometric
variabilities on site (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2021). Given a large volumetric element with
at least five interfaces with adjoining modules, the onsite installation of modules can result in
several step-joints (Hong, 2020). Such requirement generates a significant challenge in dealing
with the excessive geometric variability risks in the factory production and onsite assembly of
modules. As such, accurate specification of allowable tolerances in MiC is indispensable because
imprecision may result in less clemency between manufacturing and onsite erection tolerances
(Wuni, Shen and Hwang, 2020). Accurately specifying allowable tolerances, suitable recess at the
interfaces for easing after-installation touch-up and adopting semi-precast slab in the MiC modules
to allow greater flexibility and tolerance during the installation process helps to avoid the need for
additional touch-up works in terms of geometric variabilities (Hong Kong Housing Authority,
2021).
Another widely cited onsite assembly risk is the complex interfacing between modules (Abdul
Nabi and El-adaway, 2021; Wuni, Shen, Osei-Kyei, et al., 2020). The complexity presents
engineering challenges during the installation and grouting processes. A closely related
detrimental risk event module installation errors (Lee and Kim, 2017; Li, Shen, et al., 2017).
Prohibitive costs of rectification and reworks are usually incurred to address a wrongly installed
module (Shahtaheri et al., 2017). Mechanical malfunction of tower cranes can significantly reduce
66
onsite assembly productivity and extends the schedule of MiC projects (Li et al., 2016). It can also
completely halt the installation process if no contingency crane was arranged. The literature also
recognized the negative impact of weather disruptions during onsite installation (Gibb and Neale,
1997). For high-rise buildings, weather events such as tropical cycles and strong winds from
typhoons can significantly disrupt module installation on site.
2.6.6 Supply chain risks
There are copious uncertainties and events that can occur throughout the supply chain of MiC
projects. As indicated earlier, risk events reinforce each other in MiC projects due to the
interdependencies of the supply chain segments. A significant risk is associated with supply chain
disruptions (Wuni et al., 2019). With rare exceptions, MiC supply chains lack resilience and can
be significantly disrupted. For instance, factory production system failure and module delivery
delays to site can halt onsite installation and significantly extend the program when there is no
safety stock. Similarly, mobile and tower crane breakdown and malfunctions can halt onsite
installation activities. Supply chain disruptions are sources of critical risks because several
disturbances can occur in the supply chain and usually triggered by latent factors which cannot be
precisely anticipated (Wang et al., 2018). Supply chain disruptions have usually required
adjustment to original schedule and production plans, with by-products and bullwhip effects such
as operational chaos, extended durations, and increased supply chain costs. Consequently, a
resilient and flexible MiC supply chain is required to cope with the multiple disturbances that can
occur contemporaneously to disrupt the supply chain (Hsu et al., 2019).
Another significant supply chain risk is linked to stakeholder fragmentation and poor information
sharing among project partners (Luo et al., 2019). The MiC method introduces additional
stakeholders (e.g., production engineers) into the project delivery chain. The increased diversity
67
and occupational orientation of the project participants generates additional layers of stakeholder
management complexity. These stakeholders are required to collaborate and share relevant
information throughout the dynamic supply chains to effectively implement MiC projects. As the
various stakeholders have unique goals and value systems, failure to collaborate and reconcile the
differing interests with the project objectives could result in ephemeral coalition of project
participants at different stages of the supply chain, which could be detrimental to the success of
the MiC project. For instance, limited collaboration and information sharing between designers
and manufacturers results in the ‘over-the-wall’ syndrome where relevant design information is
not shared between these two complimentary and interdependent project participants (Boothroyd,
1994). Limited collaboration between designers, logistics companies and highway teams could
result in incongruence of modules to transport sizes and weights restrictions. Even though
collaboration and information sharing are extremely important, fewer procurement systems and
project delivery methods that support these crucial practices (Fox et al., 2001). Hence, less
collaborative procurement systems and project delivery methods constitute sources of significant
risks in MiC projects (Abdul Nabi and El-adaway, 2021; Yang et al., 2021). It eliminates the
opportunities for proactive resolutions of delivery challenges and constraints to MiC projects.
Another significant risk is incomplete local MiC supply chain (Wuni et al., 2019). In most
economies, including Hong Kong, the MiC supply chain is incomplete because of limited technical
capacity to deliver and meet the requirements of some stages of the supply chain. For instance,
space constraints for fabrication yards and limited capacity of local fabricators render the MiC
supply chain in Hong Kong incomplete (Construction Industry Council, 2017). As such, Hong
Kong relies heavily on overseas fabricators to meet demand for modules in MiC projects. These
constitutes sources of risks because the cross-border production and transportation of modules
68
generate additional logistics costs, layers of complexities in workflow control, and uncertainties
in reliable supply of modules (Pan and Hon, 2018). Consequently, limited capacity of
manufacturers and suppliers, inadequate supervision of overseas factory works, and poor workflow
control constitute significant sources of risks in MiC projects (Wuni et al., 2019). Additionally,
contractual disputes and inadequate project funding also have negative implications on the
performance of MiC projects (Abdul Nabi and El-adaway, 2021; Yang et al., 2021).
The preceding review reveals that previous studies have recognized and documented risks
influencing the costs of various modern construction methods from 2013 to 2021. The risk events
have been investigated in developing and developed economies, including the United States,
Canada, China, Australia, Korea, and the United Kingdom using interviews, questionnaires, and
case studies. However, none specifically addressed the risks influencing the costs of residential
MiC projects. Additionally, the risk events are scattered across the literature, depriving relevant
stakeholders of a holistic perspective of the risks in MiC projects. Thus, it is imperative to develop
a bespoke risk management framework enabling project teams to assess, prioritize, mitigate, and
control critical risks in residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
2.7 Critical Success Factors for MiC Projects
A dedicated systematic literature review was conducted to identify CSFs relevant to residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. Using the keywords in Table 3.1, the study retrieved 45 documents
from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in August 2021. A thorough screening revealed
fifteen articles addressing success factors for residential MiC projects. Table 2.3 summarizes the
relevant success factors extracted from the literature. From the perspective relevant to managing
69
MiC projects, the most prominent studies suggest that the CSFs are closely interrelated, and at
times overlapping and can be grouped into five major components: competency, suitable project
characteristics, early commitment, enabling environment, and supply chain management. Figure
2.3 shows a conceptual structure of the CSFs for MiC projects. The major components of the CSFs
are described as follows.
Table 2.3: List of potential CSFs for residential MiC projects

ID Success factor Sources
A B C D E F G H I J K L
1 Adequate knowledge and experience of X X X X X X X X
the project team
2 Early understanding and commitment X X X X
of the client
3 Effective leadership and support of a X X X
specialist contractor
4 Collaborative working and information X X X X X
sharing among project teams
5 Early design completion and freezing X X X X X X
6 Suitable site characteristics and layout X X
7 Suitability of design for MiC X X X
8 Extensive upfront planning for MiC X X X X
9 Collaborative procurement system, X X X
contracting strategy and integrated
project delivery
10 Seamless supply chain coordination X X X
and integration
11 Early and active involvement of critical X X X X X X
project stakeholders
12 Effective coordination and integration X X X
of stakeholders
13 Availability of sound transport X X X X X X
infrastructure and network
14 Effective coordination of onsite and X X X X
offsite work packages
15 Using suitable structural system and X X X X
construction material
16 Effective use of building information X X X X
modeling
17 Effective management of critical X X
tolerances between interfaces
70
18 Early engagement of certification body X X
for factory inspection
19 Inventory management and control X X X X
20 Use of just-in-time delivery
arrangement
21 Effective use of document management
system
22 Use of hedging strategies and transport X X X
delay avoidance
23 Adequate lead time for the bespoke X X X X X X X
processes of MiC
24 Standardization of modules and X X X X X
economies of scale
25 Adequate funding and resources X X X X X
26 Fabricator capacity, capabilities, and X X X X X
experience in modules design and
production
27 A structured risk management X X X X X
A = Gibb and Isack (2001); B = Gibb and Isack (2003); C = Song et al. (2005); D = Blismas (2007); E
= Blismas and Wakefield (2009); F = Pan et al. (2012); G = O’Connor et al. (2014); H = Choi et al.
(2016); I = Li, Li, et al. (2018); J = Hwang et al. (2018b); K = Wuni and Shen (2020c); L = Wuni, Shen
and Osei-Kyei (2020)
2.7.1 Competency
The MiC method reinvents the competencies required of the project manager, the project team
members, and organizations in building and construction projects (Fraser et al., 2015). Thus,
organizational readiness and relevant knowledge and experience of the project team are required
to realize planned objectives and expectations of stakeholders in MiC projects. The literature has
documented the individual and institutional competencies required at various levels of the MiC
project delivery chain from the design to the use of advanced and precise modular production
technology through to the use of powerful cranes for systematic assembly the modules on site
(Wuni and Shen, 2020d). For instance, the MiC project construction manager must have
knowledge of the sources of value to the client, conditions favouring MiC adoption, the stage in
71
which the technology must be considered, and how best to coordinate the various processes in the
MiC project delivery (Fraser et al., 2015; Rentschler et al., 2016; Triumph Modular Corporation,
2019).
Competency Early commitment

• Adequate and experience of the
• Early understanding and commitment
project team
of the client
• Effective leadership of a specialist
• Early design completion and freezing
contractor
• Extensive upfront planning for MiC
• Adequate fabricator capacity,
• Early and active involvement of
capabilities, and experience in module
critical project stakeholders
design and production
Suitable project characteristics

• Suitable site characteristics and layout
CSFs for MiC • Suitability of the design for MiC
projects • Availability of sound transport
Supply chain management infrastructure and network
• Using suitable structural system and
• Seamless supply chain
• Adequate lead time for the bespoke
coordination and integration
processes of MiC
• Effective coordination of onsite and
• Standardization of modules and
economies of scale
• Effective use of building
information modelling
• Effective management of critical
• Early engagement of certification Enabling environment
body for factory inspection • Collaborative working and
• Inventory management and control information sharing among project
• Using just-in-time delivery teams
arrangement • Collaborative procurement system,
• Effective use of document contracting strategy, and integrated
management system project delivery
• Using hedging strategies and • Effective coordination and integration
transport delay avoidance of stakeholders
• A structured risk management • Adequate funding and resources
Figure 2.4: Conceptual structure of the CSFs for MiC projects
The design team of a successful MiC project requires competencies in dimensional tolerance risk
management and the principles of design for manufacture, transportation, and assembly (Modular
72
Building Institute, 2017). Given the possibility of later reconsideration of an initially rejected MiC
project design, the design team also requires technical competencies and experience to generate
design solutions which do not preclude a later incorporation of MiC into a traditional project
(Blismas, 2007).
The module production engineers (i.e., fabricators) require competencies and capabilities in design
for manufacture and assembly, production engineering, value engineering, process efficiency, and
geometric tolerance management to adequate cope with the greater level of sophistication of the
module production system and potential associated disruptions (Fraser et al., 2015; Wuni and
Shen, 2020b). Choi et al. (2016) and Blismas (2007) underscored the importance of forming the
project management team and providing effective training to building the capacities required to
effectively manage the interfaces between the onsite and offsite work packages associated MiC
projects. Thus, the MiC project management and supervising team requires technical competencies
in DfMA, supply chain management, stakeholder management, multiple system coordination,
production engineering, value management, process efficiency, and workflow control (Fraser et
al., 2015). Also, the onsite management and installation team require competencies and
capabilities in handing materials, large building service modules, modules assembly, logistics,
schedule management, material and equipment planning and safe working with heavy modules.
Consequently, organizational competencies such as effective control of onsite and offsite work
packages, extensive upfront planning for the MiC method, effective leadership of a specialist
contractor, risk management, and resolution of dysfunctional conflicts are recognized as relevant
CSFs for MiC projects (Blismas, 2007; Choi et al., 2016; Wuni and Shen, 2020b).
73
2.7.2 Suitable project characteristics
The MiC method is not always the appropriate choice for various building and construction
projects (Development Bureau, 2020; Hwang et al., 2018b; Wuni and Shen, 2019). A competent
project team cannot successfully implement building and construction projects that are unsuitable
for the MiC projects. The literature has recognized suitable characteristics that make the MiC
method suitable in residential building projects, including suitable site and layout, suitable design,
adequate lead time for the bespoke processes of MiC, standardization of modules and economies
of scale, adequate funding and resources, and fabricator capacity and capabilities in modules
design and production (Abdul Nabi and El-Adaway, 2020; Hwang et al., 2018b; Wuni and Shen,
2019). According to the Hong Kong Housing Authority (2021), building and construction project
sites with sufficient transportation network, minimal local traffic, simple terrain, and availability
of storage area nearby are suitable for the MiC method in Hong Kong. Hence, suitable site
characteristics and layout constitute success factors for MiC projects (Blismas, 2007).
Additionally, the MiC method is also suitable for building types which are repetitive in nature such
as residential projects and hotels (Li, 2020). The repetitions offer opportunities for module
standardization, mass production, and economies of scale that generates significant cost savings.
Thus, a suitable design for MiC projects is one with repetition in design elements and facilitating
factory production and onsite assembly of modules based on the design (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021).
Another success factor is providing adequate lead time for detailed design, development of precise
working drawings, and factory production of modules within the program (Choi et al., 2016;
O’Connor et al., 2014). The sufficient lead time facilitates the incorporation of factory input into
design and enabling contractors, subcontractors, and manufacturers to provide design assistance
in MiC projects. Also, there is tight demand for cash flow during the MiC project delivery process.
74
Thus, successful MiC projects have adequate funding and resources for the required extensive
onsite and offsite work packages (Blismas, 2007). The literature revealed that proactively
identifying, resolving, and internalizing factory production and onsite installation constraints in
the detailed design evades several expensive downstream challenges and reworks (Wuni, Wu, et
al., 2021). Fabricators have also been overwhelmed by the demand for modules onsite to meet the
speed and tighter schedules of MiC projects (Blismas, 2007). Thus, a successful MiC project
engages a fabricator or supplier with adequate capacity and capabilities in modules design and
production.
2.7.3 Early commitment
The MiC method reinvents how building and construction projects are planned, designed,
managed, and constructed (Wuni and Shen, 2020a). Thus, it is required to integrate the MiC
method from the earlier outset of the project conceptualization through to design, offsite
manufacture, and onsite installation. Though progress in adaptable design solutions in offsite
architecture facilitates the adaptation of site-built designs to modular design solutions where
required (Modular Building Institute, 2017), there is consensus in the literature that early
commitment to the MiC in a project constitutes the best strategy to achieve the comprehensive
benefits of the technology (Blismas, 2007; Wuni and Shen, 2020b). (Blismas et al., 2005)
emphasized the importance of client receptivity, seeking early professional advice on the
suitability of the MiC method and early commitment to the technology in a project. The literature
has recognized relevant strategies and conditions for the early commitment, including early
understanding and commitment of the client, extensive upfront planning for MiC, early and active
involvement of critical project stakeholders, and early design completion and freezing (Blismas
and Wakefield, 2009; Li, Li, et al., 2018; O’Connor et al., 2014).
75
A crucial CSFs is early understanding and commitment of the client. It is essential for the client
or owner to understand the bespoke requirements of the MiC method in a project, including the
speedy construction process, tight demand for cashflow, need for collaboration, and the restrictive
nature of transport regulations on the design of the MiC modules (Li, 2020). When the clients and
owners understand the profound benefits of the MiC method, they are better motivated and
prepared to commit to the technology at the outset of the project and arrange the required resources,
funding, and collaboration between relevant project participants to achieve planned objectives
(Blismas and Wakefield, 2009). The early commitment must be followed by extensive upfront
planning to integrate the MiC method in the project (Li, Li, et al., 2018). Though an excellent
front-end planning is rare in traditional construction projects, an extensive front-end planning
enables the MiC project team to establish a strong, early link between the needs of the client or
business, project strategy, scope, cost, and schedule and sustaining that link unbroken throughout
the project delivery chain. It usually generates the necessary information fed into the design
(Sutrisna and Goulding, 2019) and guides the definition of critical tolerances between modules,
specification of suitable structural system and construction material (Blismas, 2007), selection of
suitable procurement system and contracting strategy, alignment of MiC project drivers,
constitution of the project team, and precise definition of MiC project engineering scope and
limitations (O’Connor et al., 2014).
It is also crucial for early and active involvement of critical project stakeholders. For instance,
manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, and clients need to work with the design team to improve
the buildability and constructability of the detailed design and working drawing (Fraser et al.,
2015). Usually, the production engineers, suppliers, and assembly subcontractors better understand
the factory production challenges and onsite assembly constraints. Thus, incorporating their inputs
76
into the design can significantly improve the quality of the design information and detailed
working drawings before the production team manufacture the modules (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021).
Also, early design completion and freezing is arguably one of the most important CSFs for MiC
projects. The MiC modules are usually made-to-order. Hence, early design freeze facilitates a
timely production of the modules in adhering to the tighter schedules and achieving the chief
benefit of shortened construction time (Gibb and Isack, 2003).
2.7.4 Enabling environment
According to Khang and Moe (2008), a project environment describes its connection to external
conditions and project business partners, including client, contractor, manufacturers, suppliers, and
regulatory bodies. An enabling environment offers suitable support from key stakeholders,
motivation to project team members, adequate resources, and creates favourable conditions from
management and compatible rules and regulations. In MiC projects, an enabling environment
facilitates collaboration, communication, and information sharing to achieve project objectives.
Collaborative working and information sharing enables various project team members situated at
different supply chain stages to be abreast of key decisions, activities, and workflows throughout
the delivery of MiC projects. It prevents dysfunctional conflicts, facilitates a more streamlined
project delivery process, and encourages proactive problem-solving through knowledge sharing
between downstream and upstream project participants.
Motivating the project team to be enthusiastic to perform and dedicate to the core goals of the
project are preconditions for success in MiC projects (Luo, Jin, et al., 2020; Wuni and Shen,
2020b). Such motivation commences with a clear understanding of the goals, objectives, and
mission of the MiC project along with the commitment of team to the success of the project.
Blismas (2007) emphasized the importance of clear terms of references for the project and
77
assignment of responsibilities to encourage commitment and dedication of the project team
members. An enabling environment usually integrates an effective monitoring and control system
to reinforce the motivation of the project team. Given the multiplicity and diversity of stakeholders
in MiC project where the relationship between the project team and other stakeholders can be
complex, communication, trust, and compatibility of the interests of the individuals with those of
the project must be established in the enabling environment. Thus, it is crucial to coordinate,
integrate, and reconcile the varied interests and value systems of the disparate stakeholders with
those of project goals and mission to avoid dysfunctional conflicts (Blismas, 2007).
The literature have identified CSFs linked to the enabling environment, including collaborative
working and information sharing among project teams, collaborative procurement system,
contracting strategy and integrated project delivery, and adequate funding and resources (Blismas,
2007; Choi et al., 2016; Wuni and Shen, 2020b). Good working relationship and information
sharing between project teams create trust and can improve commitment to the project objectives
(Li, Li, et al., 2018). The literature has identified collaborative procurement system, contracting
strategy, and integrated project delivery as strategies for promoting collaboration and information
sharing among members of the MiC project team (Blismas, 2007). For instance, the design-build
delivery method that assigns the design, manufacture, transportation, and assembly of module
responsibilities to a single contractor or builder encourage repetitive project teams, collaboration
and information sharing between project teams, and multiple system coordination meetings to
revie plans and drawings at multiple stages in the MiC project delivery process. Irrespective of the
team structure or contracting strategy, the design-build team understands that the installing
construction manager controls, facilitates, and coordinates work packages throughout the delivery
chain of MiC projects. Such understanding promotes team working and commitment to the goals
78
of the project. It is also essential to provide adequate funding and resources to pay the wages and
salaries of project team members as a form of motivation to dedicate and commit to the project.
2.7.5 Supply chain management
Multiple workflows, activities, and work packages are executed from the design to factory
production, and onsite assembly of modules. As the various stages are interdependent, disruptions
in upstream chains can be propagated throughout the supply chain to interrupt the continuity of
downstream activities and negatively affect the fundamental of the projects. The literature have
recognized the need to extensively coordinate and manage supply chain of MiC project the project
delivery to maintain a smooth flow of activities, resources, and services, from the procurement of
raw materials to the onsite assembly of modules and handing over of project to client (Hwang et
al., 2018a). Effective supply chain management (SCM) starts at the planning and design stages of
MiC. Extensive upfront planning for the MiC method is crucial in identifying the relevant raw
materials to be procured, construction materials and structural systems to be selected, and activities
required at various stages of the MiC supply chain (Choi et al., 2016; O’Connor et al., 2014). A
specialist contractor and MiC project planner can facilitate effective supply chain planning.
Another relevant strategy is designing the project for SCM (Lee and Sasser, 1995). Designers have
a significant role in optimizing the fit between supply chain capabilities and MiC project design.
Explicit consideration of supply chain constraints, logistics costs, transport infrastructure
limitations, and inventory requirements in the MiC project design can enable the project team to
effectively use the relevant supply chain capabilities to ensure seamless coordination and
integration of the various chains. Also, effective coordination of onsite and offsite work packages
are necessary conditions for effective SCM in MiC projects (Luo, Jin, et al., 2020; Wuni and Shen,
2020b). An essential component of coordination includes early engagement of certification body
79
for inspection of (overseas) factory works to ensure a strict adherence local building regulations,
quality controls, and quality assurance (Blismas, 2007; Building and Construction Authority,
2017). Effective inventory management and document management system are useful in tracking
resources and workflows to avoid misplacement and chaos throughout the delivery process. The
literature also demonstrated that just-in-time delivery arrangement can save storage costs and
support timely completion of the MiC project (Blismas, 2007). Where storage space is available,
hedging strategies and maintaining safety stocks can protect the continuity of the project during
disruptions of the factory production system (Zhai et al., 2018). Considering that various stages of
the delivery chain are sources of disruptions, uncertainties, and failure, a structured risk
management is considered a CSF in MiC projects (Choi et al., 2016). The literature has also
recognized the role of effective use of building information modeling for improving visibility,
traceability, monitoring, and proactive risk management throughout the supply chain of MiC
projects (Li, Zhong, et al., 2017).
The foregoing review demonstrated that there is considerable documentation of success factors for
various modern construction methods in developing and developed countries from 2001 to 2020.
However, none of the studies established CSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong, where
the MiC method is actively promoted. Such bespoke evaluation is extremely important because
the CSFs are sensitive project types and contexts. Thus, the result obtained for industrial modular
construction projects or even MiC projects in Canada may not always be applicable to residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. To this end, existing knowledge is inadequate to guide project teams
to successfully implement residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Thus, it is imperative to identify
80
and assess the CSFs that have significant influence of outcomes of residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong.
2.8 Key Performance Indicators for MiC Projects
It is crucial to measure the performance of MiC projects to facilitate better management,
experiential learning, diagnostics, benchmarking, and continuous improvement (Neely et al.,
1995). MiC projects with measured outcomes are better managed than those without performance
measurement (Beatham et al., 2004). MiC project performance measurement involves quantifying
the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in high-rise residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong (Neely et al., 1995). It aims at quantifying the extent to which the MiC method meet delivers
projects that satisfies the requirements of clients with greater efficiency and effectiveness than the
site-based methods. Typically, the metrics used to quantify its effectiveness and efficiency are
considered performance measures or key performance indicators (KPIs). Thus, a performance
measurement system embodies a set of KPIS for quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of
the MiC method in a project.
Unlike MiC projects, the KPIs for site-built construction projects are profusely documented in the
literature. However, due to the significant differences between the two construction methods, the
performance measures for MiC projects vary significantly from site-built projects. Therefore, this
study conducted a systematic literature review to extract KPIs relevant to residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong. Using the keywords in Table 3.1, the study retrieved fifteen documents from
Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in August 2021. The study also retrieved three
relevant industry reports that established KPIs for various modern construction methods (Horner
et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2020; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). A thorough screening revealed
81
ten documents addressing KPIs for residential MiC projects. Table 2.5 summarizes the relevant
KPIs for MiC projects extracted from the literature.
Table 2.4: Relevant key performance indicators and metrics for MiC projects
ID KPI Selected Metrics
1 Cost Cost performance index
Unit cost (HK$/m2)
Cost ratio (%)
Cost variance (%)
Cost certainty (%)
Profitability (%)
2 Time Time (schedule) performance index
Total construction/programme time (m2/week or month)
Time variance (%)
Floor cycle (day)
Construction speed (m2/day)
Time ratio
Programme certainty (%)
3 Premanufactured value Cost-based MiC PMV
Material-based MiC PMV
4 Quality Defect frequency (No./m2)
Cost of rework (% or HK$/m2)
Rework cost ratio
Project quality quotient
Air permeability (m3/h/m2 at 50 Pa)
5 Productivity Labour productivity (m2/man-hour)
Material productivity (m2/HK$)
Machinery productivity (m2/HK$)
Multi-factor productivity (m2/HK$)
Onsite productivity (HK$/person-hour)
6 Health and safety Accident frequency (rate),
Accident type
Accident severity
Precautions
7 Predictability Time predictability – change in completion date
Time predictability – average percentage overrun
Cost predictability – average percentage overrun
Safety, productivity, quality, and material waste predictability
8 Flexibility Modularity or Mix flexibility
Changeover flexibility
Modification flexibility
Rerouting flexibility
Volume flexibility
Material flexibility
Functional flexibility
Adaptability
Deconstructability
Circularity
9 Material waste Waste disposed (kg/m2)
82
Waste reused and recycled (kg/m2)
10 Resource consumption Electricity (HK$/m2)
Water use (HK$/m2)
11 Environmental footprint Waste generated (Tonnes/100m2 or m3/HK$100k construction value)
Embodied carbon (Tonnes CO2e/100m2)
Construction energy use (kWh/100m2 or HK$100k construction value)
Construction water use (m3/100m2 or HK$100k construction value)
Water pollution (HK$/m2)
Noise pollution (dB)
Air pollution
12 Local disruption Noise (dB or %hours)
Vehicle movements (Number of HGV movements per HK$100k
construction value or per m2)
Air quality (µg/m3)
Loss of revenue
Loss of amenity
13 Community impact Vehicle movements (No./m2)
Community’s satisfaction
Regional economic uplift
Investment in local community
14 Industry impact Project team and stakeholders’ satisfaction
Innovation and technology
Repeatability and standardization
Scalability to portfolio of projects
Supply chain partnerships and procurement
Workforce skills and training
2.8.1 Cost performance
Cost performance describes the extent to which general conditions promote the completion of a
project within the estimated budget (Chan and Chan, 2004). Cost describes expenditures and
expenses associated with the development, management, operation, and demolition of building
and construction projects. Thus, there are several forms of MiC costs such as initial capital costs,
construction costs and lifecycle costs (Horner et al., 2019; Project Management Institute, 2017).
Although lifecycle costs represent the most robust dimension to compare the costs of two
construction methods, the limited economic lives of completed of MiC projects does not provide
reliable data of the associated lifecycle costs for meaningful comparison. While the importance of
lifecycle costs has been recognized, cost in this study represents construction cost of a residential
83
MiC project since a major aim of cost performance measurement is to compare the construction
costs of site built residential projects and residential MiC projects.
According to the Project Management Institute (2017), construction costs represents an aggregate
of all the costs required to complete project work and contingency amounts to account for
identified risks, and management reserve to cover unplanned work. Following the
recommendations of (Horner et al., 2019), costs in the performance measurement system refers to
the construction cost of building works costs and excludes the costs of foundations, which is
considered to be the same for site-built approach and the MiC method. However, the costs includes
the costs of prelims which may vary between site-built approach and the MiC method. The costs
of solutions using the MiC method also includes the costs of investment in the necessary facilities,
design of bespoke solutions, manufacturing, logistics, and assembly.
There are several metrics for measuring cost performance of MiC projects. These metrics include
construction cost (HK$/m2), cost performance index, unit cost (HK$/m2), cost ratio (%), cost
variance (%), average construction cost/m2 (Gross internal floor area, GIFA), construction
cost/bedroom, average construction cost/plot, construction cost/item or element, change in cost of
construction, cost of rectifying defects, main contractor prelims (%), prelim cost/capital cost, cost
growth (%), phase cost ratio, risk (contingencies) (%), financing cost (%), cost certainty (%),
design cost (HK$/m2), design change cost (HK$/m2), tendering cost (HK$), construction process
costs, litigation costs, procurement costs, and lifecycle cost (HK$/m2/annum) (Horner et al., 2019;
Project Management Institute, 2017).
The principal objective of the performance measurement in this study is to promote continuous
improvement (Beatham et al., 2004; Neely et al., 1995). Thus, five metrics were considered
adequate: cost performance index, unit cost, cost ratio, cost variance, cost certainty and
84
profitability. Based on precedents (Horner et al., 2019; Leon et al., 2018; Project Management
Institute, 2017), the measurement methods for these metrics are as follows.
Earned Value (EV)

Cost performance index (CPI) = (Eqn. 2.1)
Actual Cost (AC)
Cost of work (Final contract sum)

Unit cost (UC) = (Eqn. 2.2)
Total CFA or MFA
Cost of work
Cost ratio (CR) = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.3)
Total Cost of Construction Work
Actual cost of work−Planned cost of work

Cost variance (CV) = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.4)
Planned cost of work
Actual cost of work−Planned cost of work at contract award

Cost certainty (CC) = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.5)
Planned cost of work
Revenue − Overhead−Materials −Payroll− Other Expenses

Profitability = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.6)
Revenue
where CFA denotes construction floor area; MFA represents modularised floor area for measuring
the performance of module-related works; Earned Value (EV) denotes the budgeted cost for work
performed; and Actual Cost (AC) represents the actual cost for work performed on an activity
during a specific period (Project Management Institute, 2017). The CPI is a measure of the cost
efficiency of budgeted resources (Leon et al., 2018; Project Management Institute, 2017). The CPI
is considered the most critical EV analysis metric and measures the cost efficiency for the work
completed. A CPI value less than 1.0 indicates a cost overrun for work completed whereas a CPI
value greater than 1.0 indicates a cost underrun of the estimates to date.
2.8.2 Time (schedule) performance
Construction of MiC projects are usually scheduled to enable the building to be occupied in a
certain date determined based on the plans of the client (Chan and Chan, 2004). Thus, the time
required to complete MiC projects is concern for project teams and stakeholders. Construction
85
time describes the duration taken to complete the MiC project. It constitutes a measure of
effectiveness in the performance of MiC projects. According to Neely et al. (1995), effectiveness
describes how well the MiC project was implemented or the extent to which targets of time and
cost were met from the start-up phase to full production. There are several metrics for measuring
the time performance of MiC projects. These include overall construction time or total programme
(m2/week) , time (schedule) performance index, construction (or delivery) speed, time ratio, time
variance, floor cycle, time/output of physical units, time per plot, time/m2, change in construction
time, project schedule variation (%), schedule growth (%), and project schedule factor, time on
site (m2/week), programme certainty (%), pre-construction time (m2/week), design time
(m2/week), and weather-related delays (%) (Horner et al., 2019; Project Management Institute,
2017; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
As the principal objective of the performance measurement in this study is to promote continuous
improvement (Beatham et al., 2004; Neely et al., 1995), seven metrics were considered adequate:
overall construction time/total programme, time (schedule) performance index, construction (or
delivery) speed, time ratio, time variance, floor cycle, and programme certainty (Horner et al.,
2019; Project Management Institute, 2017; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Based on precedents
(Horner et al., 2019; Leon et al., 2018; Project Management Institute, 2017), the measurement
methods for these metrics are as follows.
Earned Value (EV)

Time performance index (TPI) = (Eqn. 2.7)
Planned Value (PV)
Gross Floor Area (m2 )

Construction (Delivery) Speed = (Eqn. 2.8)
Construction Time (days/weeks)
Actual Construction time −Planned Construction Time

Time Variance = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.9)
Planned Construction Time
Actual time spent on site −Predicted time on site

Programme Certainty = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.10)
Predicted time on site
86
Total Assembly Time
Floor Cycle = (Eqn. 2.11)
Total Number of Floors
Time for work

Time Ratio = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.12)
Total Construction Time
where EV denotes the actual construction time (i.e., a measure of work performed expressed in
terms of the time scheduled for that scope of work) and PV represents the planned construction
time (i.e., a measure of authorized duration assigned to scheduled work). The TPI is a measure of
time (schedule) efficiency used to assess how well the project adheres to the planned schedule over
a certain period (Leon et al., 2018; Project Management Institute, 2017). It measures how
efficiently the project team is accomplishing the work. It is sometimes used in conjunction with
the CPI to forecast the final project completion estimates. An TPI value less than 1.0 indicates less
work was completed than planned. An TPI greater than 1.0 indicates that more work was
completed than was planned. also needs to be analysed to determine whether the project will finish
ahead of or behind its planned finished date.
2.8.3 Pre-manufactured value
The MiC method is not a mutually exclusive technique to the site-built approach to building
construction. Varying levels and degrees of MiC are integrated with onsite traditional work
packages in the construction building projects (Bertram et al., 2019). The extent of MiC
implemented in a project influences the quantum of benefits associated with the approach (van
Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). The pre-manufactured value (PMV) measures the extent to the MiC
method (offsite production) implemented in a project. Similar to the industrialized building system
(IBS) score in Malaysia (Construction Industry Development Board, 2018), the PMV is a key
project descriptor and a tool for measuring and quantifying the extent of MiC implemented in a
87
project (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). The PMV provides a framework for ascertaining the
value-added benefits of using MiC in a project and allows for identification of the key aspects of
a project where it delivers the best value. The methods for assessing PMV varies across different
countries. In Malaysia, the PMV is a percentage indicator of the extent of IBS in a project based
on three parts – structural systems (e.g. precast concrete beams and columns), wall systems (e.g.
precast concrete panel), and other simplified construction solutions (e.g. prefabricated toilets)
(Construction Industry Development Board, 2018). Similarly, in China, the PMV is computed as
a percentage by volume of precast components in a project (Mao et al., 2016). In the UK, the two
methods for computing the PMV include: (i) gross capital cost of the project less site overhead
costs and site labour costs divided by the gross capital costs, expressed as a percentage; and (ii)
material plus offsite labour divided by materials plus offsite and onsite labour, expressed as a
percentage (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Effectively, the PMV is dominantly computed
based on cost or quantity of materials manufactured offsite. However, the accuracy of these
quantitative assessments depends on the availability, granularity, and reliability of the data
required to compute the PMV. In the absence of quantitative data, the PMV can be qualitatively
assessed using grades such as ‘high’, ‘moderate’, or ‘low’ depending on the type and level of MiC
applied. Thus, the PMV can always be assessed prior to quantifying the benefits of MiC in a
project. Based on van Vuuren and Middleton (2020), the PMV of MiC projects can be measured
as follows.
Gross Capital Cost−(Prelims or Site Overhead Costs+Site Labour Costs)

PMV = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.13)
Gross Capital Cost
Materials + Offsite Labour

PMV = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.14)
Materials+Offsite Labour+Onsite Labour
88
2.8.4 Quality performance
There is no universal definition of construction quality since different stakeholders have unique
standards and criteria for measuring it. According to Neely et al. (1995), construction quality refers
to the degree to which the design, construction, and completed MiC project conforms to technical
and functional specifications of the client. Construction quality has also been defined as the as the
totality of features required by the MiC project to satisfy client needs and fitness for purpose (Chan
and Chan, 2004). van Vuuren and Middleton (2020) considered construction quality as a condition
where the design and construction of the MiC project generates fewer errors, reworks, and defects;
conforms to technical and functional specifications; and meets long-term expectations such as such
as durability, maintenance requirements and client satisfaction. This study defines quality as the
degree to which the MiC project conforms to building regulations, functional and technical
specifications, and meets client and/or occupant requirements. There are several metrics for
measuring the quality performance of MiC projects. These include defects, defect frequency,
defect type, defect severity, cost of rework (%), reliability, field rework index, yield, quality rating,
rework cost ratio, number of reportable items, number and type of items that did not pass visual
inspection, emergent defects (number per HK$100k construction cost), energy efficiency
(kWh/m2/annum), air permeability (m3/h/m2 at 50 Pa), user satisfaction, and maintenance
requirements (Horner et al., 2019; Project Management Institute, 2017; van Vuuren and
Middleton, 2020).
Two relevant quality measures rarely considered in construction performance measurement are the
true cost of quality (Neely et al., 1995) and project quality quotient (Mossman and Ramalingam,
2021). True cost of quality is a linear function of prevention costs, appraisal costs, and failure costs
(Neely et al., 1995). Prevention costs includes costs expended to prevent discrepancies, such as
89
the costs of quality planning, supplier quality surveys, and training programmes. Appraisal costs
are those costs incurred in the assessment of the quality of design and construction, and in the
detection of discrepancies, such as the costs of inspection, test, and calibration control. Failure
costs include costs incurred due to actual discrepancies and comprises internal and external failure
costs. Internal failure costs are costs resulting from discrepancies identified before the delivery of
the project to the client, such as the costs of rework, scrap, and material review. External failure
costs encompasses costs emanating from discrepancies found after delivery of the project to the
client, such as the costs associated with the processing of client complaints, client returns, field
services, and warranties.
Due to data availability and accessibility constraints, four metrics were considered adequate: defect
frequency, cost of rework, rework cost ratio, and project quality quotient (PQQ). The measurement
methods for these four metrics are as follows.
Total Number of Defects during work

Defect freequency (No./m2 ) = (Eqn. 2.15)
Total CFA or MFA
Cost of defective work

Cost of Rework = (Eqn. 2.16)
Total CFA or MFA
Costs due to error

Rework cost ratio = (Eqn. 2.17)
Total construction cost
Total No.of Tasks 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐭 requiring rework

PPQ = ∗ 100% (Eqn. 2.18)
Total No.of Tasks declared complete
Where cost of defective work denotes the costs of modification and rectification works undertaken
up to practical completion. PPQ denotes project quality quotient, describing the number of rework
items identified after production crews have declared complete, expressed as a percentage of the
total number of tasks undertaken by that production crew (Mossman and Ramalingam, 2021).
90
2.8.5 Productivity performance
Productivity is a measure of how well resources are combined and used to achieve specific,
desirable results (Neely et al., 1995). It is commonly defined as the ratio of output to input (Horner
et al., 2019). The complexity of measuring construction productivity is linked to the prevalence of
multiple ways of measuring the inputs and outputs. For instance, the inputs can be measured in
terms of labour (cost or hours), plant (cost or hours), and material (cost or quantity), and investment
cost, whereas the output can be measured in terms of m2 of formwork or value of work produced
(Horner et al., 2019). The output can be measured using more than one input, in the case of multi-
factor productivity. However, a major objective of the MiC method in Hong Kong is to improve
labour productivity (Construction Industry Council, 2019b), which is a single-factor productivity.
A combination of the inputs and outputs can generate several productivity metrics, such as labour
productivity, material productivity, machinery productivity, multi-factor productivity, gross value
added per number of jobs (or total hours worked or labour cost), value of work completed per total
hours worked (or labour cost), labour hours per plot, output of physical units per total hours paid
(or available hours worked or productive hours worked), delays, earned value per actual cost,
earned hours per actual hours, onsite labour required (person-hours/m2), offsite labour required
(person-hours/m2), trades and interfaces on site (people/m2 or HK$100k, and onsite construction
productivity (HK$/person-hour).
However, five of the metrics were considered relevant in the context of residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong. These include onsite construction productivity (HK$/person-hour), labour
productivity, material productivity, machinery productivity, and multi-factor productivity. The
measurement methods for these metrics are as follows (Horner et al., 2019; van Vuuren and
Middleton, 2020):
91
Total CFA or MFA
Labour productivity (m2 /man − hour) = (Eqn. 2.19)
Man−hour input for work
Total CFA or MFA

Material productivity (m2 /HK$) = (Eqn. 2.20)
Total material cost input for work
Total CFA or MFA

Machinery productivity (m2 /HK$) = (Eqn. 2.21)
Total machinery cost input for work
Total CFA or MFA

Multifactor productivity (m2 /HK$) = (Eqn. 2.22)
Total cost of construction work
Construction cost (HK$)

Onsite productivity (HK$/person − hour) = (Eqn. 2.23)
onsite labour input (person−hours)
2.8.6 Health and safety performance
Construction is considered one of the most dangerous occupational trades. Thus, the construction
industry is infamous for the higher rates of accidents, incidents, injuries, and fatalities (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2017). Consequently, health and safety of construction workers has become a
major concern for stakeholders. Safety is considered a critical performance measure for MiC
projects (Kamali and Hewage, 2017; Wuni, Shen, et al., 2021). Health and safety performance
measure the extent to which the general conditions promote the completion of MiC projects
without major accidents or injuries (Chan and Chan, 2004). Unlike site-built projects, where safety
performance measurement focuses on the construction period (i.e., onsite), as most accidents occur
during this stage, MiC projects introduce the offsite component (i.e., factory stage) of safety
performance.
Safety performance measures of MiC projects include both leading and lagging metrics such as
accident frequency, accident type, accident severity, precautions, number of safety observations
(over a given period), percentage of negative randomly performed drug and alcohol tests, number
of times work has been stopped due to safety breaches, percentage of audited items in compliance,
percentage of tasks which are planned in advanced, percentage of orientation events attended by
92
the owner’s project manager, incidence rates, frequency rates, severity rates, accident frequency
(AFR) rate (number of accidents per 100000 person-hours), and operative health and wellbeing
(Horner et al., 2019; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). This study considered four metrics
relevant to MiC projects in Hong Kong: accident frequency (rate), accident type (identification of
each accident, if any), accident severity (five-point scale for each accident), and precautions
(description of precautions, if any). Based on, accident rates in MiC projects can be measured as
follows (Chan and Chan, 2004).
Total no.of reportable accidents

Accident rate = (Eqn. 2.24)
Total no.of workers employed (Employment size), or man−hours worked
2.8.7 Predictability
Project teams and stakeholders usually fail to achieve planned objectives and suffer losses of
various forms when project outcomes (e.g., time, cost) deviate significantly from expectations
(Chan and Chan, 2004). Thus, predictability of project outcomes constitute a crucial performance
measure in MiC projects. Predictability describes the degree to which outcomes are consistent with
the baselines of the MiC project objectives (Horner et al., 2019). Predictability measures of MiC
projects include time predictability (change in completion date or average percentage overrun),
cost predictability (average percentage overrun), safety predictability, productivity predictability,
quality predictability, and material waste predictability. Time and cost predictability are
particularly, important in this study. Time predictability is expressed as a measure of how closely
the project was delivered to the original schedule, and cost predictability is expressed as a measure
of how well outturn costs compared with original budget. Cost and time predictability can be
93
measured at any stage in the project realisation from design through whole life, and at any level,
from component or element to whole project level (Horner et al., 2019).
2.8.8 Flexibility
Flexibility measures the extent to which the MiC method and MiC projects can cope with changes
required during the construction process and functional operations, respectively (Neely et al.,
1995). According to Goyal and Netessine (2011), flexibility of a construction method describes
the degree to which it can deliver projects and respond to demand for projects. Flexibility
constitutes a measure of the efficiency with which processes and products of a construction method
can be changed (Neely et al., 1995). Thus, it has copious dimensions. Given the changing
requirements and needs of clients during the design, construction, and operations of construction
projects, flexibility of a construction method and its products are a concern for project teams and
stakeholders (Baldwin and Clark, 2006; Neely et al., 1995). Relevant metrics for measuring the
flexibility of a construction method include modularity or mix flexibility, product flexibility,
changeover flexibility, modification flexibility, rerouting flexibility, volume flexibility, material
flexibility, adaptability, or functional flexibility, deconstructability, and circularity (Baldwin and
Clark, 2000; Goyal and Netessine, 2011; Neely et al., 1995).
Modularity or mix flexibility measures the extent to which a construction method allows the
mixing and matching of various building components to generate diverse completed projects that
meets the requirements of various client needs (Baldwin and Clark, 2000). Modularity is usually
linked to design flexibility. A flexible design reduces redesign costs and allows a quicker response
to client needs with increased performance. Also, mix flexibility can be considered as the ability
of a construction method to handle a range of products or variants with fast setups (Neely et al.,
1995).
94
Modification flexibility measures the number of design changes that can be made in a building
component per time period. Volume flexibility indicates the capacity and capability of the MiC
method to vary production outputs for a given product mix, within a given time period without any
unacceptable effect of project requirements (Oke, 2003). Product flexibility measures the degree
of responsiveness or adaptability of the MiC method for any future change in the design, including
reconfiguration and new functional uses derived from the completed project (Goyal and Netessine,
2011). The project flexibility can be defined as the ability of the MiC method to cope with the
growing project variety to ensure better construction performance (ibid). Deconstructability
measures the degree to which a construction method can support the whole or partial disassembly
of buildings to facilitate component reuse and material recycling after the design economic life of
a building. Similarly, circularity describes the extent to which the MiC method can support reuse
potential and end-of-life recyclability of building components.
2.8.9 Material waste
According to Horner et al. (2019), whatever does not add value to the client or stakeholders is
considered waste. Waste encompasses material waste and redundancies. Material waste describes
materials delivered to a site or factory but not used for the purchased purpose and consequently
discarded or intended (or required) to be discarded. This conceptualization of material waste is
appropriate since materials can be reused on site or factory for purposes other than the ones for
which it was originally purchased, potentially generating inefficiencies in the supply or
construction process, or project quality issues, or a combination of both.
There are several metrics for measuring material waste footprint in MiC projects, including waste
disposed (kg/m2), waste reused and recycled (kg/m2), volume of waste/100m2, weight of
waste/100m2, volume of waste/HK$100k, weight of waste/ HK$100k, percentage of segregated
95
material waste, amount of material waste to landfill, amount of material diverted from landfill,
percentage waste, net waste, and tonnes/HK$m revenue (Horner et al., 2019; van Vuuren and
Middleton, 2020). However, two metrics were considered appropriate for measuring material
waste footprint of MiC projects in Hong Kong: waste disposed (kg/m2), and waste reused and
recycled (kg/m2). The measurement methods for these metrics are as follows.
Total quantities of waste disposed

Waste disposed (kg/m2 ) = (Eqn. 2.25)
Total CFA or MFA
Total quantities of waste reused and recycled

Waste reused and recycled (kg/m2 ) = (Eqn. 2.26)
Total CFA or MFA
2.8.10 Resource consumption
The construction sector contributes significantly to the widening global circularity gap due to the
dominance of take-make-dispose linear tradition of resources production and consumption in
construction activities (Circle Economy, 2021). Construction activities deplete a tremendous
amount of resources, with cascading implications on greenhouse gases and climate change. Thus,
resource consumption is recognized as a paramount performance measure in MiC projects (Pan et
al., 2020). The two major metrics for measuring resource consumption include electricity
consumption (HK$/m2) and water use (HK$/m2). The measurement methods for these metrics are
as follows.
Cost of electricity use

Electricity usage (HK$/m2 ) = (Eqn. 2.27)
Total CFA or MFA
Cost of water use

Water usage (HK$/m2 ) = (Eqn. 2.28)
Total CFA or MFA
96
2.8.11 Environmental performance
Construction processes and products consume significant amount of energy, emit tremendous
greenhouse gases, and generate excessive pollutions (Cao et al., 2015; Monahan and Powell,
2011). Hence, construction projects generate significant environmental impact and footprint. The
existential threats of climate change and pressure to adopt sustainable construction practices have
rendered environmental impact a critical performance measure for MiC projects. It has been
demonstrated that the MiC method can reduce the negative environmental impact of construction
projects (Mao et al., 2013; Quale et al., 2012). Thus, it has become imperative to measure the
environmental performance of MiC projects using metrics such waste generated (tonnes/100m2 or
m3/HK$100k construction value), embodied carbon (tonnes CO2e/100m2), construction energy use
(kWh/100m2 or HK$100k construction value), construction water use (m3/100m2 or HK$100k
construction value), water pollution (HK$/m2), noise pollution (dB), air pollution, and
environmental performance index (Pan et al., 2020; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). The waste
generated includes all waste generated from the construction activities, including temporary
structures but excludes demolition and excavation waste. The embodied carbon can be quantified
using the methodology for calculating global warming potential as per the standards on
“sustainability of construction work” to conduct lifecycle assessment. The construction energy use
encompasses energy consumed during the construction process, including electricity, fuel, and gas.
The construction water use represents the mains water used during the construction process. The
noise pollution can be measured using average monitoring data of noise performance (dB). The
air pollution can also be measured using average monitoring data of air performance (Air Quality
Indicator). The measurement method for water pollution is as follows.

Water treatment cost
Water pollution (HK$/m2 ) = (Eqn. 2.29)
Total CFA or MFA
97
The measurement method for environmental performance index of residential MiC projects is as
follows. Extending precedents (Leon et al., 2018), the environmental performance index (EPI) for
residential MiC projects can be computed based on eight indicators: (i) operational CO2 emissions,
(ii) embodied CO2 emissions, (iii) water footprint, (iv) material waste footprint, (v) air pollution,
(vi) noise pollution, (vii) biodiversity, and (viii) transport. The EPI is computed as a sum of the
earned rating for each environmental indicator based on measurement and the assigned priority
(Leon et al., 2018). Thus, the EPI can be computed as follows.
𝐸𝑃𝐼 = ∑8𝑗=1 (𝑊𝑗 ∗ 𝑁𝑗 ) (Eqn. 2.29)
Σ (Wj) = Wo + We + Ww + Wm + Wa + Wn + Wb + Wt = 1.0 (Eqn. 2.30)
Where, Wj = relative weight for the environmental performance indicator j; Wo = weight of the
operational CO2 emission indicator; We = weight of the embodied CO2 emission indicator; Ww =
weight of the water footprint indicator; Wm = weight of material waste footprint indicator; Wa =
weight of the air pollution indicator; Wn = weight of the noise pollution indicator; Wb = weight of
the biodiversity indicator; Wt = weight of the transport indicator; and Nj = normalized measure of
the environmental performance indicator j.
Considering that the eight indicators have varied statistical units, ranges or scales, the
normalization enables the indicators to be transformed into comparable for Eqns. 10.8 – 9. The
normalized value of each indicator is derived from a ratio of the measured value of the indicator
to its design estimate or target (Leon et al., 2018).
2.8.12 Local disruption
Construction processes also have externalities such as disrupting activities, people, and ecosystems
in the construction site and surrounding neighbourhoods (Cao et al., 2015). Local disruptions
describes the major disturbances, changes, and interruptions of activities and processes due to the
98
MiC project. It has sustainability implications because disruptions can negatively affect the
activities of people, quality of biodiversity and ecosystem, and the continuity of businesses situated
near the construction site and surrounding neighbourhoods (Wuni, Shen, et al., 2021). Thus,
project teams and stakeholders are also concerned about the local disruptions associated with MiC
projects.
The five major metrics for measuring local disruptions emanating from MiC projects include noise
(dB or %hours), vehicle movements (Number of HGV movements per HK$100k construction
value or per m2), air quality (µg/m3), loss of revenue, and loss of amenity (van Vuuren and
Middleton, 2020). The noise generated from the MiC project can be measured as an equivalent
continuous sound over a set length of time (LAeq, T) or maximum sound level (LAmax) for isolated
events. Alternatively, it can be measured as the number of hours of overtime and weekend work,
as a percentage of the time on site. The vehicle movements metric measures the number of
commercial vehicle movements on site, including delivery of materials to the site. The air quality
can also be defined as the concentration of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and nitrogen
dioxide around the construction site measured over the average time frame. Revenue loss measures
the value of loss of revenue for local businesses/property owners resulting from the MiC project
construction site activities. Amenity loss indicates the value of loss of access to local amenity
resulting from the MiC project construction site activities.
2.8.13 Local community impact
The processes, activities, and products of construction methods generate both negative and positive
externalities to the local community of the construction site. Thus, aside the local disruptions (i.e.,
negative externalities), construction methods can generate benefits to local communities. In the
context of sustainability, the positive impact of construction methods on local communities have
99
become a performance measure (Cao et al., 2015). There are several metrics for measuring the
benefits of construction methods to local communities, including vehicle movements (No./m2),
community’s satisfaction, regional economic uplift, and investment in local community (van
Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
2.8.14 Industry impact
Construction methods also have significant impact on the performance of the construction
industry. The processes and products of the site-built methods have been considered the
fundamental sources of the ills, poor performances, and long-standing market failures of the
construction industry (Wuni and Shen, 2020a). It has been argued that the MiC method can address
most of the ills of the construction industry. As such, the impact of construction methods on the
construction industry constitute a macro-level performance measure of the MiC method. Relevant
metrics for measuring the industry impact of the MiC method include client satisfaction, project
team satisfaction, stakeholder’s satisfaction, diffusion of innovation and technology, repeatability
and standardization, scalability to portfolio of projects, risk management in meeting housing needs,
supply chain partnerships and procurement, and workforce skills and (Horner et al., 2019; van
Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
The measurement method for client satisfaction performance index is as follows. According to
Mbachu and Nkado (2006), six major factors influence client satisfaction in construction projects:
(i) effective communication, (ii) adherence to client budget, (iii) work quality, (iv) project schedule
control, (v) response to client orientation, and (v) response to complaints. Leon et al. (2018) added
‘adherence to environmental and safety procedures”, generating seven major factors influencing
client satisfaction in construction projects. This study adopted the seven factors because they can
be easily measured and normalized using client satisfaction surveys. Thus, the client service
100
performance index (CSPI) is computed as an additive function of the earned rating based on the
evaluation and the priority the client assigns to each measure. The CSPI can be measured as
follows.
𝐶𝑆𝑃𝐼 = ∑7𝑖=1 (𝑊𝑖 ∗ 𝑅𝑖 ) (Eqn. 2.31)
Σ (Wi) = Ws + Wc + Wq + Wro + Wec + Wrc + Wse = 1.0 (Eqn. 2.32)
Such that, Wi = relative weight for a client satisfaction indicator; Ws = weight of the project
schedule control indicator; Wc = weight of the adherence to client budget indicator; Wq = weight
of work quality indicators; Wro = weight of the response to client orientation indicator; Wec =
weight of the effective communication indicator; Wrc = weight of the response to complaints
indicator; Wse = weight of the adherence to environmental and safety procedures indicator; and Ri
= rating for a given client satisfaction indicator. Like the EPI, the CSPI is generic enough to allow
incorporating additional customer satisfaction measures when necessary. In all cases, the
summation of weights for the set of client satisfaction measures or indicators is unity (i.e., 1.0).
The measurement method for project team satisfaction performance index (TSPI) can be defined
and computed as follows. The TSPI for residential MiC projects can be measured using four well-
established metrics: (i) the amount of influence the project team members have over their jobs, (ii)
pay and conditions of team members, (iii) the sense of achievement the project team members
derive from their work, and (iv) the respect that team members get from line managers/supervisors
(Leon et al., 2018). In this study, the rating for each KPI ranges from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5
(very satisfied). The total TSPI for the residential MiC project is computed as the average ratings
of the four KPIs.
101
The review reveals several KPIs and metrics for measuring the performance of the MiC method.
The metrics are relevant to different reporting levels, including construction phase, completed
project, company, industry, and society levels. This study focuses on measuring the efficiency and
effectiveness of the MiC method in residential building projects in Hong Kong. Thus, the reporting
level is a completed project. Also, the literature demonstrates that the metrics are contextually and
organizationally sensitive. Considering that performance measures must reflect the strategic
objectives of the stakeholders, it is imperative to identify metrics that matter most to the relevant
organization or parties when benchmarking for continuous improvement purposes. There also exist
some external and contextual factors that can influence the performance of a construction project
irrespective of the construction method. Thus, a reliable performance measurement of the MiC
method must identify and control the influence of such KPDs.
2.9 The Delivery Chain of Residential MiC Projects
The delivery chain of a typical residential MiC project involves inception or conceptualization,
planning, design, material procurement, factory production, transportation, buffering, storage,
onsite assembly, and handing over (Building and Construction Authority, 2017). This study
merged the conceptualization and planning stages to form the predesign stage. The material
procurement and factory production stages were combined to form the production stage. The study
also considered buffering as a form of storage. Hence, this study considered the residential MiC
project delivery chain to encapsulate six major stages: predesign (conceptualization and planning),
design, production (material procurement and factory production of modules), transportation and
storage, onsite assembly, and closure (handing over). These stages are interdependent and must be
102
coordinated to ensure a smooth flow of the information, activities, resources, work packages, and
the modules. Figure 2.5 is a schematic of the delivery chain of residential MiC projects.
Predesign: Inception Material

Project Design
and Planning Procurement
Transportation of Buffering or
Factory Production
Modules Storage
Concurrent work packages
Onsite
Site Preparation Handing Over and
Assembly/
& Development Closure
Installation
Figure 2.5: Major stages of the residential MiC project delivery chain
In most cases, these stages are controlled by independent entities or sub-entities of the main
contractor (Jaillon et al., 2009). Usually, the in-house design team or outsourced design company
is responsible for the design stage. The suppliers or manufacturing company takes care of the
103
materials procurement and offsite production of the modules in the factory. A logistics company
handles the movement of the modules from the factory to the site or buffer zone. An assembly
subcontractor or installer handles the onsite assembly tasks. Usually, the construction company
acting as the main contractor is responsible for coordinating the activities of the subcontractors.
However, a design-build (i.e., design-manufacture-assemble) contractor can be responsible for all
stages of the delivery chain. The various stages of the delivery chain are described below.
2.9.1 Predesign stage
The predesign stage involves the project inception or conceptualization and planning. During the
inception stage, a fact sheet or concept document is prepared, containing clear statements of the
client’s needs, scope, influential issues, preliminary budget, and schedule of the project. The client
and consultant also develop and evaluates project alternatives, business case, and decision support.
The major outputs of the inception include needs assessment report, project proposal or concept
paper, and construction method selection. The planning stage usually extends the outputs of the
inception to include technical and economic feasibility assessment. The planning team plans and
addresses risks, develop project scope, estimate and mobilize resources, commit to the MiC
method, decide an appropriate structural system and construction material (s), and selects a suitable
project delivery method and procurement system. The key deliverables of the planning include
feasibility report, risk management plan, and selection of suitable structural system, building
materials, delivery method, and procurement systems.
2.9.2 Design stage
The design stage usually commences with formation of a design team. Ideally, the design team
should include the client, designer, BIM consultant, main contractor, manufacturer or supplier, and
104
MiC specialist. The design team usually transforms the needs, specifications, and requirements of
the client into the architectural, structural, building services, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
(MEP) design drawings. Building information modelling is used to coordinate and integrate the
architectural, structural, and MEP design of the modules. The design team specifically considers
allowable tolerances and downstream delivery constraints in the detailed working drawings. The
detailed design and working drawings are frozen once the client accepts. The major deliverables
of the design stage include frozen design, detailed working drawings, BIM Models, and prototypes.
2.9.3 Production stage
The production stage constitutes the bridge between the upstream and downstream stages of the
delivery chain of MiC projects. Usually, the main contractor appoints the module supplier and
manufacturers to procure the materials and products for fabricating the modules. Typically, the
main contractor requests module delivery schedules from manufacturers or module suppliers. The
manufacturers usually transform the detailed working drawings of the modules and the delivery
request of the main contractor into material procurement orders to upstream material suppliers.
According to Yang et al. (2021), the material suppliers are usually engaged and contracted to
supply the required materials and products in a timely manner commensurate with the
manufacturing schedules. The factory production only commences following confirmation of the
detailed working drawings and procurement of materials. The production team usually reviews the
detailed design and BIM models for clash detection and analysis of manufacturing tolerances. In
case a new production yard must be created for production of the modules, the manufacturing team
usually develops moulds for the various types of modules required in the project. Typically, the
production engineers develop prototypes of the modules to test out the initial design. Mock-ups
and trial assemblies of the prototypes are usually conducted in the factory and onsite for feedback
105
from the client and the consultant. After receiving and incorporating comments from the relevant
stakeholders, the working drawings are revised accordingly before mass production of the
modules. During the production, qualified and competent certification bodies supervise the factory
works and the modules to ensure quality assurance and control. Typically, the modules are
produced and stocked in the factory before transportation to the construction site.
2.9.4 Transportation and storage stage
Unless a flying factory is established very close to the project site to manufacture the required
modules, the components are usually transported from the factory to the site for installation. For
cross-border production, the transportation of the modules requires custom verifications and
approval before hauling the components to a temporary storage yard (buffer zone) or directly to
the construction site. In case of overseas production and transportation of modules, it is essential
to plan and manage marine transit and jurisdictional risks. Transportation of the modules to the
site is a complex exercise because the completed modules can be damaged or destroyed in transit
if adequate protection is not provided. The project team must also consider road traffic incidents
and site access when transporting the modules. In Hong Kong, it common for a just-in-time
arrangement to be adopted to deliver the completed modules to the site at the actual time of
installation to minimize the impact of site constraints and storage requirements. It is usually
essential to ensure that the factory production rate and delivery schedules precisely match the speed
of module installation on site to avoid excessive workload in offsite logistics scheduling and
coordination.
106
2.9.5 Onsite assembly stage
The onsite assembly stage constitutes the highest end of the residential MiC project delivery chain
where the physical structure emerges from installation of the required modules. It is the stage
where most of the work packages of the MiC method and the site-built practices reconverge in the
residential project. The onsite assembly team usually comprises assembly subcontractors or
installers, crane operators, crane specialist, traffic controllers, project managers, site managers,
and building inspectors. The core onsite team usually reviews and revise the project plan to initiate
the onsite assembly and installation activities. The team also reviews the assembly and module
sequencing plan to select and reconfigure the crane(s). The modules are usually hoisted and
installed based on the selected installation method (e.g., stacking) and sequencing plan.
2.9.6 Closure stage
Closure and handing-over constitute the last stage in the delivery of residential MiC projects. Once
the residential MiC project is fully assembled, installed, and finished, the client and project team
must complete some requirements. Usually, the main contractor must arrange for the required
testing and certifications to ensure compliance with local building regulations and specifications
of the client. Effective consultation with key stakeholders, especially business partners and the
client is required to settle all financial claims and transactions. It is essential to allow the relevant
project stakeholders to inspect and accept the completed residential MiC project and the associated
deliverables prior to the official closure. The handing-over ends with project commissioning and
contract termination.
107
2.10 Conceptual Best Practice Framework for Residential MiC Projects
The literature reviews and precedents (Cheung, 2009; Osei-Kyei, 2017; World Health
Organization, 2017) provide relevant information and guidelines to conceptualize the structure of
the best practice framework describing how best to implement residential MiC projects to achieve
desired outcomes and facilitate continuous improvements. Figure 2.4 shows the conceptualized
best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Decision Support System

Role: To enable construction organizations and project teams to ascertain the
suitability of the MiC method for a residential building project
Stage-Based Best Practices

Role: To guide effective implementation of the various stages of residential MiC
projects
start Best practices = f {CRFs, CSFs,

Predesign stage
Challenges, Lessons Learned}
Delivery Chain of Residential MiC Projects
Best practices = f {CRFs, CSFs,

Design stage
Best practices = f {CRFs, CSFs, Best

Production stage
Challenges, Lessons Learned} Practice
Framework
Transportation - Best practices = f {CRFs, CSFs,
Storage stage Challenges, Lessons Learned}
Onsite Assembly Best practices = f {CRFs, CSFs,

stage Challenges, Lessons Learned}
End Best practices = f {CRFs, CSFs,

Closure stage
Performance Measurement System

Role: To enable construction organizations and project teams to measure and
quantify the performance of the MiC method in residential building projects
Figure 2.6: A conceptual best practice framework for residential MiC projects
108
The study conceptualizes the best practice framework as an integrated reference system with three
novel, complementary components: a decision support system, best practices, and a performance
measurement system. The intelligent decision support system enables project teams to assess the
suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with a proposed residential building project in
Hong Kong. The best practices constitute unified and reconciled function of CRFs, CSFs, practical
challenges encountered, and lessons learned from residential MiC projects. They provide specific
processes, delivery strategies, and technical guidelines for implementing the various stages (i.e.,
predesign, design, factory production, transportation, storage, onsite assembly, and closure stages)
of residential MiC projects. The performance measurement system enables project teams to
evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in residential building projects and
contain relevant KPIs and metrics to facilitate performance benchmarking, continuous
improvement, experiential learning, and knowledge transfer (Horner et al., 2019).
2.11 Chapter Summary
This chapter provided a critical review of the relevant theories and the related literature, leading
to the development of a conceptual best practice framework for implementing residential MiC
projects. It provided operational definitions of key concepts and documented the differences
between site-based construction techniques and the MiC method. It identified and developed
conceptual structures of the potential suitability DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for residential MiC
projects. It further established relevant KPIs and metrics for measuring the performance of
residential MiC projects. The next chapter presents the research methodology deployed to address
the objectives.
109
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter discussed presented a review of the related literature, descriptions of relevant
theories, and propositions of conceptual frameworks. This chapter describes the research
methodology adopted for the study. The research methodology encompasses the systematic rules,
protocols, guidelines, and procedures for generating valid and reliable research outcomes, upon
which this research agenda is based. This chapter demonstrates that methodology is more than just
methods and establishes a strong connection between research paradigm, research design and
strategies, and research methods. The chapter describes and justifies the research paradigm and
design adopted. In doing so, the chapter establishes that the connections between epistemology,
ontology, axiology, methodology, and methods in any research are tightly coupled. A detailed
description of the research process is provided, followed by a justification of the choice of research
methods and data analytical techniques. Specifically, it describes the data collection procedure,
including the relevant information of the potential respondents, the sampling frame, the sample
size, and the data collection instruments. The chapter concludes with a description of the data
processing, management, and analysis protocols.
4.2 Research Paradigm and Philosophy
4.2.1 Definition of paradigm
Research philosophy refers to a system of beliefs and assumptions about knowledge creation
(Saunders et al., 2016). In the philosophy of knowledge, a paradigm constitutes a theoretical way
of thinking that helps understand, explain, and describe reality, social phenomenon, or abstraction
(Kuhn, 2012). Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is credited as the populariser of
110
paradigms as philosophical frameworks that organize the beliefs and practices of researchers in
knowledge creation (Kuhn, 2012). The Kuhnian perspective conceptualizes a paradigm as a broad
framework of perception, belief, and understanding within which theories and practices operate
(Morgan, 2007). Considering that different fields have varied schools of thought, traditions, and
philosophies of knowledge creations, there is no consensus and universal definition of the term
paradigm (Grix, 2019; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). However, paradigms are commonly
construed as worldviews, epistemological stances, shared beliefs in a research field, or model
examples (Morgan, 2007). These specific perspectives of paradigms are nested within each other
and not mutually exclusive (ibid). None of these specific paradigms are right or wrong, but each
perspective could be the most appropriate for any given purpose (Morgan, 2007).
This study considers a research paradigm as shared beliefs within a community of researchers who
share a consensus about which questions are most meaningful and which procedures are most
appropriate for answering those questions (Morgan, 2007). It includes a set of beliefs, values, and
assumptions that the construction engineering and management community of researchers share
regarding the nature and conduct of research (Johnson et al., 2004). Hence, this study considers a
research paradigm as the research culture in construction engineering and management. The
reliance on this version of paradigms matches the goal of developing a best practice framework
for implementing residential MiC projects and the broader implications of those practices for MiC
projects in general. Though this version of paradigms could be applied to the broader assumptions
that guide knowledge creation endeavours in the whole construction engineering and management
discipline (Morgan, 2007), its application in this research emphasizes the more specific beliefs and
practices shared within the modern methods of construction scientific research community who
are absorbed in the same technical literature (Kuhn, 2012). Thus, research paradigms in this thesis
111
do not necessarily govern a subject matter but a group of practitioners or researchers with shared
beliefs and practices about knowledge creation (Morgan, 2007).
4.2.2 Composition of a research paradigm
A research paradigm embodies the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological
assumptions of knowledge creation (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). Hence, it comprises
ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology, and methods (Scotland, 2012). Construction
engineering and management have no bespoke theories and philosophies of knowledge
development. The field leverages the philosophical traditions of several allied fields such as social,
natural, management, and behavioural sciences to inform research (Alaka et al., 2016; Dainty,
2008). However, these fields' varied theoretical perspectives and philosophical traditions engender
an additional layer of obscurity for the construction engineering and management researchers to
explicitly articulate the appropriate choice of research methodology to implement (Volker, 2019).
Thus, well-articulated operational definitions of the concepts underlying the ontological,
epistemological, axiological, methodological, and methods reflected in the research would inform
the selection of an appropriate paradigm and ensure the credibility and soundness of the research
outcomes (Crotty, 1998; Morgan, 2007).
Epistemology describes the nature and forms of knowledge (Crotty, 1998). It is concerned with
understanding and explaining how knowledge is developed (Crotty, 1998; Smyth and Morris,
2007). As such, epistemological assumptions are concerned with how knowledge can be created
legitimately, the constituents of acceptable, valid, and legitimate knowledge, and how such
knowledge is communicated (Cohen et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2016). Ontology describes the
study of being (Crotty, 1998). It is concerned with the constituents of and assumptions about the
nature of reality (Saunders et al., 2016). Thus, ontological assumptions are concerned with the
112
existence of entities and how they relate and interact with each other. Axiology refers to the role of
values and ethics within the research process (Saunders et al., 2016). It is concerned with how the
values of the enquirer and research participants influence the research process and findings.
Methodology refers to the strategy, plan of action, process, or design governing the choice and use
of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes (Crotty,
1998). Methods are the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data to answer research
questions (Crotty, 1998). It includes the tools and techniques for collecting and analysing data to
achieve a research aim (Bailey, 1994).
Research methods embodied in a paradigm can be traced to the methodology through the
epistemological and ontological positions. It is impossible to engage in any form of credible
research without committing (often implicitly) to ontological and epistemological positions
(Scotland, 2012). In any credible research, ontology is concerned with the nature of the research
problem, epistemology is concerned with how best to understand the research problem and its
legitimacy, and methodology is concerned with the procedures and methods that can be used to
address the research gap (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). Hence, the constituents of a research
paradigm inform one another (Crotty, 1998), and Figure 3.1 describes such conceptual
relationships between the paradigmatic elements (Smyth and Morris, 2007).
Philosophical issues of research Paradigms

Epistemological issues of research Research object
Research methodology Research methods
Figure 3.1: Applying epistemology, methodology, and methods
113
Figure 3.1 establishes that the research methodology is implanted in the epistemological issues. It
links issues at the abstract epistemological and mechanical levels of actual methods (Morgan,
2007). As illustrated, the epistemological issues are embodied in the broader philosophical issues
of the research. The nature and context of the research problem determine the relevant
permutations among the elements to establish the appropriate paradigm(s) and research method(s)
suitable for the research (Ahadzie, 2007). Hence, the adopted paradigm guides and influences an
appropriate research methodology to address the research problem (Bailey, 1994).
4.2.3 Paradigms in construction engineering and management research
The five major paradigms in the management, social, and behavioural sciences include positivism,
critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism, and pragmatism (Saunders et al., 2016). However,
the most prominent and dominant paradigms in construction engineering and management
research include positivism, interpretivism, and pragmatism (Alaka et al., 2016; Fellows and Liu,
2015). These traditions have varied ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological
assumptions underpinning research (Saunders et al., 2016). As such, the choice of appropriate
methodology, strategy, design, and methods, including data collection and analysis procedures in
construction engineering and management research, reflect, in microcosm, the philosophical
assumptions of these traditions (Crotty, 1998). Figure 3.2 illustrates how the research paradigm
influences the methodological choice, research strategies, and methods.
4.2.3.1 Positivism
Positivism constitutes a research paradigm codifying sociology as a science drawing on the natural
science perspective of a social phenomenon (Morgan, 2007). Although positivism is used
throughout this thesis, the term that better represents the philosophical positions and orientation of
quantitative researchers in recent times is post-positivism (Johnson et al., 2004). It assumes that
114
social phenomenon, reality, or knowledge creation conform with natural laws and can be subjected
to quantitative logic. It promotes the adoption of natural science methods to study social
phenomena, resulting in several unique philosophical assumptions.
Systematic literature reviews

Research Experiments
Surveys
strategy
Case studies
influences
Research
paradigm uses
influences
Positivism
Interpretivism Research
Pragmatism method
...
Questionnaires
Interviews Data collection Data analysis
Observations
method method
Documents
...
Content analysis Statistical methods

Discourse analysis Qualitative Quantitative Fuzzy logic
... Structural equation modelling
analysis method analysis method
Monte Carlo Simulation
...
Figure 3.2: Research paradigms, research strategies, and research methods
The ontological position of positivism is that reality exists independently of human actions and
experiences (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Ontologically, the positivist tradition argues that the object
of social science should be to identify and explain the cause-effect associations of regularities
among phenomena in the world and that these regularities and explanations can and should be
contextually independent (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014).
Epistemologically, positivism assumes that there is objective knowledge about the social world,
attainable only through the natural science methods of observation and experimentation (Scotland,
115
2012). It deploys an objective social inquiry, whereby the inquirer is characteristically a
disinterested observer, divorced from the investigated subjects. Hence, it demands the objective
inquirer to maintain an arm’s length from the investigated phenomenon to eliminate potential
biases in the research outcomes. Thus, it has an axiological position that knowledge creation
should be completely value-free, divorcing the values and ethics of the researcher from the studied
entities. Methodologically, positivism promotes the use of strictly quantitative methods. Hence,
positivism embodies and promotes quantitative research, translating the positivists into
quantitative purists (Johnson et al., 2004).
4.2.3.2 Interpretivism
Interpretivism or constructivism constitutes a research paradigm that emerged as a rejoinder to
positivism. It argues that positivism fails to capture essential aspects of the social world,
particularly the subjective construction of social phenomena (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014).
Interpretivism assumes that the social world, including social actions, is better constructed through
grasping the subjective meanings and purposes that people attach to their actions (Morgan, 2007).
Thus, it contends that social phenomenon or knowledge creation diverge from natural laws and is
constructed based on the conviction and understanding of the social actors about the phenomenon
(Bailey, 1994), resulting in several unique philosophical assumptions.
Ontologically, interpretivism maintains that knowledge is socially constructed and depends on
social actors' actions, lived experiences, and intentions (Crotty, 1998). Hence, interpretivism
ontologically contends that social actors and agents negotiate and assign meaning to construct the
social world (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). Epistemologically, interpretivism maintains that
there is subjective knowledge about the social world, grounded in the social actors' actions,
experiences, and subjective meanings (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). Axiologically,
116
interpretivism argues that knowledge creation is value driven. The inquirer is a highly interested
and involved observer actively participating in the studied phenomenon and the people who create
it. Methodologically, interpretivism prioritizes research strategies providing a participatory
understanding of social phenomena. Hence, interpretivism embodies and promotes qualitative
research, translating the interpretivists into qualitative purists (Johnson et al., 2004).
4.2.3.3 Pragmatism
Pragmatism constitutes a research paradigm that emerged as a rejoinder to the extreme and strict
philosophical positions and orientation of positivism and interpretivism about knowledge creation
(Morgan, 2007). It argues that the assumptions of positivism and interpretivism are not always
diametrically polar opposites and mutually exclusive in most circumstances. It emerged to resolve
the incompatibility and incommensurability of these two traditional paradigms and argues that
some research problems could be effectively addressed through leveraging some assumptions and
strengths of the two traditions and implementing them together in a single study (Johnson et al.,
2004; Morgan, 2007). Thus, the pragmatist contends that some circumstances make it
incomprehensive to rely on a single scientific method to obtain legitimate knowledge about the
real world or construct social reality (Johnson et al., 2004). Pragmatism has become an established
paradigm with the following philosophical positions.
It embodies a relational epistemology, affording inquirers the liberty to ascertain the most
appropriate way to construct reality or develop knowledge (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017). It presents
a plural ontological assumption, contending that there is no single reality because all humans have
their unique interpretations of reality. It adopts a value-laden axiological position, contending that
it is nearly impossible to have fully-objective and value-free research when humans are the
inquirers (Johnson et al., 2004). Pragmatism prioritizes research approaches addressing practical
117
problems and provides a philosophical research framework that benefits people (Kivunja and
Kuyini, 2017). Given the pluralistic methodological position, it endorses the combination of
appropriate and complementary quantitative and qualitative research methods to understand a
research problem (Johnson et al., 2004). Hence, pragmatism is associated with mixed methods
research. None of these traditions is correct, wrong or the best, but the suitability depends on the
epistemological, ontological, and axiological assumptions underlying the research (Scotland,
2012). Each provides relevant assumptions for satisfying various research needs and is better
suited for tackling specific research problems.
4.2.4 The research paradigm adopted
Both positivism and interpretivism are appropriate and widely used in construction engineering
and management research. Construction engineering research clearly supports the positivist
tradition of knowledge creation because it prioritizes quantitative scientific approaches and
requires propositions to be verified (Agunbiade, 2012). On the other hand, construction
management research involving projects and the opinion of associated stakeholders favours
interpretivism because construction projects are social systems and products of processes by which
project business partners together negotiate their delivery arrangement (Crotty, 1998).
However, this study aims to develop a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC
projects under natural and social dimensions, drawing on stakeholders' knowledge and real-world
projects. Solely relying on positivism or interpretivism to address this research problem with social
and institutional dimensions is utterly inadequate (Yunus and Yang, 2014). Hence, an appropriate
tradition should allow the combination of suitable and complementary assumptions and methods
to investigate the underlying issues effectively (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017). Therefore, this
118
research adopted pragmatism as the most applicable philosophical position to address the research
problem.
4.3 Research Strategy and Design
A research strategy refers to an inclusive plan that a researcher implements to answer research
questions addressing a research problem (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). It provides the overall
direction of the research, including the process by which the research is conducted. On the other
hand, a research design describes the framework of research methods and techniques used to
collect and analyse data to answer the research questions (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Research
strategy and design constitute frameworks for undertaking research and provide high-level
guidance for selecting appropriate research methods and techniques to address a research problem
(Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2018).
There are three main research strategies in construction engineering and management: quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods. These research strategies are rooted and embodied in the
methodological positions of positivism, interpretivism, and pragmatism, respectively (Bryman and
Bell, 2011; Johnson et al., 2004; Saunders et al., 2016). Quantitative research methods for data
collection in construction management include experiments, simulation, questionnaires, structured
interviews, and structured observations (Saunders et al., 2016). Conversely, qualitative research
methods for data collection include semi-structured and unstructured interviews, focus group
discussion, unstructured observation, and document or text review (Dainty, 2008).
Consistent with the adopted pragmatic paradigm, this study implemented a mixed-method research
strategy and design. This strategy is consistent with the call for methodological pluralism in
construction management research to understand the complex relationships pertinent to the
119
industry and the phenomenon being studied (Dainty, 2008). Mixed methods research refers to the
class of research that mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research methods,
approaches, and techniques in a single study to collect and analyse data to answer research
questions (Creswell, 2013; Johnson et al., 2004; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009).
Developing a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects requires a
nuanced practical understanding of the multiple managerial aspects throughout the delivery chain.
According to the World Health Organization (2017), a sound best practice framework is developed
from the expert knowledge and case studies of real-world projects. Quantitative data was required
to analyse, quantify, and prioritize the various managerial aspects of residential MiC projects. In
contrast, qualitative data was required to expand the understanding of those managerial aspects
from a real-world perspective to enhance the practical relevance of the research outcomes. Hence,
appropriate strategies and designs for addressing the research problem in this study are situated at
the interface between quantitative and qualitative methods, translating the study into mixed
methods research.
Mixed methods research provided a fruitful research framework to integrate insights, procedures,
and principles appropriately to provide more relevant findings in the study. It provided a flexible
mechanism in selecting, mixing, matching, and combining methods, approaches, and procedures
that provided the best methodological agenda for answering the research questions to address the
research problem (Johnson et al., 2004). As such, this study endorsed a needs-based or contingency
approach to the selection of methods for conducting research (Johnson et al., 2004).
The two main reasons for using mixed methods in this study included triangulation and
complementarity (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The rationales were both to seek convergence and
corroboration of results from the multiple methods and deploy the qualitative methods to elaborate
120
on, enhance, expand, and clarify the results of the quantitative methods (Johnson et al., 2004).
Hence, the mixed methods research strategy provided a fertile mechanism to gather multiple data
using different, but complementary strategies, approaches, and methods, such that the integration
resulted in complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses.
The study implemented the two typologies of mixed methods research: mixed-model design and
mixed-methods design (Johnson et al., 2004). The mixed-model design involved mixing
quantitative and qualitative approaches within the stages of the study. It occurred in the research
objectives, questions, and methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Though the
mixed-methods design included quantitative and qualitative phases in the overall research, the
quantitative component had dominant status over the qualitative element in the study. Specifically,
the study implemented a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design as a double-phase research
design. The quantitative data was collected, followed by qualitative data to expand, and elaborate
on the quantitative outcomes. The study implemented the mixed-methods design and mixed-model
design based on the eight distinct steps embodied in the mixed methods research process model,
shown in Figure 3.3 (Johnson et al., 2004).
Figure 3.3 shows the cyclical, recursive, and interactional process of the eight distinct steps
embodied in the mixed methods research process model: (1) determine the research questions; (2)
determine whether a mixed design is appropriate; (3) select the mixed-method or mixed-model
research design; (4) collect the data; (5) analyse the data; (6) interpret the data; (7) legitimate the
data; and (8) draw conclusions and write the final report. In Figure 3.3, circles represent steps (1
– 8) in the mixed research process; rectangles represent steps in the mixed data analysis process;
and diamonds represent components. As indicated earlier, the purposes of the mixed methods
research strategy were triangulation and complementarity (Johnson et al., 2004; Love et al., 2002).
121
As such, the research questions of the study were developed consistent with the mixed methods
research. Figure 3.3 also embodies the seven stages of the mixed methods data analysis process:
data reduction, display, transformation, correlation, consolidation, comparison, and integration.
Purpose of
Research
Mixed
Questions (1)
Research (2)
Select Drawing
Mixed- Research Conclusions/
Mixed-Model
Method Methodology Final Report
(3) (8)
Data
Legitimation
Collection
(7)
(4)
Data
Data
Interpretation Data Integration
Analysis (5)
(6)
Single Data
Type
Data Data
Data Display
Reduction Transformation
Data
Consolidation
Multiple Data Data

Type Correlation
Data Comparison
Figure 3.3: Mixed research process model
122
Consistent with the mixed methods research strategy, the study implemented a mixed research
design, comprising survey and case study research designs (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2018). The
survey is a research strategy used to gather structured data about large groups (Johannesson and
Perjons, 2014). It can compile the characteristics, opinions, and views of social actors about a
phenomenon or managerial aspect (Saunders et al., 2016). However, it cannot provide in-depth
information and evaluation of complex phenomena. The survey design was used to gather the
opinions of MiC experts and domain industry practitioners about relevant managerial aspects of
residential MiC projects. It provided quantitative data to assess, quantify, simulate, and model the
suitability DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The primary data
collection instruments implemented within the survey design included questionnaires and
structured interviews with MiC experts and industry practitioners in Hong Kong.
A case study is a research strategy that enables an in-depth empirical investigation of a
phenomenon (i.e., a case) within its real-life context (Yin, 2018). The case study research strategy
characteristically focuses on one instance, depth, and natural setting (Johannesson and Perjons,
2014). It can explain causal links in real-life projects that are too complex to be captured in a
survey. The case study research strategy enables researchers to obtain valuable, in-depth
knowledge of the investigated case (Creswell, 2013). In the case study research strategy, an
‘instance’ or ‘case’ refers to a real-life residential MiC project—the cases aimed at providing
complementary insights to the survey outcomes. Specifically, the study implemented a descriptive
case study design. It provided rich and detailed descriptions of the challenges, critical success
processes, and lessons learned from completed residential MiC projects in various contexts. The
data collection methods used in the study include systematic literature reviews, questionnaire
surveys, semi-structured interviews, policy document analysis, and case studies.
123
4.4 The Research Process
Figure 3.4 provides a more detailed flowchart of research processes and activities completed in the
study. Adhering to well-established academic research conventions, the study commenced with an
extensive review of relevant OSP and MiC literature to gain insight into research progress and
establish the boundaries of existing knowledge. The study retrieved and reviewed relevant
documents from Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web Science to detect deficiencies in the literature,
leading to establishing of the research gaps. The study conducted brainstorming sessions with the
thesis supervisor and discussions with senior industry practitioners in Hong Kong to define the
research questions, establish the aim, and deconstruct the aim into specific complementary
objectives.
Subsequently, the study conducted series of dedicated systematic literature reviews to extract
metadata and information relevant to the objectives and situate the study within the wider context
of OSP literature. Specifically, the study extracted 35 potential suitability DMFs (Table 2.1), 35
CRFs (Table 2.2), 27 CSFs (Table 2.3), and 14 KPIs (Table 2.4) for residential MiC projects. The
reviews also aided in identifying the appropriate methods to empirically investigate the extracted
metadata, forming the basis for the quantitative analysis in the study.
Afterward, the study organized informal plenary sessions with the thesis supervisor and
experienced industry practitioners to verify and validate the relevance, applicability, and
representativeness of the identified theoretical checklist of DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, and KPIs for
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The validated checklists were transformed into a pilot
questionnaire form, distributed to 400 international MiC experts in seventeen countries. The
experts were requested to assess the significance of the items on a 5-point Likert scale. Fifty-six
(56) valid responses were received. Analysis of the responses revealed that 25 DMFs, 26 CRFs,
124
23 CSFs, and 14 KPIs obtained mean scores exceeding 3.50 on a 5-point Likert scale, forming the
basis for the final questionnaire survey in Hong Kong. The multistage verification and validation
process ensured that only relevant DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, and KPIs were incorporated into the best
practice framework.
start
Data analysis
Extensive literature review • Statistical pretesting
• Research gap • Mean score ranking
• Research questions • Risk significance index
• Aim and objectives • Factor analysis
• Monte Carlo simulation
• Fuzzy synthetic evaluation
• Partial least squares structural equation
Systematic literature modelling
• Programming
reviews
• Suitability decision-making factors
• Critical risk factors
• Critical success factors
Framework development
• Key performance indicators and metrics and validation
• Conceptual frameworks • Triangulation of literature reviews,
surveys, policy documents, and case
study findings
• Review of the delivery chain of
Pilot study and data residential MiC projects
• Developing and validating the best
collection practice framework
• Discussion with industry practitioners
• Validation of theoretical checklists
• Pilot questionnaire survey of international Research Closure
experts • Review of aim and objectives
• Questionnaire survey of practitioners • Summary of key findings and results
• Semi-structured interviews with • Major conclusions
practitioners • Study limitations
• Review of International MiC policy • Future research opportunities
documents
• Local and international MiC case studies
End
Figure 3.4: Flowchart of the research processes of the thesis
125
The validated items were included in a structured questionnaire survey of MiC practitioners and
subject matters experts in Hong Kong to rate the significance of the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for
residential MiC projects, on a 5-point Likert scale. One-hundred and seventeen (117) valid
responses were received. The study further conducted semi-structured interviews with industry
practitioners in Hong Kong to obtain in-depth understanding and rich insights into the DMFs,
CRFs, and CSFs for residential MiC projects. The interview outcomes complemented the findings
of the questionnaire survey. The study also analysed international government publications,
technical reports, and industry guidelines to extract relevant technical guidelines for implementing
residential MiC projects. The study further gathered data from six representative residential MiC
cases in Australia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Singapore to complement the findings
of the surveys, interviews, and policy documents.
Once the relevant data were collected, the study proceeded with the analyses. The questionnaire
data (i.e., DMFs, CRFs, CSFs) were pretested for reliability, distributions, agreement among the
respondents, and suitability for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The pretesting results provided
statistical legitimacy to proceed with detailed analyses of the questionnaire data. The study used
mean score ranking, EFA, and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) to assess and quantify the DMFs
for residential MiC projects. The identified significant DMFs were used to develop a suitability
decision support system for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The study used risk
significance index, EFA, MC simulation, FSE, and PLS – SEM to assess, quantify, simulate, and
model the impact of the CRFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The study used mean
score ranking, EFA, and FSE to assess, model, and quantify the CSFs for residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong. Thematic content analyses was used to develop recurrent themes in data from the
semi-structured interviews, policy documents, and cases studies. The thematic content analyses
126
provided very rich data, which complemented the findings from the questionnaire surveys. The
study also designed and programmed the performance measurement system for residential MiC
projects based on the 14 KPIs and associated metrics. The application of the decision support
system and performance measure system were demonstrated and validated using real-world
Next, the study proceeded with development and validation of the best practice framework. The
study consolidated, triangulated, integrated, and reconciled the significant CRFs, CSFs, and the
practical challenges and lessons learned from the six case studies to develop the best practices for
implementing residential MiC projects. The study reviewed delivery chain and allocated the best
practices across the various stages of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The best practice
framework was developed as a function of three complementary components: a decision support
system, best practices, and a performance measurement system. The developed framework was
validated using feedback from five MiC experts and industry practitioners in Hong Kong.
Following the validation of the best practice framework, the study proceeded with closure of the
research. It reviewed the objectives of the thesis, summarized key findings, and drew appropriate
conclusions. The study further established the novelty, scientific contributions, and theoretical,
managerial, and policy implications of the research findings. It acknowledged limitations and
recommended areas for future research.
4.5 Research Methods
This section describes the data collection methods employed in the study. These methods include
systematic literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, semi-structured interviews, case studies, and
analysis of industry guidelines.
127
4.5.1 Systematic literature reviews
A systematic literature review (SLR) is a powerful scientific method that provides a structured
approach to consolidate the outcomes of existing studies and assist in demarcating the boundaries
of existing knowledge (Tranfield et al., 2003). It provides a fruitful organizing framework for
researchers to synthesize and draw integrated conclusions from previous studies addressing a
similar issue (Webster and Watson, 2002). The systematic reviews were used to derive a checklist
of potential DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, and KPIs for residential MiC projects from the literature. It also
guided the selection of representative case studies and informed the design of the questionnaire
template and interview guides. The SLR also informed the selection of appropriate data analytical
tools employed in the study.
The systematic reviews adhered to well-established protocols, including electronic database
selection and literature search, selection of relevant articles, and metadata extraction. For
consistency, the study employed only Elsevier’s Scopus to conduct the literature searches. Table
3.1 summarizes the keywords used to search for articles addressing DMFs, CRFs, CSFs, CSC, and
KPIs for MiC projects.
Table 3.1: Search keywords for retrieving relevant articles from Scopus
Topic Search terms

First set LinkSecond Set
Decision- Decision, decision-making, decision AND Offsite construction, offsite
making support, benefit, advantage, choice, production, Offsite
factors selection, reasons, deciding, determinants, manufactur*, prefabrication,
drivers, and readiness prefabricated, prefab,
industriali$zed construction,
Critical risk Risk, hazard, barrier, challenge, constraint, AND industriali$zed building,
factors uncertainties, uncertainty, overrun, and industriali$zed hous*, modular
delay construction, modular
128
Critical Critical factors, success factors, success AND integrated construction,
success determinants, few key areas, key result modular house, modular home,
factors areas, and success modularization, prework,
manufactured hous*,
Key KPIs, performance indicators, critical AND manufactured construction,
performance success criteria, success criteria, volumetric construction,
indicators performance assessment, performance precast construction, and
evaluation, sustainability evaluation, modern methods of
sustainability assessment, metric, construction
performance, and indicators
* = any group of characters for finding words with any possible ending. $ = zero or one character
for finding the American and British variation of the term.
For each topic, the search terms of the first set were concatenated with those of the second set to
conduct the structured queries in Scopus. It conditioned the database to return articles containing
a combination of at least one keyword from each set. Relevant documents were retrieved and
filtered. During the rapid screening of titles/abstracts/keywords of the search outputs in Scopus,
the study excluded documents without full text and non-English publications. There was no date
specification. Only articles were included, and hence, conference papers and other document types
were excluded. The remaining articles for each topic were downloaded and subjected to full-text
evaluation. During this stage, only articles that specifically evaluated the relevant topics were
included. Subsequently, the study critically evaluated the full texts of the included studies and
extracted the relevant metadata. Outcomes of the systematic review (Tables 2.1 – 2.4) were
published in high-impact journals, highlighting the novelty of the SLRs conducted during the
research process.
4.5.2 Questionnaire survey
A questionnaire is a quantitative data collection instrument, usually containing a list of questions
aiming to measure the opinion and views of respondents (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). The
responses can support advanced statistical modelling of the investigated issue when coded
129
numerically. A questionnaire survey constitutes an inexpensive strategy to collect a large sample
size of quantitative data and has been widely used to measure project delivery practices in
developing best practice frameworks (Cheung, 2009; Osei-Kyei, 2017). This study administered
an online-based closed-ended questionnaire to assess the shortlisted DMFs, CSFs, CRFs, and CSC
for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The study used the questionnaire data to address
objectives 1 – 3.
4.5.2.1 Questionnaire design
Two sets of questionnaires were designed and administered in this study. The first was a pilot
questionnaire designed to gather the opinions of international MiC experts. The pilot questionnaire
survey template had four parts (see Appendix A). Part one solicited the background information
of the experts. Part two to five requested the experts to evaluate the significance of DMFs, CRFs,
and CSFs for MiC projects, on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Outcomes of the pilot
questionnaire survey were used to revise the checklists of the significant DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs,
forming the basis for the second questionnaire survey.
The second questionnaire was designed to collect the opinions of industry practitioners and subject
matter experts in Hong Kong. A revised template was sent to three MiC practitioners in Hong
Kong with adequate industry and hands-on industry experiences in MiC project delivery in the city
to ascertain the clarity of the questions and re-verify the contextual applicability of the revised
checklists of DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for residential MiC projects. They reviewed and proposed
changes to the content, structure, and length of the questionnaire. The final questionnaire template
had four parts (see Appendix B). Part one solicited the background information of the respondents.
Part two requested them to assess the significance of the decision-making factors used to evaluate
the compatibility and feasibility of MiC for residential projects in Hong Kong. Part three requested
130
them to evaluate (a) the probability of occurrence and (b) the severity of risk factors influencing
the costs of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Part four required them to rate the importance
of the critical success factors for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The questionnaire
deployed a 5-point rating scale with different linguistic terms to reflect the requirements of the
various items.
4.5.2.2 Sample size determination
A sample refers to a subset of the population elements resulting from a sampling strategy (Maisel
and Persell, 1996). Several key concepts are embodied in the definition of a sample size, including
an element, population, sampling, and sampling frame. An element is a unit (e.g., person, project)
of a population (Dattalo, 2008). A population refers to a theoretically specified aggregation of
elements in a study (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders et al., 2016). It describes all units that are
eligible for investigation in the study.
In most cases, it is not economically prudent and practically possible to study an entire population.
Therefore, sampling is usually conducted to select a subset to study and make inferences about the
population. Sampling refers to selecting elements from a sampling frame within the population
(Dattalo, 2008). A sampling frame refers to a list or record of the population from which the sample
will be drawn (ibid).
In quantitative or mixed methods research design, the fundamental object of sampling and sample
size is to provide an accurate and practical mechanism to enable extrapolation from a sample to
the population. Ideally, the sample size must be adequate to accurately capture the characteristics
of the population in the study (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders et al., 2016). The use of advanced
analytical techniques in this study required commensurate sample size to ensure construct, internal,
external, and content validity. Sample size can be determined using several approaches, including
131
statistical power analysis, confidence intervals, and computer-intensive methods, but each has its
unique strengths and limitations (Dattalo, 2008). This study determined the appropriate sample
size based on the desired confidence interval (CI) width. A CI describes a range of values around
which a population parameter (e.g., true mean) is likely to lie in the long run (Dattalo, 2008). Using
the CI strategy, the study computed the appropriate sample size using the following equation
(Maisel and Persell, 1996).
σ 2
Sample size (n) = (Z ∗ ) (Eqn. 2.1)
CI
Where σ denotes the population standard deviation, CI refers to the desired confidence interval,
and Z denotes a standardized score related to the desired CI. Effectively, the appropriate sample
size can be determined from known Z, σ, and CI (Maisel and Persell, 1996), but it is obscure to
determine σ before the data is collected (Ahadzie, 2007). However, knowledge of or experience
based on the proportion (P) currently employed in the population can be used as a proxy to estimate
σ. P refers to the ratio of the number of elements in any given category to the total number of
elements (Maisel and Persell, 1996). When confronted with limited experience, it is recommended
to consider a worst-case scenario that fixes P at 0.5 (Maisel and Persell, 1996). Setting P at 0.5
enables the investigator to select the largest possible n because it provides the largest standard
error. This approach generates a sample size with robust balancing power, precision, and
practicality for quantitative analysis (Dattalo, 2008). Based on the established P, σ was computed
using the following equation (Maisel and Persell, 1996).
σ = √(P) ∗ (1 − P) = √(0.5) ∗ (1 − 0.5) = 0.50 (Eqn. 2.2)
Using a worst-case scenario of 0.5 for P, σ is computed as 0.5. Adopting a 95% confidence level,
a CI of ±0.1, and Z of 1.96 (i.e., the Z value for 95% confidence is Z=1.96), the appropriate n is
computed as follows:
132
0.50 2
n = (1.96 ∗ ) (Eqn. 2.3)
0.10
n = 96.04 ~ 96 respondents
This outcome means that obtaining a sample size of 96 would be adequate for the sampling
distribution to have a normal distribution. Considering the smaller response rates in construction
management research (Lingard and Rowlinson, 2006), a significant commitment was made to
obtain more than the computed sample size.
4.5.2.3 Sampling technique and selection of respondents
There are two groups of sampling techniques used in construction management research:
probabilistic and non-probabilistic sampling techniques (Fellows and Liu, 2015). While
probabilistic sampling techniques (e.g., simple random sampling) are generally preferred to their
non-probabilistic counterparts because they offer an unbiased approach where respondents have
equal chances of selection (Saunders et al., 2016), some circumstances render them impractical
and inappropriate. Probabilistic sampling techniques require a database of the target population
and a centralized sampling frame (Bryman and Bell, 2011). However, the target populations of
this study were MiC industry practitioners and experts in Hong Kong and abroad. These sampling
frames had no centralized databases to support probabilistic sampling. Hence, the study employed
non-probabilistic sampling techniques, including purposive (expert) and snowball sampling.
Using the purposive and snowball sampling techniques, this study developed two criteria to select
appropriate respondents in Hong Kong and abroad: (i) the respondent must have theoretical
understanding (research experience) and general knowledge of MiC project delivery practices; and
(ii) the respondent must have practical involvement and direct hands-on experience (i.e., at least
one project) in MiC project delivery. Practitioners and researchers meeting these conditions were
133
deemed fitting to provide adequate experience and knowledge on residential MiC project
implementation practices in Hong Kong or abroad.
The international pilot questionnaire survey respondents were recruited from MiC research articles
published in reputable construction management journals. Potential respondents were also
recruited from listed modular construction experts on the websites of construction industry
councils, institutes, boards, and modular building institutes in different countries. The
questionnaire requested relevant background information of the respondents to confirm their
suitability for the study.
The Hong Kong questionnaire survey respondents were registered construction industry
practitioners and subject matter experts in the following databases: (i) Design for manufacture and
assembly (DfMA) alliance; (ii) Registered construction professionals in the Architectural Services
Department (ARCHSD) list of organizations; (iii) Engineering & Associated Consultants
Selection Board (EACSB) list of consulting organizations; (iv) Architectural and Associated
Consultants Selection Board (AACSB) list of consulting organizations; (v) Hong Kong Institution
of Engineers (HKIE); (vi) Hong Kong Institute of Construction Managers (HKICM); and (vii)
Association of Consulting Engineers of Hong Kong (ACEHK).
The surveys were conducted online. For the purposive sampling, the acknowledged experts from
the above sources were invited via emails to confirm their suitability for the survey and complete
the questionnaire. For the snowball sampling, the respondents were requested to suggest or forward
the emails to other suitable colleagues interested in sharing their experience and knowledge in the
study. In some cases, the suggested respondents accepted and completed the survey. As such, they
were included in the final list of respondents. Overall, 56 valid responses were received from the
international survey, and 117 valid responses were received from the Hong Kong survey. These
134
responses formed the basis for the quantitative analysis and prioritization of the factors. Table 3.2
summarizes the background information of the international experts and Fig 3.10 summarizes the
demographic information of the respondents in Hong Kong
Table 3.2: Background information of the international MiC experts

Attribute Sub-attribute Responses (N=56) % Responses (N=100%)
Job Sector Academia 44 78.6
Industry 12 21.4
Years of MiC < 5 years 27 48.2
work 5 - 10 years 13 23.2
experience 11 - 15 years 5 8.9
16 - 20 years 2 3.6
≥ 21years 9 16.1
Country China 14 25.0
United States 10 17.9
Canada 8 14.3
Australia 5 8.9
Malaysia 4 7.1
United Kingdom 4 7.2
Brazil 1 1.8
Finland 1 1.8
Germany 1 1.8
Greece 1 1.8
Lebanon 1 1.8
Singapore 1 1.8
Slovakia 1 1.8
Spain 1 1.8
Sweden 1 1.8
Switzerland 1 1.8
Tanzania 1 1.8
Project types Housing/ real estate 40 71.43
participated Commercial/Office projects 17 30.36
Schools/education 15 26.79
Industrial Projects 13 23.21
Health/hospital projects 10 17.86
Energy/ Power projects 9 16.07
Prisons/ Défense 3 5.36
Water treatment plant/ Sewage 3 5.36
projects
Other (please specify) 6 10.71
Table 3.2 shows that most of the international experts (44, 78.6%) were actively working in
academia. This unequal sectorial distribution of the experts is characteristic of previous
135
international survey studies. Interestingly, academic experts have stronger ties with the industry
and provide several consultancy services to industry practitioners. Some academic experts have
worked in the industry for some time before joining academia. Thus, the sectorial distribution
offered an opportunity to capture the views of both academics and industry practitioners. A
significant proportion (27, 48.2%) of the international MiC experts had below five years of hands-
on experience in MiC projects. This proportion is entirely justifiable because the MiC method is
still fledgling in some countries, with fewer projects been implemented. However, these subject
matter experts had researched and published research articles and acquired in-depth knowledge of
how best to deliver MiC projects. Also, most of the experts had over five years of hands-on and
practical work experience in the MiC method. Over 16% of the experts had over 21 years of
experience and worked on several MiC project types.
No. of Responses No. of Responses

Social Service Organization
50
Statutory Body
Professional institution
Institution of respondent
Logistics company 40
No. of Responses
Supplier/Manufacturing firm
Architectural firm 30
Quantity Surveyor
Engineering firm
20
Developer
Academic/Research Institution
Government agency 10
Construction company
Consultancy 0
0 10 20 30 40 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years Over 4 years
No. of Responses Years of experience in MiC projects
Social Service Organization

80 No. of Responses
Statutory Body
Institution of respondent
Professional institution 70
No. of Responses
Logistics company No. of Responses 60

Supplier/Manufacturing firm
Architectural firm 50
Quantity Surveyor
40
Engineering firm
Developer 30
Academic/Research Institution
20
Government agency
Construction company 10
Consultancy
0
0 10 20 30 40 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years Over 20 years
No. of Responses Years of construction industry experience
Figure 3.5: Demographic information of the respondents
136
Figure 3.5 shows that the Hong Kong respondents worked in wide-ranging institutions situated at
different echelons of the MiC delivery chain. They included industry practitioners and subject
matter experts of diverse occupational backgrounds, including the key stakeholders and core team
members in MiC projects (Luo et al., 2019; Wuni and Shen, 2020b). The diverse institutional and
occupational backgrounds provided rich and unbiased expert knowledge in evaluating the DMFs,
CSFs, CRFs, and CSC for residential MiC projects, lending further credence to the study's
outcomes. Nearly 80% of the respondents had at least 11 years of construction industry experience
in Hong Kong. Hence, the subject matter experts had a good understanding and knowledge of the
local industry climate to provide a reliable assessment of the various practices. Most (59%) of the
respondents had over two years of relevant practical experiences in MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Thus, they had substantial expertise and experience to assess the DMFs, CSFs, CRFs, and CSC
for residential MiC projects. The significant proportion (48%) having one year of MiC experience
in Hong Kong is reasonable because the technology became officially promoted in 2017, and
actual pilot projects only started in 2018 (Pan and Hon, 2018).
4.5.3 Semi-structured interviews
An interview refers to a communication session between a researcher and a respondent, in which
the researcher controls the agenda by asking the respondent questions (Johannesson and Perjons,
2014). While questionnaires are suitable for obtaining straightforward data from a large sample
size, interviews are more effective for collecting complex and sensitive information based on
respondents' experiences, knowledge, and expertise. There are three types of interviews in
construction management research: structured, semi-structured, and unstructured interviews
(Fellows and Liu, 2015). This study employed semi-structured interviews to provide the
respondent with flexibility and openness in discussing the MiC project implementation practices
137
based on a set of questions (Johannesson and Perjons, 2014). It was considered appropriate for
investigating complex issues because it offers an unrestricted environment for respondents to
express their opinions and formulate answers. Thus, it encourages the interviewees to share new
ideas beyond the questions.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted to enable the interviewees to complement the
survey findings and provide a more in-depth understanding of residential MiC project
implementation practices in Hong Kong. As such, the interviews investigated seven key themes,
including CSFs, CRFs, challenges encountered, lessons learned, key considerations, and other
important aspects of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. A list of questions was asked to
explore these themes (see Appendix C). The study purposively selected ten (10) experienced MiC
project team members and subject matter experts from referrals and the questionnaire sampling
frame. All protocols were observed to collect reliable answers. The interviewer avoided leading,
double-barrelled, and confirmatory questions. The study employed prompting, probing, and
checking during the interview to nudge the interviewees to start speaking, provide more details,
and ensure that the interviewer correctly understood the interviewees' answers, respectively. With
the permission of the interviewees, all sessions were recorded and filed notes taken, forming the
basis for subsequent analysis.
4.5.4 Case studies
The study conducted case studies of six representative local and international residential MiC
projects to understand the actual critical factors contributing to success, prominent risk events,
challenges encountered, lessons learned, and best practices benchmarked. The investigated cases
included both successful and failed residential MiC projects. The case study findings
138
complemented the outcomes of the questionnaires and interviews in developing the best practice
framework.
The study selected the cases based on two criteria: (i) it should be a successful or failed residential
MiC project in Hong Kong or abroad; and (ii) information about the project experience and
outcome should be accessible, even if it is not publicly available. The selected cases met both
criteria and provided the required data to address the relevant research questions. The study
developed a codebook (Table 3.3) to guide data collection in the selected cases.
Table 3.3: Codebook for context analyses of the cases

Code Definition of codes
Background Information about projects performance, structure, and details
MiC stages Specific MiC applications in the delivery chain of a projects
Considerations Key considerations in each stage of the MiC project delivery chain
Technologies Supporting digital and smart technologies used in delivering each stage
of the projects
Project business partners Relevant project players and key stakeholders in each stage
Deliverables Typical output from each stage
Challenges Difficulties encountered in delivering each stage
Prominent risk events Uncertainties and failure sources in each stage
Lessons learned Mistakes, errors, and poor decisions, practices, and processes in each
stage
Best practices Delivery strategies that guarantee consistent good results in each stage
The study adhered to a well-established set of guidelines and protocols for conducting case study
research. These included planning, data collection, analysis, and reflection on findings employed
(Cepeda and Martin, 2005; Yin, 2018). Data were collected through documentation, site visits,
workshops, and interviews. For the Hong Kong cases, site visits were conducted, and relevant
information of the projects' performance, structure, and experience were collected based on the
codebook and used explicitly for the study. For the international cases, relevant and accessible
139
information was collected based on the codebook. Based on the codebook, the study analysed
actual experiences and delivery practices in the investigated cases based on the collected
information and data. In cases where clarifications were required, emails were sent to some of the
relevant project stakeholders whose contact details were accessible.
4.5.5 Document analysis
Beyond the academic literature, the study analysed selected international government publications,
industry technical reports and policy guidelines to extract relevant information to complement the
findings from the other data sources. Table 3.3 summarizes the included documents. Technical
guidelines for implementing MiC projects were reviewed, adapted, and incorporated into the best
practice framework, making it readily applicable and relevant to real-world projects.
Table 3.4: Relevant government publications and industry guidelines used in the study
Document title Origin Reference

An Offsite Guide for the Building and Engineering United (Fraser et al., 2015)
Services Sector Kingdom
Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA): Singapore (Building and
Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction Construction Authority,
Guidebook 2017)
Survey on the Potential Utilization of Prefabrication Hong Kong (Construction Industry
Yards in Hong Kong - Survey Report Council, 2017)
Guidelines on the statutory requirements for Hong Kong (Construction Industry
Modular Integrated Construction Project Council, 2019a)
Advanced Industrialised Methods for the United (Horner et al., 2019)
Construction of Homes Kingdom
Reference Material on the Statutory Requirements Hong Kong (Construction Industry
for Modular Integrated Construction Projects Council, 2020)
140
Methodology for Quantifying the Benefits of United (van Vuuren and
Offsite Construction Kingdom Middleton, 2020)
4.6 Data Analysis Techniques
The study employed various analytical techniques to answer the different research questions and
provide complementary outcomes for realizing the aim of the study. These techniques include
thematic content analysis, reliability test, Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann Whitney U test, Kruskal Wallis
H test, Mean Score Ranking, Risk Significance Index, Factor Analysis, Fuzzy Synthetic
Evaluation (FSE), Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), and Monte Carlo Simulation.
4.6.1 Thematic content analysis
A content analysis describes a set of qualitative data analysis tools used to explore patterns and
trends in texts, including their structure and relationships (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). It provides
qualitative researchers with systematic coding and categorizing framework for trends, patterns,
frequency, structure, and interlinkages of words in a large corpus of textual information (Finfgeld-
Connett, 2014). On the other hand, thematic analysis refers to the hermeneutic content analysis
method used to identify, categorize, analyse, and report patterns, themes, or concepts within
qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). It enables researchers to recognize, describe, and
interpret patterns and themes from non-numerical data. This study employed thematic content
analysis to explore the data from the SLRs, document analysis, case studies, and semi-structured
interviews. It adhered to a well-established set of guidelines and protocols for thematic analysis,
comprising acquainting with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing
themes, defining and naming them, and generating knowledge (Braun and Clarke, 2006). A
detailed description of qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis is beyond the study's
141
scope and can be found in the literature (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Finfgeld-Connett, 2014;
Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The study developed a codebook to guide the interviews, case studies,
and document analysis based on the research questions.
4.6.2 Reliability test
A reliability test is conducted in survey-based studies to ascertain the internal consistency in the
responses and validity of the data collection instrument (Cronbach, 1951; Nunnally and Berstein,
1994). However, the term internal consistency has been controversially defined and construed
variously, including homogeneity, average inter-item correlation, general factor saturation, and
internal consistency reliability (Tang et al., 2014). Along the lines of inter-item correlation and
general factor saturation, this study considers internal consistency as the degree to which items in
the questionnaires measured various aspects of the same construct and generated consistent scores.
Although several metrics have been proposed for measuring reliability (Tang et al., 2014), this
study employed Cronbach’s Alpha to evaluate the internal consistency of responses. The
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (α) takes values between 0.0 (lowest) and 1.0 (highest). The higher
the value of α, the higher the scale’s reliability (Cronbach, 1951). The minimum acceptable
threshold value of α is 0.70 (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). Thus, α between 0.7 and 1.0 are
considered highly reliable and acceptable internal consistency in research (Nunnally and Berstein,
1994). The α was computed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.
4.6.3 Shapiro-Wilk test
Survey data from questionnaires can be analysed using parametric or non-parametric statistical
tests, depending on the distribution of the dataset (Kim, 2015). Parametric statistical tests are
suitable when the data follows a normal distribution, whereas non-parametric tests have no such
142
requirements (Ott and Longnecker, 2016). Thus, it is imperative to ascertain the dataset’s
distribution to inform the choice of statistical tests. The most convenient approach involves
checking whether the dataset is normally distributed. The two commonly used techniques to test
the normality of the data include the Shapiro-Wilk (S – W) test (Chou et al., 1998; Shapiro and
Wilk, 1965) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K – S) test (Mishra et al., 2019). These tests compare the
scores in the sample to a normally distributed set of scores with the same mean and standard
deviations, with the null hypothesis that the sample distribution is normal (Ghasemi and Zahediasl,
2012). In both cases, if the test is significant, the distribution of the dataset is considered non-
normal. Some statisticians have recommended using the Shapiro-Wilk test for sample sizes less
than 50 and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test for samples sizes more than 50 (Ghasemi and
Zahediasl, 2012). However, it has also been proven that the Shapiro Wilk test can still provide
reliable results in samples less than 2000 (Chou et al., 1998; Mishra et al., 2019). As such, this
study conducted the S – W test to check the normality of the data distribution to inform the
selection of appropriate statistical tests for analysing the data. The S – W test is usually performed
based on the null hypothesis that the population is normally distributed. Hence, the null hypothesis
is rejected when the p-value is less than the chosen significance level (e.g., 0.05 at 95% CI), and a
conclusion is made that the tested data are not normally distributed (Chou et al., 1998). This study
used the SPSS software to conduct the S – W test to test the null hypothesis using an alpha level
of 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval.
4.6.4 Kruskal Wallis H test
The Hong Kong questionnaire respondents had various occupational backgrounds and worked in
different institutions. Thus, it was imperative to ascertain whether there are statistically significant
differences among the respondents in assessing the questionnaire items due to the differences in
143
background. The two major non-parametric tests of (dis)agreement among questionnaire item
raters include the Mann-Whitney (M – W) U test and the Kruskal-Wallis (K – W) test, respectively
(Kim, 2015). These non-parametric tests make the following assumptions: (i) dependent variables
are measured on an ordinal scale, (ii) independent variables comprises more than two independent
categorical groups, (iii) responses are random and independent, and (iv) responses are not normally
distributed (Nachar, 2008; Vargha and Delaney, 1998).
The M – W U test is an ordinal rank-based non-parametric equivalent of the two-sample t-test that
determines whether two independent samples originate from the same population (Nachar, 2008).
It checks whether there are statistically significant differences between responses of two
independent categorical groups. The Kruskal-Wallis H test is an ordinal rank-based non-
parametric equivalent of the one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). It ascertains whether there
are statistically significant differences among two or more categorical independent groups (Chan
and Walmsley, 1997; Ostertagová et al., 2014). It measures whether the responses of two or more
independent groups originate from the same population (Vargha and Delaney, 1998). This study
used the K – W H test to conduct inter-group comparisons to ascertain whether there are
statistically significant differences between the Hong Kong questionnaire respondents. The K – W
H test was appropriate because the respondents had more than two occupational and institutional
backgrounds. The K – W H test operates based on a null hypothesis that the categorical groups
originate from the same population. The study used the SPSS software to test the null hypotheses
in the datasets using an alpha level of 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval.
4.6.5 Mean score ranking
The arithmetic mean is a descriptive statistic and measures the central tendency of a probability
distribution along median and mode (Norusis, 2008; Ott and Longnecker, 2016). It provides a
144
quantitative indicator of the average responses of the assessors, computed as a ratio of the sum of
all the given responses to the total number of respondents. The study computed mean scores (MS)
and standard deviations of the DMFs and CSFs using the SPSS software. The mean scores and
standard deviations played complementary roles in ranking the factors in this study. When two
items obtain the same mean score, the one with the lowest standard deviation is ranked higher
because it has a minimal distribution of the responses around its mean value (Ott and Longnecker,
2016). However, the mean is sensitive to outliers and can provide misleading rankings. Thus, the
study computed the normalized mean values to determine the critical threshold for filtering the
most critical items. The normalized mean scores were computed as follows.
i µ −Min.µi
Normalized mean value (NMV) = Max.µ (Eqn. 2.4)
i − Min.µi
Where, µi = MS of the ith factor, where 1 ≤ µi ≤ 5; Min.µi = the lowest MS of the factor set; and
Max.µi = the highest MS of the factor set. As a thumb rule, a NMV of 0.5 was considered a
minimum criticality threshold.
4.6.6 Risk Significance Index
A construction project risk refers to any uncertainty, process, decision, and event that could impact
the realization of project objectives and expectation of stakeholder requirements (Project
Management Institute, 2017). Risks are inevitable in construction projects and must be managed
to minimize their negative impact on project performance (Baloi and Price, 2003). A major
component of risk management is risk assessment, used to prioritize the high impact events
(Project Management Institute, 2017). The impact (exposure) of a risk event is commonly
computed as a function of risk’s probability of occurrence and severity (Ameyaw and Chan, 2015;
145
Ke et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2010). Hence, a risk significance index is usually computed to quantify
the expected value of the risk events using the following formula.
Risk exposure = probability X severity (Eqn. 3.1)
Risk impact (significance index) =√Probability X Severity (Eqn. 3.2)
4.6.7 Factor analysis
Factor analysis refers to a multivariate statistical method used to condense and cluster a large
corpus of inter-related variables into fewer factor groupings (Pett et al., 2003). It employs a
structure detection technique to cluster correlated variables within a set. It is extensively used in
construction management research to manage factor complexity through structuring and clustering
large sets of correlated variables into fewer factors. There are two types of factor analysis:
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA is used when the
analysts have little or no knowledge of the number of factors necessary to explain the
interrelationships among a set of invested variables (Pett et al., 2003). It enables the analyst to
explore the fundamental dimensions of the constructs of interest. CFA is used to assess the extent
to which the hypothesized organization of a set of identified factors fits the data (Pett et al., 2003).
It is used when the analyst knows the underlying structure of the investigated constructs. CFA is
an advanced factor analysis technique, requiring a comprehensive analysis of covariance structures
and usually deployed in structural equation modelling (Brown, 2015). It can test the utility of the
underlying dimensions of construct identified through EFA. In other words, EFA determines the
factor structure, and CFA verifies the factor structure.
However, some conditions must be met before conducting EFA. There are well-established metrics
for verifying the suitability of data for EFA, including reliability analysis (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha),
146
variable to sample size ratio, anti-image correlation matrix, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy (Cerny and Kaiser, 1977; Lingard and Rowlinson,
2006; Pett et al., 2003). Table 3.5 summarizes these indicators, including their minimum
acceptable threshold values.
Table 3.5: Test statistics for verifying the suitability of the dataset for EFA
Test statistic Acceptable range Reference
Variable to sample size ratio ≥ 1: 5 Lingard and Rowlinson (2006)
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.7 – 1.0 Tavakol and Dennick (2011)
Anti-image correlation matrix >0.5 Norusis (2008)
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.8 – 1.0 Cerny and Kaiser (1977)
Bartlett's Test Approx. Chi-Square N/A ---
of Sphericity df N/A ---
Sig. <0.05 @95% CI Pett et al. (2003)
Based on conditions in Table 3.5, EFA was used to explore the structure of the DMFs, CRFs, and
CSFs for residential MiC projects. The study employed principal component analysis as the
extraction method and varimax with Kaiser Normalization as the rotation method in all EFA
analyses. The factor groupings generated from the EFA became input variables for the FSE of the
DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for residential MiC projects. CFA was mainly used to conduct a PLS –
SEM of the CRFs for residential MiC projects.
4.6.8 Fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE)
FSE is a branch of fuzzy set theory. It is considered an artificial intelligence technique that uses
fuzzy logic to quantify the degree of truth in human judgment (Boussabaine, 2014). Thus, it
provides an advanced computational framework and the capability to overcome the inherent
limitations of using the binary Boolean logic (i.e., Yes or No; True or False) to assess events during
147
decision-making. It is considered a multi-criteria evaluation technique that enables the analyst to
quantitatively model multiple attributes in multi-criteria decision-making problems (Sadiq and
Rodriguez, 2004).
It has been extensively used in construction management research to develop evaluation models
and indices for various construction projects (Ameyaw and Chan, 2015; Osei-Kyei et al., 2017;
Xu et al., 2010). The superiority of FSE lies in leveraging membership functions to manipulate
and make objective assessments of subjectiveness, fuzziness, and imprecision inherent in human
judgment during decision-making (Sadiq and Rodriguez, 2004). This study used FSE to quantify
principal components and develop evaluation models for the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The well-established protocols for conducted FSE
modelling are as follows.
Step 1. Setting up the evaluation index system: For m constructs, the evaluation index system for
principal components is defined as: U = (u1, u2, u3, um); where u1 to um denotes the number of
evaluation criteria. A second level evaluation index system for the sub-criteria within each
principal component is defined as: u1 = {u11, u12, u13,…, u1n), u2 = {u21, u22, u23,…, u2n), and um =
{um1, um2, um3,…, umn); where n denotes the number of sub-criteria or variables within each
principal component. These index systems represent the input variables in the FSE modelling
process. The MiC industry practitioners and subject matter experts were requested to rate the
shortlisted DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs, using a five-point rating scale defined as: V = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5},
reflecting a set of five grade alternatives defined as: Vi = {V1, V2, V3, V4, V5}, where V1 to V5
represent the linguistic terms assigned to the grades of the five-point rating scale.
Step 2. Computing the weightings of each evaluation criteria: The weighting (W) of each
criterion can be computed using several techniques, including the analytic hierarchy process,
148
tabulated judgment, and normalized mean method. For simplicity and consistency with the
questionnaire design, this study employed the normalized mean method to compute the weightings
of each factor (Eqn. 3.3) and principal component (Eqn. 3.4) as follows:
𝜇𝑖
Wi = ∑5 , 0 ≤ Wi ≤ 1, Σ (Wi) = 1 (Eqn. 3.3)
𝑖=1 𝜇𝑖
Wi = {w1, w2, w3,…, wn} (Eqn. 3.4)
Where Wi is the weighting of a factor or principal component; n represents the number of factors
in each principal component; µi denotes the mean score of a criterion or factor component; and
Σ(Wi) denotes the summation of weightings.
Step 3. Determining the membership function (MF) of each criterion and factor component:
FSE uses the experts' assessment across the rating scale's grade alternatives to derive the MF of
each factor or criterion. The MF of each factor (vin) was computed as follows.
X1𝑣 X2𝑣 X3𝑣 X4𝑣 X5𝑣

𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
𝑀𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑛 = + + + + (Eqn. 3.5)
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
Where 𝑀𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑛 denotes the MF of a specific factor vin; X𝑗𝑣 (j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) represents the percentage
𝑖𝑛
of a score assigned that the experts assigned to a factor vin; and X𝑗𝑣 /V𝑗 explains the relation
𝑖𝑛
between X𝑗𝑣 and its associated grade alternative based on the rating scale. Alternatively, Eqn.
𝑖𝑛
(3.5) can also be expressed as follows:
𝑀𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑛 = (X1𝑣 , X2𝑣 , X3𝑣 , X 4𝑣 , X5𝑣 ), ∑5𝑗=1 (X𝑗𝑣 ) = 1 (Eqn. 3.6)

𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
The MF of a principal component is also termed a fuzzy evaluation matrix (Di). It is computed as
a product of the fuzzy matrix of MFs of all factors within the component and their weightings. The
fuzzy matrix (Ri) using Eqn. (3.7) and the fuzzy evaluation matrix is computed using Eqn. (3.8),
as follows.
149
MFvi1 X1V X2V X 3V X4V X5V
i1 i1 i1 i1 i1
MFvi2 X1V X2V X 3V X4V X5V
i2 i2 i2 i2 i2
Ri = MFvi3 = X1V X2V X 3V X4V X5V (Eqn. 3.7)
i3 i3 i3 i3 i3
… … … … … …
[MFvin ] [X1Vin X2V
in
X3V
in
X4V
in
X5V ]
in
X1V X2V X3V X4V X 5V

i1 i1 i1 i1 i1
X1V X2V X3V X4V X 5V
i2 i2 i2 i2 i2
Di = Wi ● Ri = (w1, w2, w3,...,wn) ● X1V X2V X3V X4V X 5V
i3 i3 i3 i3 i3
… … … … …
[X1V in
X2V
in
X3V
in
X4V
in
X 5V ]
in
Di = (di1, di2, di3,..., din) (Eqn. 3.8)
Where Di represents the final evaluation matrix (i.e., MF of a principal component); Wi denotes
the weightings of the factors within the associated principal component; Ri denotes the fuzzy
evaluation matrix; “●” is a fuzzy composite operation; and din denotes the degree of membership
of the grade alternative for a given factor.
Step 4. Quantifying the impact level or index and developing the evaluation model. This stage
of the FSE modelling process computes the overall impact level or impact of the constructs. The
overall impact or index is computed as a product of the fuzzy evaluation matrix (Di) and the rating
scale's grade alternatives (Vi). Mathematically, the overall impact level or index of each principal
component is computed as follows:
Overall Index = ∑ni=1(Di × 𝑉i ) = (di1, di2, di3,..., din) x (v1, v2, v3, v4, v5)
Overall Index = ((di1*v1) + (di2*v2) + (di3*v3) + + (di4*v4) + (di5*v5)) (Eqn. 3.9)
In all cases, the study normalized the computed impacts or indices of the principal components. It
used them to develop linear additive evaluation models to assess the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for
150
4.6.9 Partial least square – structural equation modelling
Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a versatile multivariate statistical technique providing the
computational capacity to investigate the relationships among several exogenous (independent)
latent variables and endogenous (dependent) latent variables within a model (Kline, 2015). A latent
variable (LV) refers to an unseen construct responsible for the correlation among measured
variables (Aibinu and Al-Lawati, 2010). SEM is termed covariance structure analysis, covariance
structure modelling, or analysis of covariance (Kline, 2015). It is a second-generation multivariate
statistical technique integrating factor analysis, path analysis, and multiple regression analysis to
address their inherent limitations in examining relationships between multiple explanatory and
response variables (Dattalo, 2008). It is employed when data embody multiple indicators for each
variable (called LVs or factors) and specified paths connecting the LVs.
A complete structural equation model embodies a measurement model and structural model (Hair
et al., 2017). The measurement model describes the relationship between observed variables and
the construct(s) (those variables are hypothesized to measure). In contrast, the structural model
describes the interrelationships among the constructs (Dattalo, 2008). SEM uses CFA in generating
the measurement model, showing the relationships between observed measures or indicators and
latent variables or factors. SEM demands analysts to pre-specify all model aspects because it is
hypothesis-driven (Brown, 2015). Hence, the modeler must have a firm a priori knowledge, based
on past evidence and theory, of the number of factors in the data and which indicators are related
to which factors. The five major SEM processes include (i) model specification, (ii) model
identification, (iii) model estimation, (iv) test of fit, and (v) model respecification or modification
(Kline, 2015). There are mainly two SEM approaches, including covariance-based structure
151
analysis and component-based analysis using partial least squares (PLS) estimation (Schumacker
and Lomax, 2015).
This study used the PLS-SEM to investigate the relationships and interdependencies between the
principal components of the CRFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong due to several
reasons. First, PLS-SEM uses the PLS structural path estimation approach without presuming
distributional shapes of the measured variables. Its component-based approach is distribution-free
and suitable when a dataset has non-normal or unknown distributions (Hair et al., 2019). The CRFs
for residential MiC projects were rated using a Likert scale. Hence, the distributions of the risk
factors were unknown. Thus, PLS-SEM was more appropriate than the covariance-based SEM
(Aibinu and Al-Lawati, 2010). Second, PLS-SEM is more tolerant and receptive to smaller sample
sizes than the covariance-based SEM (Hair et al., 2019). The critical sample size for making
accurate assessments of model fit in covariance-based SEM is at least 200 (Schumacker and
Lomax, 2015). On the other hand, a robust and reliable PLS-SEM model can be constructed from
a sample of less than 100 (Hair et al., 2019). Third, PLS-SEM was preferred because of its modest
measurement assumptions. The covariance-based SEM assumes that the observed measures have
random error variance and measure-specific variance components, which are not of theoretical
interest and are excluded from the measurement model. In contrast, PLS-SEM assumes that
explaining all observed measure variance is essential (Aibinu and Al-Lawati, 2010). The study
implemented the typical protocols for PLS-SEM (Aibinu and Al-Lawati, 2010; Chin, 1998; Hair
et al., 2017, 2019), as follows:
Step 1. Model specification: developing a conceptual causal model based on an extensive review
of the a priori relationship between the constructs.
152
Step 2. Model estimation: conducting iterative CFA to verify the specified model's structure and
relationships. This analysis results in the specification of the measurement model.
Step 3. Measurement model interpretation: evaluating reliability and validity of items in the
measurement model to inform the specification of the structural model for verifying the
hypotheses. The reliability analysis involved composite reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha. The
validity of the measurement model involved convergent validity and discriminant validity.
Convergent validity uses the factor loadings of the measurement items and average variance
extracted (AVE) to evaluate the internal consistency. Discriminant validity uses the Fornell and
Larcker criterion, cross-loading of the measurement items, and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio
of correlation to evaluate the level at which a construct differs from other constructs.
Step 4. Structural model development: It generated the structural model through path analysis. It
involved evaluating the hypotheses and determining the path coefficients (i.e., standardized betas),
measuring the association levels among constructs.
Step 5. Model validation: Checking normality of the data using Kurtosis and Mardia’s Multivariate
skewness. The structural model of the CRFs was assessed for collinearity, significance and
relevance of the structural model relationships, coefficient of determination (R2), effect sizes (f2),
and predictive relevance (q2). The study employed bootstrapping to test the significance of the path
coefficient. Bootstrapping constitutes a robust non-parametric technique that uses the resampling
method to test the significance of the t-value of the path coefficients of the structural model. It
constitutes an inferential statistical method for estimating sampling distribution by randomly
drawing with replacement from the original sample, aiming to derive a robust estimate of the CIs
of a population parameter (i.e., the path coefficient in the estimated theoretical model). It is a
versatile tool for testing hypotheses in any distribution and sample size. The structural model was
153
also assessed by computing the effect sizes of the constructs to ascertain the degree to which one
independent construct contributes to explaining a particular dependent construct in terms of R2.
4.6.10 Monte Carlo simulation
Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is a random number generator capable of considering various
distribution functions for modelling risks and uncertainties associated with events (Mahdiyar et
al., 2021). It is a probabilistic simulation technique that explicitly captures the stochastic nature of
uncertainties and risk events (Xie, 2020). It generates appropriate probability distributions from
random sampling across parameters and employs numerous simulation trials (iterations) for
generating paths that provide probabilistic estimates of uncertainties from suitable numerical
computations. The MC technique can determine the uncertainties and variability quantitatively in
simulation exposure of probability, generate the range of simulation model results, and reveal the
main drivers of the variability and uncertainties while considering their relative contribution to the
overall variance (Xie, 2020).
MC simulation was used to overcome the grave limitations of single-point statistical estimates of
the two-dimensional matrix-based probability–impact (P – I) risk model: : (i) it overlooks the
consequences of tail risks (i.e., low-probability, high-impact risks) leading suboptimal decisions
in selecting risk response strategies; (ii) it fails to recognize the condition where the probability of
occurrence and severity of risks on project fundamentals are unknown to the decision-maker; (iii)
it cannot capture and retain the profiles, probability distributions, and uncertainties associated with
risks; and (iv) it cannot capture and allocate risk management resources based on varied risk
tolerance levels (Qazi and Simsekler, 2021). MC simulation is recognized in the construction
industry as an advanced probabilistic risk assessment technique (Construction Industry Institute,
2013). The processes of the probabilistic risk assessment model are provided in this thesis.
154
4.7 Statistical Pretesting of the Questionnaire Dataset
4.7.1 Reliability Analysis of the Questionnaire Data
The Cronbach's Alpha was used to ascertain the internal consistency of the questionnaire
responses. SPSS was used to compute the Cronbach's Alphas of the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs for
residential MiC projects in the Hong Kong questionnaire dataset. Table 3.6 summarizes outcomes
of the reliability analysis.
Table 3.6: Cronbach Alpha values of the DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs data
Category No. of items Cronbach Alpha

Decision-making factors 25 0.911
Critical risk factors Probability 26 0.952
Impact 26 0.960
Critical success factors 23 0.948
The Cronbach's Alpha values for the evaluated DMFs, CSFs, and CRFs for residential MiC
projects ranged from 0.911 to 0.960. The values exceeded the minimum acceptable threshold of
0.7, indicating excellent internal consistency of the responses and validity of the questionnaire
dataset (Nunnally and Berstein, 1994; Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).
4.7.2 Distribution of the Datasets and Agreement among the Respondents
4.7.2.1 Suitability decision-making factors
Table 3.7 presents results of S – W test of normality and K – W test of statistically significant
differences among the respondents in rating the importance levels of suitability DMFs for
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong, at a 95% confidence interval (α = 0. 05). The asymptotic
significance (p-values) of the S – W test of the 25 suitability DMFs for residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong are less than the chosen 0.05 significance level, indicating non-normality in the data
155
distribution. Hence, it was appropriate to use only non-parametric statistical tests (i.e., K – W H
test) to conduct a rank agreement analysis of DMFs.
Table 3.7: S – W and K – W tests of the suitability DMFs for residential MiC projects
ID Decision-making factors S – W test K – W test
(Sig.) (Sig.)
DMF1 Presence of repetitive layout in design 0.000 0.652
DMF2 Suitability of design for MiC 0.000 0.965
DMF3 Structural integrity of modules 0.000 0.321
DMF4 Availability of lead time for MiC modules 0.000 0.389
DMF5 Site layout, characteristics, and environment 0.000 0.658
DMF6 Dimensions and number of required MiC units 0.000 0.720
DMF7 Expediting construction 0.000 0.693
DMF8 Availability of skilled and experienced labor force 0.000 0.628
DMF9 Readiness of the project team, including contractor, 0.000 0.850
consultant, designer
DMF10 Minimizing environmental nuisance and neighborhood noise 0.000 0.065
DMF11 Number of stories 0.000 0.557
DMF12 Availability of construction equipment 0.000 0.418
DMF13 Reducing construction waste footprint 0.000 0.154
DMF14 Reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions 0.000 0.687
DMF15 Availability of supportive technology (e.g., BIM) 0.000 0.869
DMF16 Nature, size, scope, and type of the project 0.000 0.844
DMF17 Width of the transport network to site and traffic conditions in 0.000 0.434
the vicinity
DMF18 Accessibility and availability of temporary storage areas at the 0.000 0.096
site location
DMF19 Minimizing accidents and fatalities on site 0.000 0.548
DMF20 Availability and capacity of fabricators 0.000 0.064
DMF21 Project procurement system and contract type 0.000 0.178
DMF22 Business needs, client contract or regulatory requirements 0.000 0.429
DMF23 Reducing lifecycle construction costs 0.000 0.687
DMF24 Industry communication and collaboration culture 0.000 0.636
DMF25 The capability of local MiC supply chain 0.000 0.374
The K – W test was also conducted at a 95% confidence interval to ascertain whether there existed
significant disparity among the fifteen independent respondent groups in assessing the DMFs for
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The p-values of the K – W H test were greater than 0.05
for twenty-five DMFs, indicating the absence of statistically significant disparity among the
156
experts in ranking the factors that influence the decision to implement the MiC method in
residential building projects in Hong Kong. The outcome provided a statistical legitimacy to
combine and integrate the responses of the various respondents in further analysis.
4.7.2.2 Critical risk factors
Table 3.8 summarizes outcomes of S – W test and K – W H test of the CRFs for residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. The asymptotic significance (p-values) of the S – W test of the probability
and impact ratings of the 30 CRFs are less than the chosen 0.05 significance level, indicating non-
normality in the data distribution.
Table 3.8: S – W and K – W tests of the CRFs for residential MiC projects
ID Critical risk factors S – W test (Sig.) K – W test (Sig.)
Probability Impact Probability Impact
CRF1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories 0.000 0.000 0.509 0.107
CRF2 Limited MiC expertise and 0.000 0.000 0.577 0.453
experience
CRF3 Supply chain disruptions 0.000 0.000 0.705 0.498
CRF4 Stakeholder fragmentation and 0.000 0.000 0.949 0.449
complexity
CRF5 Higher initial capital requirement 0.000 0.000 0.519 0.742
CRF6 Delay in modules delivery to the 0.000 0.000 0.188 0.601
site
CRF7 Defective design and change order 0.000 0.000 0.478 0.397
CRF8 Unsuitability of design for MiC 0.000 0.000 0.386 0.699
CRF9 Late design completion and 0.000 0.000 0.761 0.595
freezing
CRF10 Inadequate planning and scheduling 0.000 0.000 0.358 0.572
CRF11 Unsuitable procurement system 0.000 0.000 0.319 0.183
CRF12 Incomplete local MiC supply chain 0.000 0.000 0.870 0.746
CRF13 Poor cooperation among critical 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.097
stakeholders
CRF14 Shortages of modules on site 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.323
CRF15 Restrictive site space constraints 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.470
CRF16 Complex interfaces between 0.000 0.000 0.798 0.438
systems
CRF17 Inaccurate MiC design information 0.000 0.000 0.166 0.416
CRF18 Inappropriate structural system and 0.000 0.000 0.096 0.343
157
CRF19 Module installation errors 0.000 0.000 0.389 0.337
CRF20 Misplacement of stored modules 0.000 0.000 0.153 0.150
CRF21 Absence of standardized modules 0.000 0.000 0.238 0.458
CRF22 Inadequate project funding and tight 0.000 0.000 0.778 0.537
demand for cash inflows
CRF23 Mechanical malfunction of cranes 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.530
CRF24 Inaccurate cost estimation 0.000 0.000 0.251 0.508
CRF25 Design information gap between 0.000 0.000 0.619 0.334
CRF26 Module production errors 0.000 0.000 0.343 0.443
Also, the asymptotic significance (p-values) of the K – W H test of probability and impact ratings
of the 30 CRFs are greater than the chosen 0.05 significance level. The outcome indicated the
absence of statistically significant disparity among the experts in rating the probability and impact
of the CRFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong, providing a statistical legitimacy to
4.7.2.3 Critical success factors
Table 3.9 summarizes outcomes of the S – W test and K – W H test of the CSFs for residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. The asymptotic significance (p-values) of the S – W test of the 23
CSFs are less than the chosen 0.05 significance level, indicating non-normality of the data
distribution.
Table 3.9: S – W and K – W tests of the CSFs for residential MiC projects
ID Critical success factors S – W test K – W test
(Sig.) (Sig.)
CSF1 Adequate knowledge and experience of critical 0.000 0.551
stakeholders
CSF2 Early understanding and commitment of the client 0.000 0.389
CSF3 Effective leadership and support of a specialist contractor 0.000 0.698
CSF4 Collaborative working relationship among key 0.000 0.256
stakeholders
CSF5 Early design completion and freezing 0.000 0.621
CSF6 Suitable site characteristics and layout 0.000 0.402
CSF7 Suitability of design for MiC 0.000 0.354
158
CSF8 Extensive upfront planning for MiC 0.000 0.468
CSF9 Use of collaborative procurement system and contracting 0.000 0.645
CSF10 Seamless supply chain coordination and integration 0.000 0.194
CSF11 Early and active involvement of critical project 0.000 0.591
stakeholders
CSF12 Effective coordination and integration of stakeholders 0.000 0.584
CSF13 Availability of sound transport infrastructure and site 0.000 0.022
equipment
CSF14 Effective coordination of onsite and offsite work 0.000 0.314
packages
CSF15 Using suitable structural system and construction material 0.000 0.868
CSF16 Effective use of building information modeling 0.000 0.774
CSF17 Effective management of critical tolerances between 0.000 0.846
interfaces
CSF18 Early engagement of certification body for factory 0.000 0.650
inspection
CSF19 Inventory management and control 0.000 0.483
CSF20 Use of just-in-time delivery arrangement 0.000 0.276
CSF21 Effective use of document management system 0.000 0.161
CSF22 Use of hedging strategies and transport delay avoidance 0.000 0.703
CSF23 Adequate lead time for bespoke MiC processes 0.000 0.670
Also, the asymptotic significance (p-values) of the K – W H test of the 23 CSFs are greater than
the chosen 0.05 significance level. This indicated the absence of statistically significant disparity
among the experts in assessing the significance of the CSFs, providing a statistical legitimacy to
4.7.3 Verification of the Suitability of the Datasets for Factor Analysis
Table 3.10 summarizes results of the five metrics for verifying the suitability of the data for EFA
along with their well-established range of acceptable values. The sample size to factor ratio for the
three different data dimensions met the minimum threshold of 5:1 (Lingard and Rowlinson, 2006).
The Cronbach's Alpha values of the three dimensions ranged from 0.911 to 0.960, exceeding the
minimum threshold of 0.7 (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). The anti-image correlation coefficients
between the factors across the three data dimensions exceeded the 0.5 minimum threshold. The
159
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test statistic for the three data dimensions ranged from 0.848 to
0.924, surpassing the minimum threshold of 0.8 (Pett et al., 2003), corroborating the adequacy of
the sample size for EFA
Table 3.10:Test statistics for verifying the suitability of the data for EFA
Test statistic Acceptable Decision- Critical risk Critical success
range making factors factors
factors (Impact)
Sample size to variable to ratio ≥ 5: 1 4.68:1 4.5:1 5.1:1
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.7 – 1.0 0.911 0.960 0.948

Anti-image correlation matrix >0.5 >0.5 >0.5 >0.5
KMO Measure of Sampling 0.8 – 1.0 0.848 0.896 0.924

Adequacy
Bartlett's Test Approx. χ2 --- 1316.968 2416.692 1702.516
of Sphericity df --- 300 325 253
Sig. <0.05 0.000 0.000 0.000
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was conducted at a 95% confidence level (i.e., α = 0.05). Bartlett's
Test of Sphericity, with a Pearson Chi-Square ranging from χ2 = 1316.968 to χ2 = 2416.692
3590.1, and p < 0.000 showed that the correlation matrices of the three data dimensions were
significantly different from an identity matrix. The pre-testing outcomes demonstrated that the
data was suitable for EFA.
4.8 Data Analysis Tools and Software
Various computer applications and software tools were used throughout the research process,
including Microsoft (MS) Excel, @Risk (Excel Add-on) and Word 365, Microsoft Visio 2013,
Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), SPSS v.26, SmartPLS (v.3) and Mendeley. MS
Word 365 was the main word processor used in writing the thesis report. MS Excel 365 was used
in redesigning the graphs and charts throughout the research process, generating the template for
160
the FSE models of DMFs, CRFs, and CSFs. It was also used for the basic descriptive statistical
analysis and the MC simulation (@Risk Excel Add-on). The study designed, programmed, and
developed the decision support system and performance measurement system in Microsoft VBA
and executed in Microsoft Excel 365. The study mainly used MS Visio 2013 to draw all figures
reported in the thesis. SPSS v.26 was used to code, manage, and analyse the questionnaire data. It
was used to pre-test the questionnaire datasets, compute the descriptive statistics, and conduct the
EFA. SmartPLS was used to develop the structural risk-path model for residential MiC projects.
Mendeley was used to manage the references and generate the citations and bibliographies in the
thesis.
4.9 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the research methodology of the thesis. It defined and decomposed the
concept of the research paradigm and justified the adoption of pragmatism as the philosophical
tradition that governed the research. It justified the adoption of mixed methods research design
and strategy, consistent with pragmatist philosophical stance. The chapter provided a detailed
description of the research process. It discussed the various data collection and analytical
techniques used to answer the research questions. The chapter also presented results of statistical
pretesting of questionnaire data and outlines the various computer applications and software
packages used to analyse the data. The next chapter presents a suitability decision support for the
MiC method in Hong Kong.
161
CHAPTER 4 – SUITABILITY DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR
RESIDENTIAL MiC PROJECTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to address the MiC suitability assessment problem for residential building
projects. It quantifies the significance of the factors influencing the decision to implement the MiC
method in residential building projects. Then, the chapter generates and models the impact of the
principal components of the significant suitability decision-making factors. Subsequently, the
chapter develops an intelligent (i.e., knowledge-based) suitability decision support system
(Intelligent-MiC) that enables project teams and construction organization to quantify and
ascertain the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong at
outset. It further validates and demonstrates the application of the Intelligent-MiC system and
discusses the findings. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings.
4.2 Significant Suitability DMFs for the MiC Method
Table 4.1 summarizes the mean scores, standard deviation, and ranking of twenty-five suitability
DMFs for the MiC method in Hong Kong. The mean scores indicate that twenty-one decision-
making factors were considered significant determinants of the suitability of MiC method in
residential building projects in Hong Kong.
Table 4.1: Suitability decision-making factors for the MiC method in Hong Kong.
Code Suitability decision-making factors Mean Std. Dev Rank
DMF1 Presence of repetitive layout in design 4.32 0.83 1
DMF2 Suitability of design for MiC 4.25 0.80 2
DMF18 Accessibility and availability of temporary storage areas at the 4.13 0.74 3
site location
DMF3 Structural integrity of modules 4.12 0.91 4
DMF17 Width of the transport network to site and traffic conditions in 4.02 0.81 5
the vicinity
DMF6 Dimensions and number of required MiC units 3.98 0.78 6
162
DMF20 Availability and capacity of fabricators 3.89 0.82 7
DMF4 Availability of lead time for MiC modules 3.84 0.85 8
DMF25 The capability of local MiC supply chain 3.83 0.95 9
DMF5 Site layout, characteristics, and environment 3.82 0.80 10
DMF16 Nature, size, scope, and type of the project 3.78 0.88 11
DMF22 Business needs, client contract or regulatory requirements 3.78 0.85 11
DMF7 Expediting construction 3.77 0.85 13
DMF15 Availability of supportive technology (e.g., BIM) 3.69 0.85 14
DMF11 Number of stories 3.68 0.93 15
DMF9 Readiness of the project team, including contractor, consultant, 3.61 0.92 16
designer
DMF24 Industry communication and collaboration culture 3.60 0.81 17
DMF12 Availability of construction equipment 3.59 0.92 18
DMF8 Availability of skilled and experienced labour force 3.57 0.90 19
DMF13 Reducing construction waste footprint 3.57 0.86 19
DMF19 Minimizing accidents and fatalities on site 3.50 0.94 21
DMF14 Reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions 3.47 0.92 22
DMF21 Project procurement system and contract type 3.46 0.86 23
DMF23 Reducing lifecycle construction costs 3.44 0.81 24
DMF10 Minimizing environmental nuisance and neighbourhood noise 3.42 0.98 25
Table 4.1 shows that the top five most significant factors determining when to use the MiC method
in residential building projects in Hong Kong include DMF1 “Presence of repetitive layout in
design,” DMF2 “Suitability of design for MiC,” DMF18 “Accessibility and availability of
temporary storage areas at site location,” DMF3 “Structural integrity of modules”, and DMF17 "
Width of transport network to site and traffic conditions in the vicinity." These factors demonstrate
the significance of design specifications and site characteristics when implementing the MiC
method in construction projects in Hong Kong. Therefore, project teams must explicitly design
residential buildings to facilitate offsite manufacture and onsite assembly of modules and arrange
suitable sites for construction projects involving the MiC method.
However, some DMFs (e.g., DMF10, DMF14) considered less significant for MiC usage in Hong
Kong were assessed as essential factors influencing PPVC suitability for building and construction
projects in Singapore (Hwang et al., 2018b). This divergence highlights the differences in context
163
and sensitivities of the significant suitability DMFs to industry climates. Also, many significant
factors (e.g., DMF5, DMF6, DMF9, DMF17, DMF18, DMF20, DMF22, DMF24, DMF25)
determining the suitability of the MiC method for building and construction projects in Hong Kong
have rarely been considered in the literature and previous decision support tools (Hwang et al.,
2018b; Murtaza et al., 1993). The additional significant suitability DMFs corroborates the
importance of developing a bespoke suitability decision support tool for Hong Kong.
The twenty-one significant DMFs (Table 4.1) indicate that project characteristics, project
objectives, site conditions and characteristics, local industry contexts, regulations, organizational
readiness factors, and supply chain considerations collectively determine when it is appropriate to
use the MiC method in residential building projects (Abdul Nabi and El-Adaway, 2020; Wuni and
Shen, 2019). This revelation corroborates the argument presented in the literature that factors
determining the suitability of the MiC method extends beyond suitable project design and
construction characteristics (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020), requiring relevant decision support
systems.
4.3 Principal Components of the Significant Suitability DMFs for the MiC Method
The EFA rotation of the twenty-five suitability DMFs for the MiC method in Hong Kong
converged in 11 iterations. It generated four principal DMFs (PDMFs) determining the suitability
of the MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong, explaining about 62.99% of
the total variance in the suitability of the MiC method. The PDMFs include PDMF1 (project
characteristics), PDMF2 (project objectives and requirements), PDMF3 (organizational and
industry readiness), and PDMF4 (location and site attributes). Table 4.2 summarizes the factor
loadings of the DMFs within the PDMFs.
164
Table 4.2: Factor loadings and eigenvalues of the suitability DMFs for the MiC method
ID Decision-making factors Factor loadings
Principal decision-making factors 1 2 3 4
PDMF1 Project characteristics
DMF2 Suitability of design for MiC 0.798 - - -
DMF11 Number of stories 0.731 - - -
DMF3 Structural integrity of modules 0.720 - - -
DMF4 Availability of adequate lead time for MiC modules 0.696 - - -
DMF1 Presence of repetitive layout in design 0.686 - - -
DMF21 Project procurement system and contract type 0.654 - - -
DMF6 Dimensions and number of required MiC units 0.561 - - -
DMF16 Nature, size, scope, and type of the project 0.518 - - -
PDMF2 Project objectives and requirements - - - -
DMF13 Reducing construction waste footprint - 0.890 - -
DMF14 Reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions - 0.839 - -
DMF10 Minimizing environmental nuisance and - 0.693 - -
neighbourhood noise
DMF19 Minimizing accidents and fatalities on site - 0.678 - -
DMF22 Business needs, client contract or regulatory - 0.571 - -
requirement
DMF23 Reducing lifecycle construction costs - 0.470 - -
DMF7 Expediting construction - 0.427 - -
PDMF3 Organizational and industry readiness - - -
DMF9 Readiness of the project team, including contractor, - - 0.749 -
consultant, designer
DMF25 Capability of local MiC supply chain - - 0.720 -
DMF24 Industry communication and collaboration culture - - 0.699 -
DMF15 Availability of supportive technology - - 0.573 -
DMF20 Availability and capacity of fabricators - - 0.573 -
DMF12 Availability of construction equipment - - 0.549 -
DMF8 Availability of skilled and experienced labour force - - 0.519 -
PDMF4 Location and site attributes - - - -
DMF18 Accessibility and availability of temporary storage - - - 0.701
areas at site location
DMF5 Site layout, characteristics, and environment - - - 0.587
DMF17 Width of transport network to site and traffic - - - 0.501
conditions in the vicinity
Eigenvalue 8.406 3.941 2.441 1.025
Variance explained (%) 33.625 15.768 9.765 3.834
Cumulative variance explained (%) 33.625 49.393 59.158 62.992
4.3.1 Project characteristics (PDMF1)
PDMF1 with an eigenvalue of 8.406 explained 33.63% of the variance in the suitability of the MiC
method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. It includes eight DMFs linked to project
165
design and construction features that supports the MiC method in a project. The most significant
DMF within PDMF1 is suitability of the design for the MiC method with a factor loading of 0.798,
highlighting the significance of the early commitment and explicitly designing the project for the
MiC method. Residential MiC projects with repetitive layout in the design are suitable for the MiC
method (Hwang et al., 2018b). According to Li (2020a), the repetition reduces module design
diversity and improves standardization of component design and production. While projects with
higher (>4) number of stories and repetitions also provides opportunities for standardization and
economies of scale, the connections between the modules must have adequate structural integrity
and robustness to accommodate strong wind loads (e.g., typhoons) and seismic forces in Hong
Kong (Hong, 2020). The suitability of MiC for a project also depends on the availability of
adequate lead time for the modules. Within the tighter project schedules, adequate time must be
available for accurate engineering design specification, detailed working drawings, early design
freeze, prototyping, mock-up testing and trial assembly of the modules before mass production
(Gibb and Isack, 2003). The project should also adopt an integrated delivery method and
collaborative procurement system to encourage information sharing and frequent communication
among relevant project participants right at the outset (Nibbelink et al., 2017). The dimensions and
required number of MiC units could influence the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method
in a project (Hwang et al., 2018b). More and repetitive number of units promotes average cost
reductions, leading to cost savings (Li, 2020). The project type, nature, and scope affect the
suitability of MiC projects. Complex projects with non-repeating spaces may not be suitable for
the MiC method, especially when the scale is small (Development Bureau, 2020).
166
4.3.2 Project objectives and requirements (PDMF2)
PDMF2 with an eigenvalue of 3.941 explained 15.768% of the variance in the suitability of the
MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. It comprises seven DMFs linked to
stakeholder objectives and impact required by the residential project. Reducing construction waste
footprint (DMF13) received the highest factor loading of 0.890 and represents the perceived most
profound project objective that can influence the use of the MiC method in a residential building
project. It is well-established that the MiC method can significantly reduce construction solid
waste due to the cleaner processes, reduced wet trades, and limited time spent on site (Tam et al.,
2007). The MiC method may also be suitable when the proposed project has targets to reduce
embodied energy and carbon emissions in the construction process (Mao et al., 2013; Quale et al.,
2012). The limited time spent on site and the minimal onsite construction activities render the MiC
method more suitable when project teams seek to reduce environmental nuisance and
neighbourhood noise during construction (Blismas, 2007; Cao et al., 2015). The MiC method has
also demonstrated outstanding efficiency in reducing accidents and fatalities on site due to the
reduced need to work from height, cleaner construction site, and limited time spent on site
(McGraw Hill Construction, 2013). The MiC method also constitutes the most suitable approach
when the business needs or client requires an expedited project delivery and reduction in lifecycle
costs (Blismas et al., 2006).
4.3.3 Organizational and industry readiness (PDMF3)
PDMF3 with an eigenvalue of 2.441 accounts for a 9.765% of the variance in the suitability of the
MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. It comprises eight DMFs linked to
the readiness of construction industry professionals and organizations to implement the MiC
method. Organizational readiness refers to the extent to which the implementing organization(s)
167
or organizational members are technically, psychologically, culturally prepared, and well-
equipped to cope with the delivery requirements of the MiC method (Weiner, 2009). MiC is a
relatively new business model and reconfigures how projects are designed, procured, delivered,
and managed. Hence, suitability of the MiC method in a project also depends on the readiness of
the project team to re-engineer their competencies, work culture, and practices to meet the bespoke
delivery requirements of MiC projects. For instance, the contractor must develop strategies to
freeze the design early to allow for a timely workshop production (Gibb and Isack, 2003). The
designers need to be prepared to collaborate with the manufacturers at the design stage to
proactively design out manufacturing constraints (Wuni and Shen, 2020d). The assembly
subcontractor or installers of the main contractor should have experience and be prepared to work
with precision and tight tolerances.
Interestingly, readiness of the project team, including contractor, consultant, designer (DMF9)
with a factor loading of 0.749 constitutes the most important organizational and industry readiness
factor influencing the suitability of the MiC method in a project. As the MiC method reinvents
how residential building projects are delivered, it requires a new set of thinking, work culture,
competencies, skills, and expertise of various project team members. Fraser et al. (2015)
corroborated that construction organizations and professionals must upgrade and upskill in the
required production engineering, connection systems, and manufacturing principles when
The capability and maturity of the local supply chain also influence the suitability of the MiC
method in a project (Abdul Nabi and El-Adaway, 2020; Pan and Hon, 2018). There should be
specialist MiC design consultants, designers, contractors, material suppliers, module
manufacturers, among others to effectively implement the MiC method in a project. Notably,
168
availability of manufacturing yards and competent manufacturers in the country can reduce the
cost of producing and transporting the required MiC modules. Where the local supply chain is
incomplete, it is still possible to deploy overseas manufacturers and suppliers to produce the
required modules (Yang et al., 2021). However, such cross-border sourcing of modules can
generate complex requirements, custom challenges, and jurisdictional risks that must be managed
(Pan and Hon, 2018). The suitability of the MiC method also depends on the availability of
construction equipment, specialist workforce, and supportive technology such as building
information modelling (BIM). BIM is mandatory in any meaningful residential MiC project
because it is required for clash detection analysis, visualizations purposes, and management of the
project from a lifecycle perspective, including the planning, design of each industrialized item,
formwork, rebar and even tile pattern and supply chain management.
4.3.4 Location and site attributes (DMF4)
PDMF4 with an eigenvalue of 1.025 explained about 3.834% of the variance in the factors
determining when to use the MiC method in residential building projects. It comprises three DMFs
linked to the location and site attributes of the proposed projects that support the adoption of the
MiC method. These DMFs include accessibility and availability of temporary storage areas at site
location (DMF18), site layout, characteristics, and environment (DMF5), and width of transport
network to site and traffic conditions in the vicinity (DMF17). The MiC method usually requires
temporary storage of modules on site before and during installation, especially when just-in-time
delivery arrangement is not made (Blismas, 2007). Proposed residential MiC projects without
some reasonable space for temporary holding of the modules could introduce additional challenges
in the project delivery process (Construction Industry Council, 2019a). Gentle and simple site
terrains favour transportation of the MiC modules to site. Thus, a project with undulating terrain,
169
hilly landscape, and complex site constraints could negatively affect the suitability of the MiC
method (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2021). Narrow widths of the transport network to the site
location and busy traffic conditions in the vicinity can significantly undermine the efficiency and
effectiveness of the MiC method in a project (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Hence, these
location and site attributes must be considered when deciding to implement the MiC method in a
project.
4.4 Quantifying the Impact of the Principal DMFs for the MiC Method
The FSE technique provides relevant computational power to model and quantify the impact of
the DMFs and PDMFs determining the suitability of the MiC method for residential building
projects in Hong Kong. Table 4.3 summarizes the mean scores, weightings, and membership
functions of the DMFs and PDMFs for the MiC method in Hong Kong. PDMF1 obtained the
highest weighting, followed by PDMF3, PDMF2, and PDMF4. The weightings were not used to
rank the PDMFs because they are sensitive to the number of DMFs and could be biased towards
PDMFs containing more DMFs.
Table 4.3: Weighting and membership functions of the DMFs for MiC in Hong Kong
ID (Principal) Decision-making factors MS Wi Membership function
PDMF1 Project characteristics 31.43 0.334 (0.00, 0.08, 0.18, 0.45, 0.29)
DMF1 Presence of repetitive layout in design 4.32 0.137 (0.01, 0.03, 0.08, 0.39, 0.49)
DMF2 Suitability of design for MiC 4.25 0.135 (0.00, 0.05, 0.07, 0.46, 0.42)
DMF3 Structural integrity of modules 4.12 0.131 (0.00, 0.09, 0.10, 0.42, 0.39)
DMF6 Dimensions and number of required MiC 3.98 0.127 (0.00, 0.05, 0.15, 0.56, 0.24)
units
DMF4 Availability of adequate lead time for 3.84 0.122 (0.00, 0.09, 0.20, 0.51, 0.21)
MiC modules
DMF16 Nature, size, scope, and type of the 3.78 0.12 (0.00, 0.10, 0.21, 0.49, 0.20)
project
DMF11 Number of stories 3.68 0.117 (0.01, 0.09, 0.31, 0.39, 0.20)
DMF21 Project procurement system and contract 3.46 0.11 (0.00, 0.14, 0.37, 0.39, 0.10)
type
PDMF2 Project objectives and requirements 24.95 0.265 (0.01, 0.11, 0.32, 0.41, 0.14)
DMF22 Business needs, client contract or 3.78 0.152 (0.01, 0.06, 0.26, 0.48, 0.19)
regulatory requirement
170
DMF7 Expediting construction 3.77 0.151 (0.00, 0.08, 0.26, 0.47, 0.19)
DMF13 Reducing construction waste footprint 3.57 0.143 (0.01, 0.09, 0.34, 0.43, 0.13)
DMF19 Minimizing accidents and fatalities on 3.5 0.14 (0.01, 0.15, 0.32, 0.38, 0.15)
site
DMF14 Reducing embodied energy and carbon 3.47 0.139 (0.01, 0.14, 0.36, 0.37, 0.13)
emissions
DMF23 Reducing lifecycle construction costs 3.44 0.138 (0.00, 0.13, 0.38, 0.41, 0.08)
DMF10 Minimizing environmental nuisance and 3.42 0.137 (0.02, 0.16, 0.34, 0.34, 0.14)
neighbourhood noise
PDMF3 Organizational and industry readiness 25.78 0.274 (0.00, 0.09, 0.29, 0.44, 0.18)
DMF20 Availability and capacity of fabricators 3.89 0.151 (0.00, 0.05, 0.24, 0.48, 0.23)
DMF25 Capability of local MiC supply chain 3.83 0.149 (0.02, 0.09, 0.19, 0.47, 0.24)
DMF15 Availability of supportive technology 3.69 0.143 (0.00, 0.07, 0.35, 0.40, 0.18)
DMF9 Readiness of the project team, including 3.61 0.14 (0.01, 0.12, 0.28, 0.44, 0.15)
contractor, consultant, designer
DMF24 Industry communication and 3.6 0.14 (0.00, 0.09, 0.35, 0.44, 0.12)
collaboration culture
DMF12 Availability of construction equipment 3.59 0.139 (0.01, 0.12, 0.30, 0.42, 0.15)
DMF8 Availability of skilled and experienced 3.57 0.138 (0.00, 0.14, 0.30, 0.42, 0.15)
labour force
PDMF4 Location and site attributes 11.97 0.127 (0.00, 0.04, 0.19, 0.51, 0.26)
DMF18 Accessibility and availability of 4.13 0.345 (0.00, 0.03, 0.14, 0.52, 0.32)
temporary storage areas at site location
DMF17 Width of transport network to site and 4.02 0.336 (0.00, 0.03, 0.21, 0.45, 0.30)
traffic conditions in the vicinity
DMF5 Site layout, characteristics, and 3.82 0.319 (0.00, 0.07, 0.21, 0.55, 0.17)
environment
Instead, the membership functions and weightings were used to compute the impact level of each
PDMF and overall impact of the DMFs. Table 4.4 summarizes the relevant computations and the
impact indices of the various PDMFs. The overall impact index of 3.781 on a five-point rating
scale shows that the DMFs collectively generate a significant influence on the suitability of the
MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. Therefore, project teams and
construction organizations must consider these DMFs when deciding to use the MiC method in a
project in Hong Kong. Additionally, Table 4.4 indicates that each of the four PDMFs significantly
determine the suitability of the MiC method for a residential building project and requires the full
attention of project managers.
171
Table 4.4: Significance and impact indices of the PDMFs for MiC in Hong Kong
ID Computation Impact Index Norm.
PDMF1 = (0.00, 0.08, 0.18, 0.45, 0.29) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.947 0.260
= (0.00*1) + (0.08*2) + (0.18*3) + (0.45*4) + (0.29*5)
PDMF2 = (0.01, 0.11, 0.32, 0.41, 0.14) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.570 0.235

= (0.01*1) + (0.11*2) + (0.32*3) + (0.41*4) + (0.14*5)
PDMF3 = (0.00, 0.09, 0.29, 0.44, 0.18) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.686 0.243

= (0.00*1) + (0.09*2) + (0.29*3) + (0.44*4) + (0.18*5)
PDMF4 = (0.00, 0.04, 0.19, 0.51, 0.26) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.993 0.263

= (0.00*1) + (0.04*2) + (0.19*3) + (0.51*4) + (0.26*5)
Overall = (0.004, 0.087, 0.248, 0.445, 0.216)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.781 Σ = 1.000

= (0.004*1) + (0.087*2) + (0.248*3) + (0.445*4) + (0.216*5)
Location and site attributes present the most profound influence on the suitability of the MiC
method a project in Hong Kong, obtaining the highest impact level of 3.993 on a 5-point rating
scale. The next highest impact PDMF is project characteristics (3.947), followed by organizational
and industry readiness (3.686). The least significant PDMF is project objectives and requirements
(3.570). The outcome of the FSE is surprisingly compelling and reflective of reality because
project requirements are known to drive the adoption of the MiC technology in residential building
projects but have no overriding influence on the suitability of the MiC method in a project. Based
on the normalized values of the PDMFs (Table 4.4), a fuzzy suitability index function can be
derived as an additive linear equation as follows.
Fuzzy suitability index function = 0.260*( project characteristics) + 0.235*(project objectives
and requirements) + 0.243*(organizational and industry readiness) + 0.263*(location and site
attributes).
This equation can be used to estimate and quantify the suitability of the MiC method for a
residential building project in Hong Kong.
172
4.5 Developing the Suitability Decision Support System
4.5.1 Knowledge-based decision support system
A knowledge-based decision support system (KBDSS) combines an expert system and a decision
support system (DSS) (Zhao et al., 2015). Decision support refers to written guidance or
automated tool that uses standardized information, models, or frameworks to aid structured
decision-making (Sullivan, 2002). Document-driven decision support tools are strictly based on
guidance documents that are not automated. However, the guidance document is often translated
into a computer application to handle computational complexity. Software tools are generally used
to develop DSS. A DSS is considered an interactive, computer-based information system
facilitating the use of data, models, and structured processes in decision making (Sullivan, 2002).
Conversely, an expert system is a computational tool that includes a knowledge base containing
knowledge of experts for a particular problem domain and a reasoning mechanism for generating
inferences over the knowledge base, emulating the decision-making capability of a human expert
(Liao, 2005).
Combining an expert system and DSS, a KBDSS provides an automated computer-based
information system that leverages analytical decision models and expert knowledge to aid
decision-makers in making effective judgments in a complex and ill-structured decision problem
(Sullivan, 2002; Zhao et al., 2015). A typical KBDSS has the following unique attributes: explicit
design to solve ill-structure problems; interactive and user-friendly interface; integration of
analytical models with expert data; capability of exploring the solution space for alternatives; and
accommodates interactive and recursive problem-solving (Sullivan, 2002). These characteristics
render a KBDSS suitable in providing decision aid during construction method selection, which is
173
often made based on multiple factors, with uncertainties surrounding the data and models used to
interpret the data.
A KBDSS has the merit of providing improved transparency and automation of the complex
decision-making process. It is consistent with practical decision-making in construction
management, usually based on expert knowledge and experience, and provides more structured
data-driven or model-driven decision solutions (Sullivan, 2002). Additionally, a KBDSS provides
a user-friendly interactive interface enabling construction professionals with limited computer
proficiency to make efficient decisions (Zhao et al., 2015). It has been widely used to solve ill-
structured and complex construction project management decision problems, including make-to-
order bidding decision (Dawood, 1995), construction method selection (Chen et al., 2010),
construction enterprise risk management (Zhao et al., 2015), and feasibility of innovative
construction methods (Hwang et al., 2018b). As such, KBDSS constitutes an appropriate choice
for evaluating the suitability of MiC for building and construction projects in Hong Kong.
4.5.2 Developing the MiC suitability scoring system
The study developed a scoring system based on the questionnaire data to evaluate the suitability
of using MiC for a residential building project in Hong Kong. The MiC scoring system formed the
basis for developing the knowledge-based decision support system for the MiC method (hereafter,
Intelligent-MiC system). The Intelligent-MiC system was developed in Microsoft Excel with the
aid of Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). Three reasons influenced the use of VBA to develop
the Intelligent-MiC in Microsoft Excel: First, industry practitioners explicitly expressed the need
for a simple tool without a compromise in good decision-making. They had an affinity for
Microsoft Excel because it is widely used in practice. Second, the practitioners specifically
requested a tool that required zero or minimal amount of maintenance. An Excel-based tool
174
updates mechanically whenever Microsoft updates its Excel software, presenting zero
requirements for planned maintenance (Albright, 2016). Third, VBA constitutes a powerful
programming language that has been tried, tested, and proven consistent in providing high-level
optimized decision aid in Microsoft Excel (Albright, 2016; Zhao et al., 2015).
Following the development of the Intelligent-MiC, the study invited three industry experts from
Hong Kong to validate the system. The invited industry experts have been directly involved in
some of the high-profile MiC projects in Hong Kong and thus qualified for the validation. The
three experts were requested to use the developed system to evaluate the suitability of their current
MiC projects in Hong Kong. They found the system very useful, practical, and representative.
They commented on the actions proposed by the system and provided valuable suggestions for
improving the design of the Intelligent-MiC.
4.5.3 MiC suitability scoring technique
The study developed a scoring technique for evaluating MiC's suitability for a residential building
project based on the 21 significant DMFs. The scoring technique is based on well-established
formulae used to develop decision support systems (Caldas et al., 2015; Hwang et al., 2018b).
Caldas et al. (2015) proposed the scoring method in developing the best productivity practices
implementation index for industrial projects. Hwang et al. (2018b) adopted the method to develop
a scoring approach to assess the feasibility of prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction in
a project. Based on Caldas et al. (2015), the highest MiC suitability score for a project was fixed
at 100, denoting the project is best suited for MiC adoption (i.e., the decision-maker assigned the
highest assessment of 5 to all DMFs). The lowest score was fixed at 21 (i.e., the decision-maker
assigned the least assessment of 1 to all DMFs), indicating the project is entirely unsuitable for the
MiC method. The varying mean scores (significance) of the 21 DMFs in Table 4.1 indicate that
175
the respondents considered the DMFs to have different influences on MiC suitability for a
residential building project in Hong Kong. The mean scores are surrogate measures of the weights
of influence of each DMF. Using the mean scores (Table 4.1), the study computed the maximum
MiC suitability scores of the different DMFs. The maximum MiC suitability score for the ith DMF
(i.e., Si5, the score for the assessment of 5) was computed from its mean score (i.e., µi) as follows.
μ
Si5 = ∑21 i(μ ) ∗ 100 (Eqn. 4.1)
i=1 i
Following precedence (Caldas et al., 2015), a score of 1 was assigned to the assessment of 1 for
each DMF. Subsequently, Eqns. (4.2) – (4.4) were used to compute the suitability scores for the
assessments of 2, 3, and 4, sequentially and respectively. The overall MiC suitability score for a
project was computed as the sum of the suitability scores of the 21 significant DMFs (Eqn. 4.5).
Table 4.5 summarizes the MiC suitability scores of the 21 DMFs for all assessment levels.
Si5 −1
Si2 = +1 (Eqn. 4.2)
4
Si5 −1
Si3 = + Si2 (Eqn. 4.3)
4
Si5 −1
Si4 = + Si3 (Eqn. 4.4)
4
MiC Suitability Score = ∑21

i=1(Si ) (Eqn. 4.5)
Table 4.5: MiC suitability scores of different DMFs at different assessment levels
Criterion Mean Maximum Score of Assessment Levels of Criterion
MiC 1 2 3 4 5
DMF1 4.32 6 1 2 4 5 6
DMF2 4.25 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF3 4.12 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF4 3.84 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF5 3.82 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF6 3.98 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF7 3.77 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF8 3.57 4 1 2 3 3 4
DMF9 3.61 4 1 2 3 3 4
176
DMF11 3.68 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF12 3.59 4 1 2 3 3 4
DMF13 3.57 4 1 2 3 3 4
DMF15 3.69 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF16 3.78 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF17 4.02 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF18 4.13 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF19 3.50 4 1 2 3 3 4
DMF20 3.89 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF22 3.78 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF24 3.60 4 1 2 3 3 4
DMF25 3.83 5 1 2 3 4 5
Total 100 21 100
4.6 The Intelligent-MiC System
4.6.1 Objectives of the Intelligent-MiC System,
The intelligent-MiC had twin objectives: (1) to provide a convenient tool and standardized
approach enabling a project team to evaluate and quantify the suitability of the MiC method for a
residential building project and (2) to propose a corresponding action plan based on the assessment
of each DMF to align the proposed project to the MiC method. Considering that early commitment
to the MiC method is required to achieve the full benefits of the technology (Blismas et al., 2005;
Wuni and Shen, 2020c), the intelligent-MiC provides the fundamental guidance and information
required for early investment decision-making and commitment to the MiC method in a project.
The corresponding recommendations aim to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC
method for residential building projects. For instance, if the project is considered less suitable, but
the client explicitly requires the MiC method, the recommendations could be leveraged to identify
vulnerable areas for improvement before further considering the MiC method in the project.
177
4.6.2 The Architecture of the Intelligent-MiC System
The architecture of the Intelligent-MiC system comprises three components (i.e., modules): (a) a
knowledge base, (b) a DSS, and (c) a user interface. Figure 4.1 is a schematic of the Intelligent-
MiC architecture.
4.6.2.1 Knowledge base
The knowledge base subsystem of the Intelligent-MiC embodied the knowledge and experiences
of the experts regarding the suitability of MiC for a given project. It was derived from three
sources: (a) the relevant suitability DMFs for the MiC method identified from the literature, (b)
pilot interviews of experts, and (c) the body of recommended action plans obtained from literature
and experts during the validation stage.
Knowledge Base
Decision Support System
21 suitability decision- Compute of MiC Suitability Score based on

making factors for MiC the input of decision-maker
Recommended Action Select appropriate action plans based on the
Plans computed MiC suitability score
Input Output
Assessment of the degree of influence of Suitability score of each

21 suitability decision-making factors decision-making factor
for MiC in the given project
Overall MiC Suitability Score
Introduction to the Intelligent-MiC for the given Project
Objectives of the Intelligent-MiC
objectives, decision-making factors, Corresponding recommended
assessment method, and project details action plans
Graphical User Interface (GUI)
Figure 4.1: The Architecture of the Intelligent-MiC System
178
4.6.2.2 Decision support system
The DSS subsystem of the Intelligent-MiC was responsible for computing the overall MiC
suitability score for a residential building project based on the input of the project teams and
providing corresponding action plans based on the assessment results. The Intelligent-MiC
embodies IF-THEN production rules that link the weight a decision-maker assigns to a DMF to its
corresponding weight in the scale defined (Table 4.5), enabling it to compute the MiC suitability
score for a given project. It also embodies IF-THEN production rules that assign different action
plans to various predefined ranges of the overall MiC suitability scores, enabling it to routinely
recommend an appropriate action plan based on the MiC suitability score for a given project. Table
4.6 summarizes three ranges of the MiC suitability score and corresponding action items within
the DSS subsystem of the Intelligent-MiC.
Table 4.6: Recommended action plans for various ranges of MiC Suitability Scores
Suitability Score Corresponding action plans
< 40 Consider using a site-based construction approach.
40 – 60 Consider using offsite prefabrication or precast concrete construction
technology of the Hong Kong Housing Authority.
61 – 80 Engage relevant stakeholders to reconsider the suitability of MiC if the
project is not repetitive, with high floor-to-floor requirements,
speculative use, maximum future planning flexibility required, or
highly specialized facilities.
Reconsider the width of the traffic lane, transportation network, terrain,
and temporary storage areas in the proposed MiC site.
Revisit design and modify accordingly if needed.
Appoint MiC specialist builders and experts with relevant experiences.
Use similar past local and overseas projects as references.
> 80 Involve MiC design experts in the consultant teams.
Appoint MiC specialist builders and experts with relevant experiences
Commit to using the MiC method from the onset of design.
Seek advice on the consequences of the MiC method to the client and
design teams to encourage an early design freeze.
Use best practices of successfully implemented projects under similar
site constraints as references.
179
Ensure active participation and commitments of project stakeholders in
the early stage.
Arrange site visits and factory tours for better understanding before
construction and production.
Arrange experienced offsite inspectors to monitor overseas offsite
manufacture quality and progress.
Ensure consistent quality assurance and quality control system to
ensure that the modules manufactured overseas are of the required
standard and the predetermined dimensions.
The study developed and specified four suitability classes to describe the overall MiC suitability
scores (i.e., the extent to which the MiC method is suitable for a given project) in the DSS of the
Intelligent-MiC: < 40 (Unsuitable), 40 – 60 (Marginally suitable), 61 – 80 (Moderately suitable),
and > 80 (Highly suitable). Hence, the Intelligent-MiC also embodies IF-THEN production rules
that assigns a suitability class to each assessed project based on its overall suitability score. Based
on the specifications in Table 4.6, the DSS would advise using a site-based construction approach
instead of MiC if the calculated suitability score is < 40. If the calculated MiC suitability score is
between 41 and 60, the Intelligent-MiC would recommend the project team to consider using
offsite prefabrication or the precast concrete construction (PCC) technology of the Hong Kong
Housing Authority. This recommendation was considered extremely useful because the
Government is also promoting offsite prefabrication in Hong Kong.
If the calculated MiC suitability score is between 61 and 80, the Intelligent-MiC would recommend
the project team to (a) revisit and modify the building design to make it more suitable for the MiC
method; (b) reference similar past projects that used the MiC method; and (c) appoint MiC
specialists to guide the MiC method usage in the project. Similarly, if the calculated MiC suitability
score is > 80, the Intelligent-MiC will propose best practices to improve adoption of the MiC
method in the project, including involvement of MiC design experts in the consultant teams,
180
committing to use the MiC method from the onset of design, providing adequate lead time for the
bespoke MiC processes, and facilitating early design completion and freezing. The defined ranges
and corresponding action plans were derived from the literature and expert opinions during the
validation.
4.6.2.3 User interface
The user interface embodies dialogue, input management, and output subsystems of the Intelligent-
MiC system. It provides user-friendly communication between the DSS and the decision-maker.
It receives the ratings of a decision-maker and feeds it to the DSS for computing the MiC suitability
score. It is flexible, allowing the decision-maker to modify ratings where necessary. Figure 4.2
shows the user interface. It contained two sections. Section one introduces and describes how to
use the Intelligent-MiC.
Figure 4.2: User Interface showing Introduction, Instructions, and Project Details.
It enables the decision-maker to specify basic details of the project (i.e., project profile
information). Section two enables the decision-maker to assess the extent to which the 21 DMFs
181
(i.e., assign a weight to each factor) determine MiC suitability in the context of their project, using
a five-point rating scale. As shown in Figure 4.3, Section two computes the MiC suitability score
for the project based on the weights assigned to each DMF.
Figure 4.3: User Interface allowing a decision-maker to assess a project
As shown in Figure 4.4, Section two incorporates a dialogue message function displaying an
appropriate action plan corresponding to the MiC suitability score. The interface also contains
buttons, such as “Clear Entries,” “Calculate Score,” “Generate Recommendations,” “Clear
182
Ratings,” “Print Preview,” and “Print.” As shown in Figure 4.5, the system also automatically
provides a printable summary of the assessment results.
Figure 4.4: User Interface with an assessment of a project
4.6.3 Validation
Three industry practitioners (i.e., experts) in Hong Kong, with knowledge and experiences in site-
based construction and the MiC method, were invited to validate the Intelligent-MiC on real-world
projects. They had recently worked on three projects, two of which used the MiC method, and one
did not adopt the MiC method. Experts X and Y worked on the InnoCell Project and DSQ4FSD
183
Project, respectively. These projects used the MiC method. Expert Z worked on a high-rise
residential building project located in Tai Po (hereafter Tai Po Project) that did not adopt the MiC
method. The experts were requested to rate the suitability of the MiC method for the projects using
the developed Intelligent-MiC. Table 4.7 summarizes the MiC suitability scores that Intelligent-
MiC computed for the three projects.
Figure 4.5:User Interface with the assessment outcome
Table 4.7: Validation results of the Intelligent-MiC system

Expert Project Name MiC project MiC Suitability Score
X InnoCell Project Yes 95
Y DSQ4FSD Project Yes 84
Z Tai Po Project No 39
The MiC suitability score for the Tai Po Project (39) was < 40, indicating that it was unsuitable
for the MiC method and more amenable to the site-based construction method. In contrast, both
the InnoCell (95) and DSQ4FSD (84) Projects obtained scores > 80, indicating their higher
suitability for the MiC method. The validation outcomes are exciting because the InnoCell and
DSQ4FSD Projects were designed based on the MiC method, whereas the Tai Po project did not
184
consider offsite manufacture in the design. Hence, the Intelligent-MiC system demonstrated
capabilities of capturing real-world requirements, providing reliable decision support for
evaluating the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong. As
shown in Figure 4.6, the Intelligent-MiC system generates a useful chart for comparing the MiC
suitability scores of the various projects against the baseline and across the principal suitability
decision-making factors.
Tai Po Project DSQ4FSD Project InnoCell Project Baseline

39
Suitability Score 84
95
64
22
Organizational and Industry Readiness 25
27
21
4
Location and Site Attributes 10
14
9
5
Project Objectives and Requirements 18
18
12
8
Project Characteristics 31
36
22
Figure 4.6: Comparison of the MiC suitability scores for the three projects and baseline
Figure 4.6 shows that the InnoCell Project had more suitable site attributes and project
characteristics for the MiC method than the DSQ4FSD project. Notably, the suitability of the
DSQ4FSD project could have been improved if the client and project team selected a site with a
repetitive layout, gentle terrain, wider transport network, minimal traffic, and temporary storage
185
space. Though the DSQ4FSD project performed above the baseline, it had less suitable project
characteristics than the InnoCell project. Thus, the Intelligent-MiC provides a powerful tool to
address deficient areas and align a proposed residential building project to the MiC method.
Following the validation exercise, the study requested the experts to provide feedback on their
experience, design, and relevance of the Intelligent-MiC. They gave positive comments about the
relevance and representativeness of the tool. The experts acknowledged the appropriateness of the
recommended action plans. But they suggested additional action items, including early advice on
the consequences of the MiC method to the client and design teams to encourage early design
freeze and arranging experienced offsite inspectors to monitor overseas offsite manufacture quality
and progress. These were incorporated into the recommended action plans in Table 4.6.
4.7 Discussion and implications
The suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with a residential building project have a
significant but still poorly understood and unrecognized influence on the effectiveness and
efficiency of the MiC method. This study deconstructed the MiC suitability assessment problem
into discrete decision-making factors. The analysis revealed that a complex set of factors and
conditions influence the suitability of the MiC method in a project. The results showed that project
characteristics, project objectives and requirements, organizational and industry readiness, and
location and site attributes collectively determine when it is physically possible, financially
feasible, economically viable, and appropriately supported to use the MiC method in a residential
building project. The theoretical positions of these PDMFs have been well-established in the
literature (Abdul Nabi and El-Adaway, 2020; Hwang et al., 2018b; Wuni and Shen, 2019).
186
However, the findings diverge from intuition and popular opinions. In Hong Kong, location and
site attributes influence MiC suitability more than suitable project characteristics such as the
repetitive layout in design. The outcome reflects reality in Hong Kong because the city has scarce
developable land and significant site constraints. As such, project teams should carefully consider
the availability of temporary storage areas at the site location, nature of the site terrain, the width
of the transport network to the site, and traffic conditions in the vicinity when deciding to
implement the MiC method in a project (Development Bureau, 2020; Hong Kong Housing
Authority, 2021).
The developed principal suitability decision-making factors for the MiC method derived the
fundamental hypothesis of a technology suitability theory in the construction industry. This study
demonstrated that the suitability of the MiC method for a construction project depends on, at least
the convergence of the right project characteristics, project objectives and requirements, location
and site attributes, and organizational readiness. These four components represent the building
blocks of a technology suitability theory for the MiC method in construction projects.
The Intelligent-MiC demonstrates the ability of decision support systems to solve a complex
problem effectively. It derived a mathematical solution to the MiC suitability assessment problem
and enables the project team to consider several competing factors when quantifying the suitability
of the MiC method in a project. Thus, it provides a comprehensive framework to aid structured
decision-making regarding MiC suitability in a project. The tool has a knowledge base containing
IF-THEN production rules to compute the MiC suitability score with the efficient use of the
powerful reasoning and explanation capabilities of DSS. The tool receives the inputs of a decision-
maker, computes the MiC suitability score for a given project, and generates recommendations
based on the score. The Intelligent-MiC has several merits, including the flexibility to accept the
187
various assessment of the decision-maker, the ability to assist the decision-maker in better
understanding the suitability decision problem, implications of multiple factors on the suitability
of the MiC method for a project, and the capability to accommodate various requirements of the
decision problem and the decision-maker.
Therefore, the study developed a unique tool for solving the MiC suitability assessment problem
in a high-density metropolis, with two managerial implications: (i) it provides a standardized
approach to addressing the MiC suitability assessment problem and offers timely decision support
service to inform early commitment to the MiC method in a project; and (ii) it enables project
teams, including building engineers and architects, to identify vulnerable areas early in the project
and recommendations to improve such inadequacies, resulting in the more effective and efficient
delivery of the MiC project.
4.8 Summary of the Chapter
The chapter examined the suitability problem when implementing the MiC method in building and
construction projects in Hong Kong. It evaluated and identified twenty-one significant DMFs
determining the suitability of the MiC method in a building project. The chapter derived four
principal DMFs for the MiC method: project characteristics, objectives and requirements,
organizational and industry readiness, and location and site attributes. It modelled and quantified
the impact of the four principal DMFs, which showed that they are significant determinants of the
suitability of the MiC method. The chapter further developed a knowledge-based decision support
system (Intelligent-MiC) enabling project teams and construction organizations to evaluate,
quantify, and ascertain the suitability of the MiC method for a residential building project at the
outset to inform early investment commitment. The next chapter focuses on deriving the best
practices for residential MiC projects.
188
CHAPTER 5 – DERIVING BEST PRACTICES FOR RESIDENTIAL MiC
PROJECTS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter concentrates on deriving the best practices for implementing the various stages of
residential MiC projects, from the results of objectives 2 – 4. It presents the critical risk factors
and the critical success factors for residential MiC projects based on the questionnaire data,
followed by practical challenges encountered and lessons learned from real-world residential MiC
projects. The chapter starts with significance assessment of the CRFs and used Monte Carlo
simulation to overcome the grave limitations of the deterministic single-point statistical estimates
of potential exposure to identify and prioritize significant CRFs. It generates, quantifies the impact,
and models the chain reactions of principal components of the CRFs. Then, the chapter continues
with significance assessment of the CSFs, derivation of principal CSFs, and quantification of the
impact of the principal CSFs for residential MiC projects. Subsequently, the chapter describes six
selected residential MiC cases and derives the practical challenges encountered and lessons learned
from the implementation of the projects. It further consolidates, triangulates, and reconciles the
findings to derive best practices for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects.
5.2 Assessing, Simulating and Modelling the CRFs for Residential MiC Projects
5.2.1 Significance and Exposure of the CRFs for Residential MiC projects
A Spearman’s rank correlation analysis showed a statistically significant coefficient of association
(rs(25) = 0.74, t=5.37, p < 0.001), indicating a strong positive relationship between the overall
probability and impact ratings of the CRFs for residential MiC projects. Table 5.1 summarizes the
significance indices, exposure levels, and ranking of the CRFs for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong.
189
Table 5.1: Significance ranking of the CRFs for residential MiC projects
ID Risk description Prob. rating Impact rating RSI Expo- Rank
µ Rank µ Rank sure
CRF1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories 3.68 3 3.62 7 3.65 13.32 4
CRF2 Limited MiC expertise and 3.48 9 3.46 15 3.47 12.04 10
experience
CRF3 Supply chain disruptions 3.37 13 3.42 18 3.39 11.53 15
CRF4 Stakeholder fragmentation and 3.34 15 3.39 19 3.36 11.32 17
complexity
CRF5 Higher initial capital requirement 3.56 5 3.45 17 3.50 12.28 8
CRF6 Delay in modules delivery to the site 3.29 16 3.53 9 3.41 11.61 14
CRF7 Defective design and change order 3.51 7 3.67 5 3.59 12.88 6
CRF8 Unsuitability of design for MiC 3.55 6 3.53 9 3.54 12.53 7
CRF9 Late design completion and freezing 3.77 1 3.82 1 3.79 14.40 1
CRF10 Inadequate planning and scheduling 3.60 4 3.74 2 3.67 13.46 3
CRF11 Unsuitable project delivery and 3.16 20 3.15 25 3.15 9.95 23
procurement method
CRF12 Incomplete local MiC supply chain 3.35 14 3.34 21 3.34 11.19 18
CRF13 Poor communication, collaboration 3.40 12 3.54 8 3.47 12.04 11
and information sharing between
stakeholders
CRF14 Shortages of modules on site 3.16 20 3.47 14 3.31 10.97 19
CRF15 Unsuitable site with restrictive space 3.77 1 3.73 3 3.75 14.06 2
constraints
CRF16 Complex interfaces between systems 3.43 11 3.46 15 3.44 11.87 12
CRF17 Inaccurate MiC design information 3.50 8 3.69 4 3.59 12.92 5
CRF18 Inappropriate structural system and 3.23 18 3.65 6 3.43 11.79 13
CRF19 Module installation errors 3.09 22 3.38 20 3.23 10.44 21
CRF20 Misplacement of stored modules 2.91 25 3.21 23 3.06 9.34 24
CRF21 Dimensional and geometric 3.19 19 3.23 22 3.21 10.30 22
CRF22 Inadequate project funding and tight 3.25 17 3.50 12 3.37 11.38 16
CRF23 Mechanical malfunction of cranes 2.80 26 3.18 24 2.98 8.90 26
CRF24 Inaccurate materials specifications 2.92 24 3.14 26 3.03 9.17 25
and cost estimation
CRF25 Design information gap between 3.44 10 3.53 9 3.48 12.14 9
CRF26 Module production errors 3.08 23 3.49 13 3.28 10.75 20
According to El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), the significance levels of the CRFs for residential
MiC projects can be interpreted as follows: RSI<1.5 (Very low), 1.5≤ RSI < 2.5 (Low), 2.5≤ RSI
190
< 3.5 (Moderate), 3.5 ≤ RSI < 4.5 (High), and RSI ≥ 4.5 (Very high). Table 5.1 shows that most
of the CRFs (i.e., CRF2 – 4, CRF6, CRF11 – 14, CRF16, and CRF18 – 26) have a moderate
negative impact of the performance of residential MiC projects. Only eight (8) CRFs (i.e., CRF1,
CRF5, CRF7 – 10, CRF15, and CRF17) have a high negative impact on the performance of
residential MiC projects. The top five most significant CRFs for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong include late design completion and freezing (CRF9), unsuitable site with restrictive space
constraints (CRF15), inadequate planning and scheduling (CRF10), heavy reliance on overseas
factories (CRF1), and inaccurate MiC design information (CRF17).
Table 5.2 shows a heat map of a typical risk matrix partitioning the CRFs into three exposure
zones based on well-established industry practices (Construction Industry Institute, 2013; Qazi et
al., 2021). A value denotes the exposure level of a given P – I matrix of the CRFs for residential
MiC projects. It partitions the CRFs into three exposure zones across the risk matrix: High,
Moderate, and Low (Duijm, 2015).
Table 5.2: Risk matrix with partitions of various risk exposure zones
Severity of impact
Matrix Very Low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) Very High (5)
Very High (5) 5 10 15 20 25
Probability of
occurrence
High (4) 4 8 12 16 20
Moderate (3) 3 6 9 12 15
Low (2) 2 4 6 8 10
Very Low (1) 1 2 3 4 5
Red Red colour denotes high-risk zones
Orange Orange colour denotes Medium-risk zones
Green Green colour denotes low-risk zones
The CRFs situated in high-risk exposure zones are unacceptable and must be controlled. Those
located in the medium-risk exposure zones constitute potential threats and should be managed.
CRFs in the low-risk exposure zones are acceptable but can also be treated. Table 5.1 shows the
exposure levels of the CRFs, computed as a product of the average probability of occurrence and
191
average severity of impact. The results show that none of the CRFs is situated at the high-risk
exposure, indicating that the 26 CRFs present only minimal threats to the success of residential
MiC projects. To further test the efficacy of the risk matrix-based scheme for identifying and
prioritizing significant risk events, Figure 5.1 defined two additional boundaries of the risk
exposure levels within the risk matrix.
25
21
17
Risk Exposure Index
14.40 14.06
13.32 13.46
12.8812.53 12.92
13 12.04 12.28 12.04 11.87 11.79 12.14
11.5311.32 11.61 11.19 10.97 11.38
10.44 10.30 10.75
9.95
9.34 8.90 9.17
9
1
CRF1
CRF2
CRF3
CRF4
CRF5
CRF6
CRF7
CRF8
CRF9
CRF10
CRF11
CRF12
CRF13
CRF14
CRF15
CRF16
CRF17
CRF18
CRF19
CRF20
CRF21
CRF22
CRF23
CRF24
CRF25
CRF26
Risk
Low-Medium Risk Exposure Zone Medium-High Risk Exposure Zone
Boundary Boundary
Figure 5.1: CRFs with low-medium and medium-high risk exposure zones marked
Figure 5.1 shows that the 26 CRFs are situated within the low-medium and medium-high risk
exposure zones, suggesting that mitigation measures are not required. This statistical implication
is inconsistent with reality because there are several CRFs in Table 5.1 which have generated
tremendous negative impact on the performance of the pilot residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. For instance, the heavy reliance on overseas factories generated complexity in supply chain
management, complex workflow control, complicated custom requirements, and uncertainties in
192
the timely delivery of the modules to site in the pilot residential MiC projects. Thus, Table 5.1 and
Figure 5.1 reveal the grave shortcomings of the deterministic two-dimensional P – I matrix-based
risk assessment model, which uses average statistics and single-point estimates to identify and
prioritize significant CRFs for residential MiC projects (Duijm, 2015).
The relevance of the deterministic P – I risk assessment scheme is undisputed: it provides
probability x impact matrix of risks, generates prioritized list of risks, and calculates expected
value for contingency allocation to inform Go/No-go decisions based upon the expected value,
prioritizes risks to manage, communicates risks intuitively and visually, and allocates resources to
mitigate and manage the most significant risks. However, Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 show that
analysing and prioritizing significant risks through average statistics and single-point estimates of
potential impacts is gravely inadequate.
The single-point estimate ignores the consequences of tail (i.e., Low-probability, high-impact)
risks, does not include uncertainty inherent in the risks, cannot capture and retain profiles and
distributions of the risks, unable to communicate the collective impact of risks to achieve project
targets, and cannot prioritize and allocate resources proportionally to manage the most significant
risks (Construction Industry Institute, 2013; Qazi et al., 2021). These limitations of the one-point
estimates of risk exposure are resolved with analysis of risks through probability distribution
estimates of potential impacts. Thus, a Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic risk analysis is
necessary to address such grave limitation of the deterministic risk analysis for residential MiC
5.2.2 Monte Carlo Simulation of the CRFs for Residential MiC projects
A MC simulation is used to develop a probabilistic risk assessment, prioritization, and resource
allocation scheme for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The major stages of the MC
193
simulation-based probabilistic scheme include: (i) developing discrete probability distributions of
the probability and impact ratings of the CRFs; (ii) developing discrete probability distributions of
the exposure from the probability distributions of the probability and impact ratings of the CRFs;
(iii) partitioning the risk matrix into high, medium, and low risk exposure zones; (iv) establishing
various risk tolerance levels of decision-makers; and (v) using novel risk metrics to prioritize and
allocate resources to the significant CRFs proportional to their relative importance.
5.2.2.1 Discrete probability distributions of the P – I ratings of the CRFs
The probability (Pi) and impact (Ii) ratings associated with CRF i can be expressed as follows.
Pi = {αi1, αi2, αi3, …, αij}, αij ∊ (1, 2, …, 5) (Eqn. 5.1)
Ii = {βi1, βi2, βi3, …, βij}, βij ∊ (1, 2, …, 5) (Eqn. 5.2)
Discrete probability distributions of the probability and impact rating of the various CRFs for
residential MiC projects can be derived as follows.
∑j(αij )
P (Pi) = ∑j
∀ αij = 𝑘 (Eqn. 5.3)
∑j(βij )
P (Ii) = ∑j
∀ βij = 𝑘 (Eqn. 5.4)
where P (Pi) and P (Ii) represent the probability distribution function of the probabilities and
impacts the experts assigned to CRFs (i), respectively.
MC simulation is used to generate random numbers across discrete distributions of P – I impact
ratings of each risk. The study specified the same random seed value throughout the MC simulation
process to ensure that the outputs are not subject to random variation due to different starting points
defined intrinsically by a selected random seed value (Xie, 2020). Thus, the sampling
characteristics of the random numbers used in the simulation process were as follows: Sampling
194
Type (Latin Hypercube), Generator (Mersenne Twister), Initial Seed (Choose Randomly), and
Multiple Simulations (All Use Same Seed).
The simulation model's input data were randomly generated sample ratings, and the output
generated an exposure profile of each risk (Qazi and Simsekler, 2021). The simulation model was
developed in Microsoft Excel with the aid of @Risk Excel Add-In (version 8.1). The predefined
discrete probability function of the exposure of each CRF is given as:
Ei = αij * βij ∀ αij ∊ P (Pi), βij ∊ P (IRi) (Eqn. 5.5)
∑𝑛(αij ∗βij )
P(Ei) = ∑(𝑛)
∀ αij βij = 𝑙 (Eqn. 5.6)
@Risk was used to perform 1000 simulations for the various risks, generating the risk exposure
distribution of each risk, specified as P(Ei). Beyond 1000 simulations, there were no notable
variations in the risk profiles. The survey data was used to develop the discrete probability
distributions of the probability and impact ratings, whereas the MC simulation generated the risk
exposure profiles (i.e., probability distributions) of the various CRFs. Table 5.3 summarizes the
key statistics and discrete probability distributions of the CRFs for residential MiC projects Hong
Kong.
Table 5.3: Probability distributions and exposure profiles of the various CRFs
ID Probability rating Impact rating MC Simulation-
Mean SD Probability Mean SD Probability based Risk Profile
distribution distribution
CRF1 3.68 1.01 3.62 1.04
CRF2 3.48 0.75 3.46 0.85
195
CRF3 3.37 0.73 3.42 0.88
CRF4 3.34 0.83 3.39 0.91
CRF5 3.56 0.79 3.45 0.93
CRF6 3.29 0.93 3.53 0.96
CRF7 3.51 0.99 3.67 0.91
CRF8 3.55 1.04 3.53 0.98
CRF9 3.77 1.00 3.82 1.02
CRF10 3.60 1.01 3.74 1.03
CRF11 3.16 0.87 3.15 0.95
CRF12 3.35 0.96 3.34 0.92
CRF13 3.40 1.04 3.54 1.03
196
CRF14 3.16 1.04 3.47 1.06
CRF15 3.77 0.87 3.73 0.89
CRF16 3.43 0.88 3.46 0.83
CRF17 3.50 0.96 3.69 1.00
CRF18 3.23 1.00 3.65 1.00
CRF19 3.09 0.97 3.38 1.00
CRF20 2.91 1.05 3.21 1.01
CRF21 3.19 1.08 3.23 0.97
CRF22 3.25 0.96 3.50 0.92
CRF23 2.80 0.92 3.18 1.02
CRF24 2.92 0.89 3.14 0.92
197
CRF25 3.44 0.96 3.53 0.94
CRF26 3.08 1.03 3.49 1.05
Unlike the single-point estimates of potential impacts (Figure 5.1) where the exposure levels of
the various risks almost converged and suggested very minimal differences in exposure, the MC
simulation revealed considerable variations in the profiles of the various risks. The variations are
even more conspicuous for risk exposure profiles of the various CRFs simulated using random P
– I rating samples. The maximum and minimum values of each statistic have been bolded in Table
5.3. For instance, CRF15 and CRF23 obtained the maximum and minimum expected probability
ratings, respectively.
The single-point estimates of the expected risk exposure values under the traditional risk matrix-
based prioritization scheme (Figure 5.1) identified CRF9 and CRF23 as the most and least
significant CRFs, respectively. Given the detention of the various CRFs in the low-medium and
medium-high risk exposure zone boundaries established at exposure levels of 6 and 12, Figure 5.1
showed that no CRF is situated in the high-risk exposure zone. The MC simulation reveals a
different outcome. Figures 5.2 shows the discrete probability distribution of the P – I ratings and
exposure profile of the most critical risk (i.e., CRFR9) based on the expected exposure values.
All distributions are significantly skewed (right) with a heavy tail distribution. Even though CRF9
is the highest-ranked risk in the single-point estimates of potential impact, it was still considered
less significant because it is contained in the medium-high risk exposure zone. Conversely, the
profile of CRF9 in Figure 5.2 reveals its utmost significance.
198
0.50 0.20
0.18
Probability Exposure
0.40 0.16
Impact 0.14
0.30 0.12
Probability
Probability
0.10
0.20 0.08
0.06
0.10 0.04
0.02
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 15 16 20 25
Rating Risk Exposure
Figure 5.2: Probability distribution of the P – I ratings and exposure profile of CRF9
Also, the least significant risk (i.e., CRF23) in Figure 5.1 depicts a near-symmetrical distribution
in Figure 5.3, suggesting moderate exposure. Unlike the mean (expected) risk exposure values
(Figure 5.1), suggesting infinitesimal differences in risk criticalities, the risk profiles (Table 5.3)
reveal apparent differences in exposures owing to the unique nature of associated (skewed)
distributions.
0.50 0.24
Probability 0.22 Exposure
0.40 Impact 0.20
0.18
0.16
Probability
0.30 0.14
Probability
0.12
0.20 0.10
0.08
0.06
0.10 0.04
0.02
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 15 16 20 25
Rating Risk Exposure
Figure 5.3: Probability distribution of the P – I ratings and exposure profile of CRF23
199
5.2.2.2 Simulated relative importance of risks across defined risk tolerance levels
The study partitioned the risk matrix into three exposure zones, comprising high, medium, and
low. Typically, project teams prioritize risks within the medium-risk (16 – 20) and high-risk (20 –
25) exposure zones because such risks are critical and unacceptable, respectively (Construction
Industry Institute, 2013). Partitioning and defining boundaries in the risk exposure zones enable
the project team to develop strategies to mitigate risks situated in the high-risk exposure zone.
Project teams can also mitigate the risks in medium-risk exposure zones, if the benefits justify the
mitigation costs (Qazi et al., 2021). The range of values for a risk exposure zone was randomly
selected for developing the simulation model. According to Ruan et al. (2015), the exact choice of
boundaries between risk exposure zones exclusively replicate the risk tolerance levels of decision-
makers and are often determined using a standardized process.
The simulation-based risk profiles were defined over the risk exposure zones to specify various
risks' exposure levels and detect any dominant or dominated risks (Qazi et al., 2021). Typically,
the traditional matrix-based risk exposure levels are categorized into five exposure zones: low
(negligible); low-medium (acceptable); medium (controllable); medium-high (critical); and high-
risks (unacceptable). The most important risks are usually situated in the medium-high and high
exposure zones. By defining risk exposure values over various risk exposure zones, the study
offers a more robust scheme for prioritizing and allocating resources to important risks in
Following the recommendations of Qazi and Simsekler (2021), the study prioritized risks at 95%
and 97.5% risk tolerance (RT) levels within the high-risk exposure zone as well as 82.5% and
85% RT levels within the medium-risk exposure zone. RT of stakeholder was defined as the
highest likelihood of risk occurrence across an exposure zone with the predefined risk matrix
200
where risk mitigation is not deemed necessary. Ceteris paribus risk tolerance is low in the high-
risk exposure zones relative to medium-risk exposure zones. Figure 5.4 maps and establishes the
significant CRFs in the high-risk exposure zones at 95% and 97.5% RT levels.
9
8
Prob. of Occurrence in the High-Risk Exposure Zone
5 4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
4
(%)
3.5
3.2 3.3
3 2.7
2 2.1
2 1.8
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1
1 0.8 0.8 0.7
0.5 0.5 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0
CRF1
CRF2
CRF3
CRF4
CRF5
CRF6
CRF7
CRF8
CRF9
CRF10
CRF11
CRF12
CRF13
CRF14
CRF15
CRF16
CRF17
CRF18
CRF19
CRF20
CRF21
CRF22
CRF23
CRF24
CRF25
CRF26
Risks
95% Risk Tolerance Level 97.5% Risk Tolerance Level
Figure 5.4: Significant CRFs at 95% and 97.5% RT levels in the high-risk exposure zone
At a 95% confidence level, CRF9 remains the most significant CRF for residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong. However, at a 97.5% confidence level, certain risks (i.e., CRF1, CRF7, CRF8,
CRF10, CRF13, CRF15, CRF17, and CRF26) considered less important and overlooked within
the deterministic matrix-based ranking scheme became significant CRFs that must be mitigated
and controlled. Figure 5.5 maps and establishes the significant CRFs in the medium-risk exposure
zone at 82.5% and 85% RT levels.
201
Prob. of Occurrence in the Medium-Risk Exposure Zone (%) 25
20 18.6 18.5
18
16.8
15 14.1
13.313.3
10.6
10.1 9.7 9.4 10
10 9.4
8.5 8.2 8.5
7.6 7.8
7
6.5
5.5
5
5 3.8
3.3 3.2
2.2
0
CRF1
CRF2
CRF3
CRF4
CRF5
CRF6
CRF7
CRF8
CRF9
CRF10
CRF11
CRF12
CRF13
CRF14
CRF15
CRF16
CRF17
CRF18
CRF19
CRF20
CRF21
CRF22
CRF23
CRF24
CRF25
CRF26
Risks
82.5% Risk Tolerance Level 85% Risk Tolerance Level
Figure 5.5: Significant CRFs at 82.5% and 85% RT levels in the medium-risk exposure zone
Plotting the probability of risks relative to surpassing the risk tolerance informs and reveals
dominant risks. For instance, a stakeholder with the risk tolerance thresholds of 95% in the high-
risk exposure zone (Figure 5.4) and 82.%% in the medium-risk exposure zone (Figure 5.5) would
have to prioritize CRF9, CRF10, and CRF15.
5.2.2.3 Criticalities, signatures, and resource allocation for the various CRFs
Based on the specified risk tolerances of decision-makers, relevant metrics are used to rank CRFs
across various exposure zones and allocate resources to the risks proportionate to their relative
significance. The study used two novel metrics – risk signature and risk criticality index to
prioritize and allocate resources to manage the significant CRFs for residential MiC projects.
Unlike popular metrics (e.g., risk priority number, Value at Risk), risk signature and criticality
202
index can accept the qualitative scales embodied in the conventional risk matrix and capture the
probability distributions and exposure profiles of the various CRFs (Qazi et al., 2021).
The study defined risk signature (RS) of each CRF as a probability distribution, where each risk is
allocated an exclusive probability value across each risk exposure zone (Zj) of the risk matrix.
According to Duijm (2015), risk managers use a standardized process to establish the risk exposure
zones, including high (ZH), medium (ZM), and low (ZL). The RS for each risk was computed as
follows.
RSi = [P(i ∊ ZL), P(i ∊ ZM), P(i ∊ ZH)], ∋ ∑𝑗 𝑃(𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 ) = 1 ∀ 𝑖 (Eqn. 5.5)
Subsequently, an indicator function (𝐼𝑅𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 ) was defined to prioritize risks based on their
exclusive explicit probability distributions across the risk exposure zones. 𝐼𝑅𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 (Eqn. 5.6) reflects
the location of each CRF (i) within Zj. It helps identify dominant risks situated within the high-
risk exposure zone (Eqn. 5.7) and dominated risks within the low-risk exposure zone (Eqn. 5.8).
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗
𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 = { (Eqn. 5.6)
0 𝑖𝑓 𝑖 ∉ 𝑍𝑗
𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝐿 = 0; 𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑀 = 0; 𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝐻 = 1 (Eqn. 5.7)
𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝐿 = 1; 𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑀 = 0; 𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝐻 = 0 (Eqn. 5.8)
Given the varied RT levels of stakeholders and its sensitivity to project types, nature, and contexts,
the stakeholder's RT threshold across a risk exposure zone was defined as RT𝑍𝑗 , denoting the
maximum likelihood of occurrence of a risk event (1 − RT𝑍𝑗 ) the stakeholder is prepared to
tolerate in the medium- and high-risk exposure zones. As such, a criticality index of each risk
(𝐶𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 ) was defined to describe the significance of each risk in surpassing the RT in a specific
risk exposure zone (Eqn. 5.9).
𝐶𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0, 𝑃(𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 ) − (1 − RTZ𝑗 )] (Eqn. 5.9)
203
Similarly, a normalized criticality index of each risk (𝑁𝐶𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 ) was defined to represent the
relative importance of various CRFs that captures the overall risk profile and the stakeholder's RT
across different risk exposure zones (Eqn. 5.10).
𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0,𝑃(𝑖 ∈𝑍𝑗 )−(1−RTZ𝑗 )]

𝑁𝐶𝐼𝑖 ∈ 𝑍𝑗 = (Eqn. 5.10)
∑𝑖 𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0,𝑃(𝑖 ∈𝑍𝑗 )−(1−RTZ )]
𝑗
Typically, project teams prioritize risks across critical risk exposure zones when more than three
risk exposure zones are defined. However, the medium and high-risk exposure zones are
significantly important when three exposure zones are defined. It is also a good practice for project
teams to assign resources to continuously monitor and develop contingency plans for tails risks
(i.e., low-probability, high-impact risks) located within the low-risk exposure zones. This study
apportioned the P – I risk matrix into three exposure zones. Thus, CRFs situated within the medium
and high-risk exposure zones were considered significant and unacceptable. Consequently, the
NCI for various risks determined using Eqn. (5.11) provides decision support to assign limited
resources to various CRFs proportional to their relative significance.
𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0,𝑃(𝑖 ∈𝑍𝑀 )−(1−RTZ𝑀 )]+ 𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0,𝑃(𝑖 ∈𝑍𝐻 )−(1−RTZ𝐻 )]

NCI𝑖 = ∑𝑖 𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0,𝑃(𝑖 ∈𝑍𝑀 )−(1−RTZ𝑀 )]+ ∑𝑖 𝑀𝑎𝑥 [0,𝑃(𝑖 ∈𝑍𝐻 )−(1−RTZ𝐻 )]
(Eqn. 5.11)
Table 5.4 summarizes the metrics used to determine the relative significance of various CRFs
based on their exposure and probability of surpassing the predefined RT levels. No risk event was
considered dominant or dominated (Eqn. 5.6 – 8). For a 95% RT level within the high-risk
exposure zone, 100% of the resources would need to be assigned to CRF9. For an 82.5% RT level
within the medium-risk exposure zone, 42.3%, 38.5%, and 19.2% should be assigned to CRF9,
CRF10, and CRF15, respectively. Unlike the traditional conventional risk matrix-based P – I risk
ranking scheme which allocates the same proportion of resources to mitigate the significant CRFs
due to the confluence of their expected exposure values (Figure 5.1), Table 5.4 reveals significant
204
differences in the proportion of resources required to mitigate and control the significant CRFs
across medium and high-risk exposure zones at various RT levels.
Table 5.4: Signature, metrics, and proportional allocation of risk management resources
ID Risk Signature (Normalized) Criticality (Normalized) Criticality Normalized Criticality
(%) Index for Medium-Risk Index for High-Risk Index
Exposure Zone Exposure Zone
Risk Risk Risk Risk (Risk Tolerance of
Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance 85% for Medium- and
(82.5% ) (85%) (95%) (97.5%) 95% for High-Risk
Exposure Zones
CRF1 [79, 16.8, 4.2] – 1.8(15.1) – 1.7 (11.0) 12.1
CRF2 [91.9, 7.6, 0.5] – – – – –
CRF3 [94.8, 5, 0.2] – – – – –
CRF4 [92.2, 7, 0.8] – – – – –
CRF5 [89.4, 9.4, 1.2] – – – – –
CRF6 [88.8, 10.1, 1.1] – – – – –
CRF7 [83.5, 13.3, 3.2] – – – 0.7 (4.5) –
CRF8 [83.4, 13.3, 3.3] – – – 0.8 (5.2) –
CRF9 [73.4, 18.6, 8] 1.1(42.3) 3.6(30.3) 3.0 (100) 5.5 (35.7) 44.3
CRF10 [76.7, 18.5, 4.8] 1.0(38.5) 3.5(29.4) – 2.3 (14.9) 23.5
CRF11 [96, 3.8, 0.2] – – – – –
CRF12 [91, 8.5, 0.5] – – – – –
CRF13 [85.5, 9.7, 4.5] – – – 2.0 (13.0) –
CRF14 [88.8, 9.4, 1.8] – – – – –
CRF15 [78.5, 18, 3.5] 0.5(19.2) 3.0(25.2) – 1.0 (6.5) 20.1
CRF16 [90.7, 8.2, 1.1] – – – – –
CRF17 [82, 14.1, 3.9] – – – 1.4 (9.1) –
CRF18 [87.4, 10.6, 2] – – – – –
CRF19 [93.7, 5.5, 0.8] – – – – –
CRF20 [96.3, 3.3, 0.4] – – – – –
CRF21 [92.3, 6.5, 1.2] – – – – –
CRF22 [90.5, 8.5, 1] – – – – –
CRF23 [96.6, 3.2, 0.2] – – – – –
CRF24 [97.1, 2.2, 0.7] – – – – –
CRF25 [87.9, 10, 2.1] – – – – –
CRF26 [89.5, 7.8, 2.7] – – – – –
NB: "–" means the corresponding risks do not exceed the level of risk tolerance/appetite
205
5.2.2.4 Discussion and implications
The probabilistic risk assessment for residential MiC projects revealed significant shortcomings
of the traditional P – I risk ranking model. Failing to capture the underlying distributions of various
risks, the single-point average risk exposure estimates confined the 26 CRFs within the low-
medium and medium-high risk exposure zone, suggesting the absence of significant risks. It also
generated narrow differences in criticalities of various risks since the associated mean risk
exposure values almost converged. As decision support, the conventional P – I risk model would
inform project managers to only monitor the various CRFs because they are located within the
low-medium and medium-high risk exposure zone of the risk matrix (Duijm, 2015).
However, the probabilistic risk assessment provides unique insights because various risks ignored
and considered less important within the conventional P – I risk model ranking scheme is
determined to be significant in the probabilistic risk assessment scheme. For instance, CRF1
(heavy reliance on overseas factories) and CRF17 (inaccurate MiC design information) can
significantly influence MiC project performances due to their high probability of exceeding the
97.5% RT threshold in the high-risk exposure zone (Figure 5.4). Also, CRF1, CRF7, CRF8, CRF9,
CRF10, CRF13, CRF15, and CRF17, considered less important within the conventional risk
ranking scheme (Figure 5.1), have significant influences on MiC project performances (Figure
5.4). Notably, CRF1 (heavy reliance on overseas factories), CRF9 (late design completion and
freezing), CRF10 (inadequate planning and scheduling), and CRF13 (poor communication,
collaboration, and information sharing between stakeholders) significantly influence the costs of
MiC projects in Hong Kong (Pan and Hon, 2018; Yang et al., 2021) and must be mitigated.
Furthermore, there is a wide variation in the probability of risks exceeding the specific thresholds
of the medium-risk exposure zone (Figure 5.5). Notably, various CRFs with high ranking within
206
the traditional P – I risk model retained similar ranking in the simulation-based risk model for the
medium-risk exposure zone. The outcome is justifiable due to the specific configuration of risks
within the risk matrix in which all risks are contained within the medium-risk exposure zone
(Figure 5.1). Any variation in the risk configuration across the risk matrix would be reflected in
the revised ranking of risks in the simulation-based scheme. At two specific risk tolerances for the
medium-risk (85%) and high-risk exposure zones (95%), four risks were deemed significant due
to exceeding the thresholds (Table 5.4). As CRF1, CRF9, CRF10, and CRF15 (Table 6.7)
exceeded the 85% and 95% thresholds by a specific percentage; resources would need to be
assigned to the risks in proportion to their exceedance of limits. The simulation-based scheme
(Table 5.4) requires significant variation in the allocation of resources due to the variation in the
underlying distributions across risks. In contrast, the recommendations of the P – I risk model
ranking scheme would be to assign resources almost equally to various risks due to the
convergence of the risk exposure values (Figure 5.1).
The outcomes of the probabilistic risk assessment model makes unique contributions to the theory
and practice of risk management in residential MiC projects. First, the study exposed the grave
limitations of the traditional risk prioritization and ranking scheme. It is confirmed that the single-
point P – I ranking scheme fails to generate risk profile-based ranking of risks in residential MiC
projects. As such, project teams relying on the conventional scheme are invariably susceptible to
prioritize risks inaccurately and make sub-optimal decisions regarding resources allocation to
risks. As the conventional scheme ignores risk assessment at various confidence levels and
provides single-point estimates of mean risk exposure, it can mislead project teams to undermine
unexpected critical events (tail risks).
207
Second, the study demonstrated the applicability and importance of novel metrics such as risk
signature, identity functions, and criticality indices for prioritizing risks to inform optimal
decisions in resource allocation and effective risk management strategies. As such, the study can
help practitioners enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC method in building and
construction projects.
Third, the existing literature lack comprehensive assessment approaches capable of capturing the
distributions and exposure profiles of various CRFs for residential MiC projects. As such, this
study contributes to a better understanding of how stochastic point process modelling and
simulation can improve risk assessment and prioritization in residential MiC projects. Also, there
are scant studies providing uncertainty assessment of CRFs for residential MiC projects using risk
matrix data and establishing the relative importance of risks for resource allocation. More
specifically, residential MiC project risks have never been prioritized relative to various risk
tolerance levels of stakeholders defined over the risk exposure zones within a risk matrix. Yet,
ignoring the uncertainty associated with risks can underrate tail risks. Also, sub-optimal risk
management decisions can be made when a prioritization scheme neglects stakeholders' risk
tolerance levels relative to the uncertainty of risks (Qazi et al., 2021). Therefore, a theoretical
contribution of the paper emerges from developing a simulation-based probabilistic risk
assessment model to assess, prioritize, and allocate resources to significant CRFs for residential
MiC projects.
5.2.3 Principal Components of the CRFs for Residential MiC Projects
The EFA rotation of the CRFs converged in 9 iterations. It generated five principal CRFs (PCRFs),
explaining about 74.861% of the total variance in the impact of risks on the performance of
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The PCRFs include design risks (PCRF1), factory
208
production risks (PCRF2), transportation and storage risks (PCRF3), onsite assembly risks
(PCRF4), and supply chain risks (PCRF5). Table 5.5 summarizes the factor loadings of the CRFs
and eigenvalues of the PCRFs, which are discussed according to their source in the project
execution time rather than eigen values.
5.2.3.1 Design risks
PCRF1 with an eigenvalue of 3.547 explained 14.82% of the variance in the impact of the CRFs.
It includes six CRFs emanating from the design of residential MiC projects. Obtaining a factor
loading of 0.812, late design completion and freezing (CRF9) constitutes the most important
design risks for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The inability to complete and freeze the
design early has proven to defeat or significantly undermine the time savings benefits of the MiC
method in residential building projects (Gibb and Isack, 2003). It extends the production lead time,
with a bullwhip effect of extended schedule. Hence, late design freeze significantly influences the
costs of residential MiC projects (Zhao et al., 2021).
Table 5.5: Factor loadings of the CRFs for residential MiC projects
ID Critical risk factors Factor loadings
Principal critical risk factors 1 2 3 4 5
PCRF1 Design risks
CRF9 Late design completion and freezing 0.812 - - - -
CRF7 Defective design and change order 0.616 - - - -
CRF18 Inappropriate structural system and 0.571 - - - -
CRF17 Inaccurate MiC design information 0.528 - - - -
CRF8 The unsuitability of design for MiC 0.514 - - - -
CRF24 Inaccurate materials specifications and cost 0.506 - - - -
estimation
PCRF2 Factory production risks -
CRF1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories - 0.853 - - -
CRF26 Module production errors - 0.796 - - -
CRF25 Design information gap between designer - 0.493 - - -
and manufacturer
CRF21 Dimensional and geometric inconsistencies - 0.470 - - -
in modules
PCRF3 Transportation and storage risks -
CRF15 Unsuitable site with restrictive space - - 0.752 - -
constraints
209
CRF20 Misplacement of stored modules - - 0.736 - -
CRF6 Delay in modules delivery to the site - - 0.442 - -
PCRF4 Onsite assembly risks
CRF19 Module installation errors - - - 0.792 -
CRF23 Mechanical malfunction of cranes - - - 0.783 -
CRF14 Shortages of modules on site - - - 0.774 -
CRF16 Complex interfaces between systems - - - 0.574 -
PCRF5 Supply chain risks
CRF10 Inadequate planning and scheduling - - - - 0.783
CRF2 Limited MiC expertise and experience - - - - 0.725
CRF5 Higher initial capital requirement - - - - 0.720
CRF4 Stakeholder fragmentation and complexity - - - - 0.708
CRF3 Supply chain disruptions - - - - 0.636
CRF22 Inadequate project funding - - - - 0.636
CRF13 Poor communication, collaboration and - - - - 0.594
information sharing between stakeholders
CRF11 Unsuitable project delivery and - - - - 0.531
procurement method
CRF12 Incomplete local MiC supply chain - - - - 0.520
Eigenvalue 3.547 5.016 2.517 4.841 3.235
Variance Explained (%) 14.827 19.292 9.679 18.621 12.441
Cumulative Variance Explained (%) 14.827 34.119 43.799 62.420 74.861
The second most important design risk is defective design and change order (CRF7). As the design
of residential MiC projects progresses towards completion, there is usually limited flexibility for
changes (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021). A change becomes prohibitive after the design has been frozen
and submitted to the suppliers or manufacturers. Once module production starts, defects in the
design and change orders could render all produced modules irrelevant to the project, if the change
requires significant modification in module dimensions, configurations, and geometry (Shahtaheri
et al., 2017).
Another significant design risk is the specification of inappropriate structural system and
construction materials. According to Zou et al. (2007), the misspecification can significantly
undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in a project. An inaccurate MiC
design information (CRF17) constitutes a significant design risk. Erroneous design information, if
unrectified and resolved at the design and production stages constitutes a lethal systemic risk factor
210
because it can propagate challenges throughout the delivery. If the design team feeds the design
process with inaccurate and incomplete design information, the resulting output will be defective
design, which could impose change order (Sutrisna and Goulding, 2019). This probability of
occurrence of this risk is usually high because the design stage is mostly planned with incomplete
knowledge based on uncertain data. Thus, the need to allocate enough design lead time and adopt
a collaborative approach to generate accurate and high-quality design information to develop
optimal MiC design solution in residential MiC projects cannot be overemphasized.
The unsuitability of the design for the MiC method (CRF8) constitutes a critical design risk for
residential MiC projects. A residential MiC project design must incorporate the principles of
design for manufacture and assembly. Though a site-built design can be modified into a MiC
design, it is a good design management practice to consider the MiC method at the outset of the
project. This assertion is consistent with KPMG (2016) that the full benefits of the MiC method in
a project hinges on high quality and dedicated design for its usage in a project (KPMG, 2016).
Failure to incorporate design rules than facilitates offsite production and onsite assembly of the
modules can create a condition where the residential MiC project fails even before the factory
production of the modules commences. The MiC method is also efficient in a residential project
with repetitive layout in the design (Hwang et al., 2018b). Thus, the design team and BIM
consultant must explicitly consider the compatibility of the design with the MiC method at the
earliest stages of the project (Blismas et al., 2005).
5.2.3.2 Factory production risks
It comprises four CRFs associated with the factory production of modules during the MiC project
delivery process. Obtaining the highest factor loading of 0.853, a heavy reliance on overseas
211
factories (CRF1) constitutes the most critical production risk for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. The limited capacity of local fabricators, absence of adequate space for development of
production yards, and immaturity of the local supply chain has imposed heavy reliance on overseas
factories for production of modules for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong (Construction
Industry Council, 2017). The reliance on overseas factories generate cross-border logistical
challenges, complex custom verification requirements, need for frequent inspection of overseas
factory works, and additional layers of international transportation and jurisdictional risks (Yang
et al., 2021). These uncertainties significantly influence the costs of residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong.
Another significant production risk is module production errors (CRF26). The impact of module
production errors could be lethal and cataclysmic if the errors are replicated in the mass-produced
modules and require site-fit reworks (Shahtaheri et al., 2017). In some cases where the errors are
significantly severe to render the modules irrelevant for the residential project, the additional costs
could be prohibitive and abortive. Design information gap between designer and manufacturer
(CRF25) with a factor loading of 0.493 constitutes a critical production risk for residential MiC
projects. Manufacturers and production engineers usually produce the modules based on the
working drawings and detailed design from the design team. In cases where the manufacturers
were not directly involved in the design, opportunities are missed to proactively consider and
resolve potential assembly constraints before freezing the design (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021).
Boothroyd (1994) described this condition as ‘over-the-wall’ syndrome where the production
engineers must resolve issues and produce modules because they were not privy to the design. A
by-product of the design information gap is dimensional and geometric inconsistencies in the
212
modules (CRF21). Shahtaheri et al. (2017) found that these variabilities usually require site-fit
reworks and could result in poor-quality work.
5.2.3.3 Transportation and storage risks
It encompasses three CRFs linked to the transportation and storage of the MiC modules. The most
significant transportation and storage risk is unsuitable site with restrictive space constraints
(CRF15), obtaining the highest factor loading of 0.752. Undulating and hilly sites increase the
challenges associated with transporting to and moving modules in the construction sites (Hong
Kong Housing Authority, 2021). It reduces onsite installation productivity and could negatively
affect the efficiency of the MiC method in a project. Misplacement of stored modules (CRF20)
constitutes another significant storage risk for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. It is a
common practice for the modules to be stored on site temporarily before installation. Failure to
pack modules in a manner that facilitates easy access during installation can result in inefficiencies
due to module accessibility problems during onsite assembly (Blismas, 2007). Also, delay in
modules delivery to the site (CRF6) can halt onsite installation, extend schedule, and generate
additional cost of hired equipment and site labour wages. The theoretical positions of these
transportation and storage risk factors have been well-established in the literature (Blismas, 2007;
Wuni et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021).
5.2.3.4 Onsite assembly risks
PCRF4 with an eigenvalue of 4.841 explained about 18.621% of the variance in the impact of the
CRFs. It comprises four CRFs associated with the onsite assembly of the modules, including
module installation errors (CRF19), mechanical malfunction of cranes (CRF23), shortages of
modules on site (CRF14), and complex interfaces between systems (CRF16). Module installation
213
errors require complex and prohibitively expensive rectification work and rework to address the
fault. The impact of this risk can be extremely severe, especially when the grouting work has been
completed before the error is detected. The cost of the error could also be prohibitive, if the
modules contained highly diversified design and mainly one-of-a-kind with no substitutes.
Also, crane breakdown and malfunction can adversely affect the onsite installation schedule and
cost of residential MiC projects. In case where one of two cranes breaks down, the onsite
installation rate will significantly reduce and increase requirement for onsite storage. Arranging
and moving another crane to site can usually take time, especially if a special and rare crane type
is used in the project. For instance, the two 48-ton capacity flagship tower cranes used to install
the 26 – 31 tons of concrete modules in the Clement Canopy in Singapore are uncommon. A
breakdown of such cranes could be hard to replace immediately, which can significantly extend
the schedule and cost of residential MiC projects.
Additionally, shortages of modules on site (CRF14) can halt onsite installation works and
negatively influence schedule performance. Luo et al. (2015) also documented that complex
interfacing between systems significantly reduces the efficiency of stacking and connecting the
various modules in the residential MiC project. It exposes the project to quality problems such
improper connection and fittings between modules (Hong, 2020), water seepage (Xu et al., 2020),
and poor sound insulation (Adekunle and Nikolopoulou, 2016).
5.2.3.5 Supply chain risks
PCRF5 with an eigenvalue of 3.235 explained about 12.441% of the variance in the impact of the
CRFs. It comprises nine CRFs linked to the supply chain of MiC projects. The most profound
supply chain CRF is inadequate planning and scheduling for the MiC method (CRF10) with the
highest factor loading of 0.783. Inadequate planning and scheduling generate externalities such as
214
incomprehensive design information, and reactive project management (Zou et al., 2007). As the
project team misses the opportunity to extensively consider intractable downstream constraints
and challenges during the planning stage, the residential MiC project can be exposed to significant
vulnerabilities throughout the delivery chain (Choi et al., 2016).
Limited expertise and experience of the project team (CRF2) can negatively affect the efficiency
and effectiveness of the MiC method in the residential building. Due to the interdependences of
the delivery chain, supply chain disruptions (CRF3) can adversely affect the fundamentals of the
residential MiC project. For instance, production system failure in the factory can generate
shortages of modules on site, resulting in extended schedule and cost. Similarly, mechanical
malfunction of cranes can overwhelm onsite installation and increase costs of module storage. Zou
et al. (2007) established that inadequate project funding (CRF22) generates greater uncertainties
in the project schedule and continuity, increased cost of capital over time, and dissatisfaction of
project team members.
The negative impact of poor communication and information sharing between project teams
(CRF13) in residential MiC projects has been well-established (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021). It results
in duplicated efforts, inconsistencies, and inefficiency in the residential MiC project delivery
process. The persistent collaboration problem in residential MiC projects can be attributed to
unsupportive procurement system and project delivery methods (CRF11). Complementary
participants such as designers, manufacturers, BIM consultants, and contractors seldom
collaborate and share information throughout the residential MiC project because some
procurement and project delivery modes discourage the required collaboration. Thus, delivery
methods such as design-bid-build exposes the residential MiC project to poor collaboration among
project teams, resulting in detrimental inconsistencies and inefficiencies (Fox et al., 2001).
215
5.2.4 Quantifying the Impact of the Principal CRFs for Residential MiC Projects
The FSE techniques provide relevant computational power to model and quantify the impact of
the 26 CRFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Table 5.6 summarizes the mean scores,
weightings, and membership functions of the CRFs and PCRFs for residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong. The descending ordered weightings of the PCRFS include PCRF5, PCRF1, PCRF4,
PCRF2, and PCRF3. However, the weightings were not used to rank the PCRFs because they are
sensitive to the number of CRFs and could be biased towards those containing more CRFs.
Table 5.6: Membership functions of the CRFs for residential MiC projects
ID Critical risk factors MS Wi Membership function
Principal critical risk factors
PCRF1 Design risks 21.50 0.239 (0.01, 0.15, 0.29, 0.36, 0.20)
CRF9 Late design completion and freezing 3.82 0.178 (0.01, 0.11, 0.24, 0.33, 0.31)
CRF17 Inaccurate MiC design information 3.69 0.172 (0.00, 0.16, 0.21, 0.41, 0.22)
CRF7 Defective design and change order 3.67 0.171 (0.00, 0.12, 0.27, 0.43, 0.18)
CRF18 Inappropriate structural system and 3.65 0.170 (0.02, 0.12, 0.27, 0.38, 0.21)
CRF8 Unsuitability of design for MiC 3.53 0.164 (0.01, 0.15, 0.31, 0.36, 0.17)
CRF24 Inaccurate materials specifications and 3.14 0.146 (0.02, 0.22, 0.45, 0.22, 0.09)
cost estimation
PCRF2 Factory production risks 13.46 0.150 (0.02, 0.17, 0.30, 0.36, 0.15)
CRF1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories 3.62 0.269 (0.02, 0.15, 0.26, 0.36, 0.22)
CRF25 Design information gap between designer 3.53 0.262 (0.01, 0.15, 0.30, 0.40, 0.15)
and manufacturer
CRF26 Module production errors 3.08 0.229 (0.03, 0.19, 0.28, 0.39, 0.11)
CRF21 Dimensional and geometric 3.23 0.240 (0.02, 0.22, 0.38, 0.28, 0.10)
PCRF3 Transportation and storage risks 10.47 0.116 (0.01, 0.16, 0.30, 0.39, 0.15)
CRF15 Unsuitable site with restrictive space 3.73 0.356 (0.00, 0.09, 0.31, 0.40, 0.21)
constraints
CRF6 Delay in modules delivery to the site 3.53 0.337 (0.01, 0.15, 0.29, 0.39, 0.15)
CRF20 Misplacement of stored modules 3.21 0.307 (0.03, 0.24, 0.29, 0.36, 0.08)
PCRF4 Onsite assembly risks 13.49 0.150 (0.03, 0.16, 0.34, 0.35, 0.12)
CRF14 Shortages of modules on site 3.47 0.257 (0.03, 0.19, 0.24, 0.38, 0.16)
CRF16 Complex interfaces between systems 3.46 0.256 (0.01, 0.08, 0.47, 0.33, 0.11)
CRF19 Module installation errors 3.38 0.251 (0.03, 0.19, 0.28, 0.39, 0.11)
CRF23 Mechanical malfunction of cranes 3.18 0.236 (0.05, 0.20, 0.37, 0.29, 0.09)
PCRF5 Supply chain risks 30.99 0.345 (0.02, 0.14, 0.36, 0.35, 0.14)
CRF10 Inadequate planning and scheduling 3.74 0.121 (0.02, 0.11, 0.26, 0.35, 0.26)
CRF13 Poor communication, collaboration and 3.54 0.114 (0.03, 0.10, 0.35, 0.32, 0.20)
information sharing between stakeholders
CRF22 Inadequate project funding 3.50 0.113 (0.01, 0.12, 0.38, 0.35, 0.15)
CRF2 Limited MiC expertise and experience 3.46 0.112 (0.00, 0.14, 0.36, 0.41, 0.09)
216
CRF5 Higher initial capital requirement 3.45 0.111 (0.02, 0.12, 0.39, 0.33, 0.14)
CRF3 Supply chain disruptions 3.42 0.110 (0.02, 0.13, 0.36, 0.41, 0.09)
CRF4 Stakeholder fragmentation and 3.39 0.109 (0.01, 0.14, 0.44, 0.29, 0.13)
complexity
CRF12 Incomplete local MiC supply chain 3.34 0.108 (0.01, 0.18, 0.38, 0.33, 0.10)
CRF11 Unsuitable project delivery and 3.15 0.102 (0.03, 0.22, 0.36, 0.32, 0.06)
procurement method
Instead, the membership functions and weightings were used to quantify the impact level of each
PCRF and overall impact of the 26 CRFs. Table 5.7 summarizes the relevant computations and
the impact indices of the various PCRFs. The FSE analysis revealed that the 26 CRFs collectively
have a significant impact on costs of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong, with an overall impact
index of 3.48 on a five-point rating. Consequently, project teams must plan and mitigate these risk
events when implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Table 5.7: Impact indices of the principal CRFs for residential MiC projects
ID Computation Impact Index Norm.
PCRF1 = (0.01, 0.15, 0.29, 0.36, 0.20)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.60 0.207
= (0.01*1) + (0.15*2) + (0.29*3) + (0.36*4) + (0.20*5)
PCRF2 = (0.02, 0.17, 0.30, 0.36, 0.15)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.45 0.199
= (0.02*1) + (0.17*2) + (0.30*3) + (0.36*4) + (0.15*5)
PCRF3 = (0.01, 0.16, 0.30, 0.39, 0.15)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.50 0.201
= (0.01*1) + (0.16*2) + (0.30*3) + (0.39*4) + (0.15*5)
PCRF4 = (0.03, 0.16, 0.34, 0.35, 0.12)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.38 0.194
= (0.03*1) + (0.16*2) + (0.34*3) + (0.35*4) + (0.12*5)
PCRF5 = (0.02, 0.14, 0.36, 0.35, 0.14) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.45 0.199
= (0.02*1) + (0.14*2) + (0.36) + (0.35*4) + (0.14*5)
Overall = (0.016, 0.151, 0.324, 0.357, 0.153)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.48 Σ=1.000
= (0.016*1) + (0.151*2) + (0.324*3) + (0.357*4) + (0.153*5)
Additionally, the FSE modelling indicated that four of the five PCRFs have significant impact on
the performance of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Design risks (PCRF1) obtained the
highest impact index of 3.60 and generates the highest impact on the performance of residential
MiC projects. Transportation and storage risks (PCRF3) obtained the next highest impact with an
index of 3.50, followed by supply chain risks (PCRF5) and factory production risks (PCRF2) with
217
equal impact index of 3.45. The least significant PCRF is onsite assembly risk (PCRF4) with
impact index of 3.38 on a 5-point impact scale. The outcome of the FSE is surprisingly compelling
and reflective of reality because the design stage determines about 80% of the costs of construction
projects (Bogenstätter, 2000), rendering design risks extremely crucial in residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong.
5.2.5 A Structural Risk-Path Model for Residential MiC Projects in Hong Kong
5.2.5.1 Establishing a conceptual structural model and hypotheses development
The literature have documented possible multiple chain reactions, push effects, and
interdependencies among the delivery chain segments of residential MiC projects (Luo, Jin, et al.,
2020). Thus, upstream risk events, uncertainties and challenges can propagate throughout the
delivery chain to compromise the goals of downstream delivery chain stages (Wuni and Shen,
2020b). The extant literature have established several unvalidated and unverified claims that risks
in residential MiC projects reinforce each at various stages of the delivery chain (Yang et al.,
2021). For instance, risks such as poor collaboration among project participants, disruptions, and
inadequate planning can propagate and reinforce the adverse impact of risks at all stages of the
delivery chain (Luo, Jin, et al., 2020). Also, inaccurate design information and poor design quality
can derail the quality of the manufactured modules and generate installation problems (Wuni and
Shen, 2020b). Similarly, heavy reliance on overseas factories can increase module transportation
challenges such as cross-border logistic arrangement and overseas quality inspection costs (Yang
et al., 2021). Likewise, delay in transporting modules to the construction site can extend the onsite
schedule of module installation.
218
Therefore, the best practices for residential MiC projects can be enriched with a better
understanding of the significant chain reactions and push effects of risk events throughout the
residential MiC project delivery chain. The theoretical positions of the chain reactions and
interdependencies of the CRFs in the various stages of the residential MiC project delivery chain
has been well-established in the literature. Thus, the SLR (Section 2.6) and principal components
(i.e., constructs) of the CRFs for residential MiC projects (Section 5.2.3) provide adequate
information to develop a conceptual model depicting the potential causal relationships between
various risks constructs. Table 5.8 summarizes the relevant CRFs and five risk constructs for
residential MiC projects along with codes for the conceptual model.
Table 5.8: Relevant critical risk factors for residential MiC projects
Latent variables Code Observable variables/indicators
/Constructs
Design risks DR1 Late design completion and freezing
DR2 Defective design and change order
DR3 Inappropriate structural system and construction materials
DR4 Inaccurate MiC design information
DR5 Unsuitability of design for MiC
DR6 Inaccurate materials specifications and cost estimation
Factory PR1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories
production risks PR2 Module production errors
PR3 Design information gap between designer and manufacturer
PR4 Dimensional and geometric inconsistencies in modules
Transportation TSR1 Unsuitable site with restrictive space constraints
and storage risks TSR2 Misplacement of stored modules
TSR3 Delay in modules delivery to the site
Onsite assembly OAR1 Module installation errors
risks OAR2 Mechanical malfunction of cranes
OAR3 Shortages of modules on site
OAR4 Complex interfaces between systems
Supply chain SCR1 Inadequate planning and scheduling
risks SCR2 Limited MiC expertise and experience
SCR3 Higher initial capital requirement
SCR4 Stakeholder fragmentation and complexity
SCR5 Supply chain disruptions
SCR6 Inadequate project funding
SCR7 Poor communication, collaboration and information sharing between
stakeholders
SCR8 Unsuitable project delivery method and procurement system
SCR9 Incomplete local MiC supply chain
219
A conceptual risk path model employs network theory to hypothesize the causal relations between
risk constructs. Figure 5.6 shows a conceptual model depicting and defining potential relationships
between the risk constructs for residential MiC projects. The model exemplifies the capability of
SEM to handle complex relationships between latent constructs and multiple dependent constructs
within a single model. The conceptual path model (Figure 5.6) shows ten hypotheses representing
possible causal relationships between the five risk constructs for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. A path in the conceptual model depicts a causal relationship.
Figure 5.6: A conceptual path model of the causal relationships between risk constructs
The hypotheses among the risk constructs typify the possible impact of risk construct from one
stage of the residential MiC project delivery chain to another stage. These stages are design, factory
production, transportation and storage, and onsite assembly of modules, including the supply
220
chain. Figure 5.6 hypothesizes how the various stage-based risk constructs reinforce each other
(Luo, Jin, et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). As the various stages of the residential MiC project
delivery chain are interdependent, design risk events can propagate throughout the delivery chain
to reinforce risks at all subsequent stages. Except for supply chain risks, design risks can affect
proceeding stages but risks in subsequent stages cannot influence design risks because it precedes
all subsequent stages in execution time (Adabre et al., 2021).
For example, inaccurate design information can compromise the quality of the factory production
of modules, but limited supervision of factory works cannot affect the design stage. The theoretical
position of the unilateral impact of design risks on subsequent stages have been well established
(Sutrisna and Goulding, 2019). However, bilateral impact of risk constructs can exist in stages
such as transportation and onsite assembly. For instance, delay in module delivery to site can halt
module installation, whereas rapid demand for modules on site can overwhelm module transport
and storage requirements (Zhai et al., 2017, 2018).
The paths and arrow alignment in Figure 5.6 represents the direction of the hypothesized causal
relationships between risk constructs for residential MiC projects. The consequential hypotheses
of such causal relationships in residential MiC projects in Hong Kong include:
• H1: Supply chain risks have a significant positive impact on design risks for residential MiC
• H2: Supply chain risks have a significant positive influence on factory production risks for
• H3: Supply chain risks have a significant positive impact on transportation and storage risks
for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
• H4: Supply chain risks have a significant positive impact on onsite assembly risks for residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong.
221
• H5: design risks have a significant positive impact on factory production risks for residential
• H6: Design risks have a significant positive impact on transportation and storage risks for
• H7: Design risks have a significant positive impact on onsite assembly risks for residential MiC
• H8: Factory production risks have a significant positive impact on transportation and storage
risks for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
• H9: Factory production risks have a significant positive influence on onsite assembly risks for
• H10: Transportation and storage risks have a significant positive influence on onsite assembly
risks for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
5.2.5.2 Measurement model
According to Hair et al. (2018), a measurement model represents the relationships between
constructs and their corresponding indicator variables. Smart PLS (v.3.3.3) was used to construct
the measurement model. The measurement model was generated using the partial least square
algorithm. Table 5.9 summarizes the outcomes of a valid and reliable measurement model of the
five risk constructs for residential MiC projects.
Table 5.9: Measurement model results

Constructs Items Loadings a AVE b CR c CA d Rho_A e
Design risks DR1 0.820 0.680 0.927 0.905 0.908
DR2 0.867
DR3 0.792
DR4 0.853
DR5 0.855
DR6 0.757
Factory PR1 0.545 0.588 0.848 0.757 0.793
production PR2 0.840
risks PR3 0.823
PR4 0.820
Transportation TSR1 0.654 0.622 0.829 0.701 0.739
and storage TSR2 0.815
risks TSR3 0.879
222
Onsite OAR1 0.753 0.637 0.875 0.809 0.820
assembly risks OAR2 0.652
OAR3 0.688
OAR4 0.749
Supply chain SCR1 0.758 0.532 0.910 0.888 0.893
risks SCR2 0.579
SCR3 0.822
SCR4 0.741
SCR5 0.793
SCR6 0.753
SCR7 0.652
SCR8 0.688
SCR9 0.793
Items removed: indicator items are below 0.50: None
a. All-item loading ≥ 0.50 showing indicator reliability (Hulland, 1999)
b. All Average Variance Extracted (AVE) > 0.50, indicating Convergent reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988)
c. All Composite Reliability (CR) > 0.70 indicating internal consistency (Gefen et al., 2000)
d. All Cronbach’s alpha (CA) > 0.70 indicating reliability (Nunnally and Berstein, 1994)
e. All Jereskog Rho_A > 0.70 indicating excellent internal consistency of items
The factor loading of each indicator and the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct
exceeds the recommended 0.50 required for data validity. A reflective indicator loading >0.50
means the item is a good measurement of the latent construct (Hulland, 1999). Likewise, the
composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha exceed the 0.70 minimum threshold requirement of
convergent validity (Hair et al., 2018). The Cronbach’s alpha measures the reliability and internal
consistency of the items of unidimensionality of a set of scale items, indicating the degree to which
all the variables in the measurement scale are positively related to each other (Cronbach, 1951;
Nunnally and Berstein, 1994). The convergent reliability is assessed using AVE comparable to the
proportion of variance explained in factor analysis and takes values between 0 and 1, with the
minimum acceptable value of AVE> 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The internal consistency of a
measurement model is assessed using Dhillo-Goldstein Rho (p), also known as the Composite
Reliability (CR). It measures the reliability of the indicators where values are between 0 and 1,
with CR>0.70 considered the minimum requirement for adequate consistency (Gefen et al., 2000).
223
Given the loadings >0.50, AVE >0.50, CR > 0.70 , and Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.70, the measurement
model has acceptable level of validity.
5.2.5.2.1 Discriminant validity assessment
Table 5.10 summarizes the results of the discriminant validity assessment using Fornell and Lacker
criterion. The results indicate that the greatest correlations exist between the same constructs,
located diagonally. These correlations are higher than any correlations between the constructs,
indicating adequate discriminant validity. Table 5.10 indicates adequate discriminant validity
because the diagonal values are the highest in any row or column.
Table 5.10: Fornell and Lacker criterion

Constructs Design Factory Onsite Supply Chain Transportation
Risks Production Assembly Risks and Storage
Risks Risks Risks
Design Risks 0.825
Factory Production 0.703 0.767
Risks
Onsite Assembly 0.761 0.615 0.798
Risks
Supply Chain Risks 0.640 0.720 0.600 0.770
Transportation and 0.763 0.731 0.642 0.763 0.789
Storage Risks
*The diagonal are the square root of the AVE of the latent variables and indicates the highest in any column or row
5.2.5.2.2 Cross loading of indicators
Table 5.11 summarizes the cross loadings of the indicators of the measurement model. The
indicators have the highest loadings in their hypothesized constructs, indicating an acceptable
discriminant validity.
Table 5.11: Indicator item cross loadings

Indicator Design Factory Production Transportation and Onsite Assembly Supply
Risks Risks Storage Risks Risks Chain Risks
DR1 0.820 0.615 0.627 0.519 0.670
DR2 0.867 0.648 0.637 0.606 0.738
DR3 0.792 0.686 0.619 0.671 0.665
224
DR4 0.853 0.751 0.683 0.735 0.743
DR5 0.855 0.622 0.648 0.625 0.703
DR6 0.757 0.637 0.551 0.590 0.628
PR1 0.347 0.545 0.386 0.429 0.490
PR2 0.666 0.840 0.598 0.734 0.648
PR3 0.697 0.823 0.508 0.593 0.679
PR4 0.688 0.820 0.703 0.697 0.684
TSR1 0.460 0.320 0.654 0.456 0.442
TSR2 0.605 0.670 0.815 0.784 0.615
TSR3 0.711 0.667 0.879 0.704 0.774
OAR1 0.720 0.828 0.724 0.881 0.701
OAR2 0.567 0.641 0.634 0.773 0.608
OAR3 0.564 0.532 0.717 0.761 0.566
OAR4 0.565 0.569 0.611 0.773 0.678
SCR1 0.761 0.615 0.708 0.604 0.753
SCR2 0.430 0.626 0.515 0.543 0.652
SCR3 0.579 0.504 0.499 0.507 0.688
SCR4 0.589 0.530 0.464 0.501 0.749
SCR5 0.541 0.668 0.609 0.636 0.758
SCR6 0.643 0.524 0.551 0.543 0.579
SCR7 0.718 0.682 0.599 0.657 0.822
SCR8 0.631 0.543 0.579 0.545 0.741
SCR9 0.576 0.659 0.629 0.672 0.793
5.2.5.2.3 Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlation
Table 5.12 summarizes the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) ratio of correlations between the
risk constructs. The HTMT as a measurement model assessment metric requires juxtaposition with
a predetermined threshold. Various thresholds such 0.85 (HTMT0.85), 0.90 (HTMT0.90), 0.95
(HTMT0.95), and 0.975 (HTMT0.975) are commonly used in the literature. Like Adabre et al. (2021),
this study adopted 0.975 (HTMT0.975) as the predetermined threshold for the comparison. From
Table 5.12, the inter-construct HTMT ratio of correlation values are less than 0.975, corroborating
the discriminant validity of the measurement model.
225
Table 5.12: Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlation values
Construct Design Risks Factory Onsite Supply Transportation and
Production Assembly Chain Storage Risks
Risks Risks Risks
Design Risks
Factory Production 0.949
Risks
Onsite Assembly 0.880 0.819
Risks
Supply Chain Risks 0.931 0.880 0.941
Transportation and 0.944 0.953 0.897 0.919
Storage Risks
5.2.5.3 Structural model estimation
The reliability and validity assessment results of the measurement model demonstrate that the data
is suitable for constructing a structural model. Hence, a path analysis was conducted among the
risk constructs for residential MiC projects. Figure 5.7 shows the structural model mapping the
causal relationships between and among the various risk constructs along with path coefficients.
The values between constructs represent path coefficients reflecting the magnitude of influence of
a construct on another. Higher path coefficients depict greater influence of a construct on another.
The strength of the influence associated with various path coefficients are classified into three:
weak impact (0.10 – 0.30), moderate impact (0.30 – 0.50), and strong impact (0.50 – 1.00).
The model reveals a strong influence of supply chain risks on design risks. Supply chain risks also
moderately reinforce factory production risks and transportation and storage risks for residential
MiC projects. However, supply chain risks have weak positive impact on onsite assembly risks.
The model also reveals that design risks moderately reinforce factory production risks. However,
design risks generate weak impact on transportation-storage risks, and onsite assembly risks for
226
Figure 5.7: A structural model with path coefficient values
The model further shows that factory production risks have a weak influence on transportation and
storage risks but moderately reinforce onsite assembly risks for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. Also, the model indicates the moderate impact of transportation and storage risks on onsite
assembly risks for residential MiC projects.
5.2.5.3.1 Structural model assessment
The inner variance inflation factor (VIF) was explored to investigate the prevalence of
multicollinearity in the structural model. Table 5.13 summarizes the VIF values measuring the
presence of multicollinearity. All the VIF values of the indicators are below 5.00, indicating the
absence of multicollinearity among the indicators of the structural model (Hair et al., 2018).
227
Table 5.13: Variance inflation factor values of the indicators of the structural model
Construct/Indicators Outer VIF Inner VIF Values R2 Adj.R2
Values DRs FPRs TSRs OARs SCRs
Design Risks (DRs) 2.522 3.395 3.920 4.142 0.705 0.703
DR1 2.522
DR2 3.118
DR3 2.096
DR4 2.668
DR5 2.87
DR6 1.824
Factory Production 3.531 3.601 0.717 0.712
Risks (FPRs)
PR1 1.168
PR2 1.976
PR3 1.982
PR4 1.605
Transportation and 3.002 0.667 0.658
Storage Risks (TSRs)
TSR1 1.292
TSR2 1.428
TSR3 1.703
Onsite Assembly 0.798 0.791
Risks (OARs)
OAR1 2.766
OAR2 2.246
OAR3 1.873
OAR4 1.801
Supply Chain Risks 1.000 3.395 4.266 4.845
(SCRs)
SCR1 2.401
SCR2 1.787
SCR3 1.861
SCR4 2.131
SCR5 2.636
SCR6 1.644
SCR7 2.631
SCR8 2.070
SCR9 2.383
The structural model was also assessed using the coefficient of determination (R2) to ascertain the
total effect size and variance explained by the various dependent risk constructs for residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. The R2 values of the dependent risk constructs are provided in Figure
228
5.9., ranging 0.667 – 0.798 (66.7% – 79.8%), which are far above satisfactory values (Hair et al.,
2018). It is also imperative to examine the significance of the paths in the structural model. Before
that, the Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis were used to explore the data normality
(Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.8: Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis
The cut-off values of the Mardia multivariate test for non-normality of data are ± 1 (skewness) and
±20 (kurtosis). Values of 3.810 and 41.412 (Figure 7.3) were obtained for Mardia’s multivariate
skewness and kurtosis, respectively. Comparing the values to the cut-off values ± 1 (skewness)
and ±20 (kurtosis), the data was non-normally distributed. The multivariate non-normality
provided statistical legitimacy to use bootstrapping analysis to measure the significance of the
paths or direct effects of the ten hypotheses embodied in the structural model. The bootstrapping
results are provided in Figure 5.9 and Table 5.14.
229
Figure 5.9: Bootstrapping analysis results of the structural model.
A value in the path between risk constructs in Figure 5.9 represents the t-value of the path. For a
2-tailed test, a t-value > 1.96 demonstrates a significant causal relationship at a 5% (α = 0.05)
significance level (t0.05 > 1.96). Likewise, for a 2-tailed test, a t-value > 2.58 indicates significant
hypothesis at a 1% (α = 0.01) significance level (t0.01 > 2.58).
5.2.5.3.2 Validation of the hypotheses
Table 5.14 summarizes the t-values and p-values (Sig.) of the hypothetical causal relationships
among the risk constructs. Of the ten paths (Figure 5.9), the path between supply chain risks and
design risks was significant at 0.01 (p < 0.000) with a t-value (28.11) > 2.58. Likewise, the path
between supply chain risks and factory production risks and the path between supply chain risks
and transportation risks were significant at 0.01 (p < 0.000) with t-values of 4.498 and 3.733,
230
respectively. Also, the path between design risks and factory production risks was significant at
0.01 (p < 0.000) with a t-value (3.358) > 2.58.
Table 5.14: Direct relationships for hypothesis testing

Hypo- Relationship Std Std |t- Decision f2 q2 95% Sig.
thesis Beta Errors value| CI
H1 Supply chain 0.839 0.030 28.119 Supported (0.770 0.000*
risks - > -
Design Risks 0.887)
H2 Supply chain 0.493 0.110 4.498 Supported 0.244 0.066 (0.272 0.000*
risks - > -
Factory 0.687)
Production
Risks
H3 Supply chain 0.449 0.118 3.733 Supported 0.135 0.029 (0.227 0.000*
risks - > -
Transportation 0.671)
and Storage
Risks
H4 Supply chain 0.121 0.104 1.107 Not 0.005 - (- 0.269
risks - > supported 0.002 0.079
Onsite -
Assembly 0.320)
Risks
H5 Design Risks 0.390 0.115 3.358 Supported 0.141 0.039 (0.170 0.001*
- > Factory -
Production 0.620)
Risks
H6 Design Risks 0.263 0.124 2.191 Supported 0.057 0.015 (0.020 0.029**
-> -
and Storage
Risks
H7 Design risks - 0.015 0.095 0.054 Not 0.000 - (- 0.957
> Onsite supported 0.004 0.194
Assembly -
Risks 0.196)
H8 Factory 0.152 0.122 1.248 Not 0.021 - (- 0.213
Production supported 0.011 0.085
risks - > -
and Storage
Risks
231
H9 Factory 0.360 0.099 3.696 Supported 0.193 0.043 (0.159 0.000*
Production -
risks - > 0.571)
Onsite
Assembly
Risks
H10 Transportation 0.470 0.085 5.653 Supported 0.366 0.089 (0.301 0.000*
and Storage -
Risks –> 0.630)
Onsite
Assembly
Risks
*P < 0.01 (*2.58 (p < 0.01); **p < 0.05 (**1.96 (p < 0.05)).
R2 (Design Risks = 0.705; Factory Production Risks = 0.717; Transportation and Storage Risks = 0.667; Onsite Assembly Risks = 0.798)
Effect Size (f2) classification: f2 value= 0.35 (large), 0.15(medium), and 0.02(small)
Predictive Relevance (q2) of predictor independent construct classification: q2 value= 0.35 (large), 0.15(medium), and 0.02(small)
The path between design risks and transportation risks was also significant at 0.05 (P = 0.029) with
a t-value of 2.191. Additionally, the path between factory production risks and onsite assembly
risks was significant at 0.01 with a t-value (3.696) > 2.58. Similarly, the path between
transportation and storage risks and onsite assembly risks was significant at 0.01 with a t-value
(5.653) > 2.58. However, three paths (i.e., H4, H7, H8) of the structural model were insignificant
at both 0.01 and 0.05.
5.2.5.4 Assessment of effect sizes (f2)
The effect size f2 was computed to determine the extent to which each risk construct (independent
construct) influence or explain the impact of another construct (dependent construct) in terms of
R2. f2 measures the changes in R2 of a dependent risk construct due to presence of a specific
independent risk construct. Mathematically, f2 is computed as follows.
f2 = (R2included - R2excluded)/(1 - R2included)
where R2included and R2excluded are the R2 values of the dependent risk construct when a selected
independent risk construct is included or excluded from the model. The partial least square
algorithm measures this change by computing the R2 value of dependent risk construct when a
232
selected independent risk construct is included and excluded from the model to yield R2included and
R2excluded, respectively. Thus, it estimates PLS path model twice to generate R2included and R2excluded
for a relevant hypothesis. The thumb rule for interpreting the effect sizes include: 0.02 ≤ f2 < 0.15
(weak effect), 0.15 ≤ f2 < 0.35 (moderate effect), and f2 ≥ 0.35 (strong effect).
Table 5.14 indicates a strong effect size (0.366) for the path between transportation and storage
risks and onsite assembly risks. There is also a moderate effect size for the path between supply
chain risks and factory production risks (0.244), and the path between factory production risks and
onsite assembly risks (0.193). However, there are smaller effect sizes (0.00 – 0.141) in the paths
between the remaining risk constructs.
5.2.5.5 Evaluation of predictive relevance (q2)
Predictive relevance (q2) computes the extent to which the structural model reproduces the values
of the indicators. While the bootstrapping analysis omits a selected independent construct to
compute the effect size (f2), the blindfolding analysis rather omits indicators to compute the
predictive relevance of the risk constructs. Blindfolding omits relevant data for a selected block of
indicators and predicts the omitted part based on the calculated parameters to generate q 2.
Mathematically, q2 is computed as follows.
q2 = (Q2included - Q2excluded)/(1 - Q2included), where Q2 = 1 – (ΣD SSED)/ (ΣD SSOD)
where D represents the omission distance, SSE denotes the sum of square errors, and SSO
represents the sum of squares total. To set D, the thumb rule is 5 ≤ D ≤ 10. A default D of 7 was
used in conducting the blindfolding in the Smart PLS software. The predictive relevance of a
construct can be classified into three: weak (0.02 ≤ q2 < 0.15), moderate (0.15 ≤ q2 < 0.35), and
strong (q2 ≥ 0.35). Table 5.14 summarizes the predictive relevance (q2) of the ten structural causal
233
paths of the risk constructs (Figure 5.9). The results show weaker predictive relevance of the ten
paths.
5.2.5.6 Importance-performance analysis
Though f2 and q2 provide relevant information of various risk constructs that reinforce each other
to inform integrated risk response and mitigation strategies, it is also relevant to examine the
importance levels of the various risk constructs (Adabre et al., 2021). The onsite assembly stage
can inherit the impact of all unresolved upstream risks throughout the delivery chain. Thus, the
study conducted importance-performance analysis (IPMA) on the basis that all risk constructs
contribute to and reinforce onsite assembly risks in residential MiC projects. Figure 5.10 shows
the IPMA where the x-axis (total effects) depicts the standardized path coefficients (i.e.,
importance or strength) of relevant risk constructs or risk factors (Figure 5.11) on onsite assembly
risks.
The y-axis indicates the average values (i.e., performance) of a risk construct (Figure 5.10) or a
risk factor (Figure 5.11) on the onsite assembly risk construct. The performance values range from
0 to 100 (Adabre et al., 2021). The importance-performance maps were produced for both the risk
constructs and various risk factors. The IPMA of the risk constructs reveals those with the highest
importance and reinforcement of the impact of onsite assembly risks. It enables project teams to
prioritize critical risk constructs with high importance (i.e., high total effect) and relatively low
performance score on the target construct.
234
Importance-Perfomance Map
65.0
64.0
Performance (Onsite Assembly Risks)
63.0
62.0
(0.44, 61.11)
61.0 (0.31, 60.59)
Factory Production Risks
60.0 Design Risks
0.80, 59.74
59.0 Supply Chain Risks
0.48, 58.87
Transportation and Storage Risks
58.0
57.0
56.0
55.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Total Effects (Risk Constructs)
Figure 5.10: IPMA map of other risk constructs against onsite assembly risks
For instance, Figure 5.10 shows that supply chain risks have the highest total effect of 0.80 but
with a relatively lower performance score of 59.74. Consequently, project teams could minimize
the integrated impact of onsite assembly risks through mitigating supply chain risks. The IPMA of
the risk indicators (Figure 5.11) reveals the relative total effects and performance of various risk
factors within the critical risk constructs.
235
Importance-Performance Map
80.0
70.513 68.376
70.0 65.598
Performance (Onsite Assembly Risks)
66.239 62.607 63.462 63.248

63.248 62.179 63.248 61.325
59.82960.470 58.547
60.0 56.410 57.550
55.556 55.769 55.128
53.419 53.846
48.718
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
0.062 0.069 0.057 0.158 0.165 0.109 0.108 0.117 0.119 0.142 0.232
10.0
0.058 0.127 0.137 0.131 0.226
0.062 0.061 0.099 0.143 0.139 0.108
0.0
TSR3
TSR1
TSR2
PR3
PR1
PR2
PR4
SCR1
SCR2
SCR3
SCR4
SCR5
SCR6
SCR7
SCR8
SCR9
DR1
DR2
DR3
DR4
DR5
DR6
Total Effects (Risk Indicators)
Figure 5.11: IPMA map of risk indicators against onsite assembly risks
Given that δI constitutes the maximum performance (i.e., 100) of an indicator on the target
construct and the actual performance of a risk indicator is δa, the potential performance of an
indicator, δp is determined as follows.
δp = δI - δa
Table 5.12 summarizes the estimated potential performances of the risk indicators. Figure 5.10
and Table 5.12 indicate that the top five most important risk indicators include TRS3 – delay in
delivery of modules to site (0.232, 63.25), TSR2 – misplacement of stored modules (0.226, 55.13),
PR4 – dimensional and geometric inconsistencies in modules (0.165, 55.77), PR2 – module
production errors (0.158, 62.18), and PR3 – design information gap between designer and
manufacturer (0.143, 63.25).
236
Figure 5.12: Total effects, actual performances, and potential performances of risk indicators
Risk Indicators Total Effects Performance (δa) Potential Performance
(Importance) (δp) = δI - δa
DR1 0.058 70.513 29.487
DR2 0.062 55.556 44.444
DR3 0.062 66.239 33.761
DR4 0.069 56.410 43.590
DR5 0.061 63.248 36.752
DR6 0.057 53.419 46.581
PR1 0.099 65.598 34.402
PR2 0.158 62.179 37.821
PR3 0.143 63.248 36.752
PR4 0.165 55.769 44.231
SCR1 0.139 68.376 31.624
SCR2 0.109 48.718 51.282
SCR3 0.108 61.325 38.675
SCR4 0.108 59.829 40.171
SCR5 0.127 60.470 39.530
SCR6 0.117 62.607 37.393
SCR7 0.137 63.462 36.538
SCR8 0.119 53.846 46.154
SCR9 0.131 58.547 41.453
TSR1 0.142 57.550 42.450
TSR2 0.226 55.128 44.872
TSR3 0.232 63.248 36.752
Given that these risks have significant dynamic effect and situated at the centre of the delivery
chain, project teams must mitigate, control, and monitor them when implementing residential MiC
5.2.5.7 Discussion of the structural risk-path model
The structural risk-path model investigated the chain reactions and causal relationships between
and among design risks, factory production risks, transportation – storage risks, onsite assembly
risks, and supply chain risks.
The design risk construct of the structural model contains six significantly loaded indicators. The
six design risk factors along with their loadings include: late design completion and freezing
237
(DR1), defective design and change order (DR2), inappropriate structural system and construction
materials (DR3), inaccurate MiC design information (DR4), unsuitability of the design for MiC
(DR5), and inaccurate materials specifications and cost estimation (DR6). The design risk
construct have significant moderate influence on the impact of production risk factors for
residential MiC projects. Thus, reducing design risks can minimize the impact of factory
production risks on the costs of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The design risk construct
further generate weak influence on the impact of both transportation-storage risks and onsite
assembly risks on the cost of residential MiC projects. However, the weak influence is significant
on the transportation-storage risks and insignificant on the onsite assembly risks. Hence, design
risks can significantly reinforce the impact of transportation-storage risks in residential MiC
projects. The design risk construct has the second highest performance score (60.59) but with the
least total effect (0.31) on onsite assembly risks. As the design stage precedes all other major stages
in execution times, design risk factors must be mitigated to avoid their propagation and far-
reaching impact on other stages, especially the module production.
The factory production risk construct contain four significantly loaded indicators. These indicators
together with their loadings include heavy reliance on overseas factories (PR1), module production
errors (PR2), design information gap between designer and manufacturer (PR3), and dimensional
and geometric inconsistencies in modules (PR4). The factory production risk have an insignificant
weak influence on the impact of transportation-storage risks and a significant moderate influence
on the impact of onsite assembly risks for residential MiC projects. The factory production risk
construct has the highest performance score (61.11) and second least total effect (0.44) on the
onsite assembly risk. Thus, minimizing factory production risks have significant positive
238
cascading implications of onsite assembly risk management for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong.
The transportation – storage risk construct contains three significantly loaded indicators. These
indicators and their loadings include unsuitable site with restrictive space constraints (TSR1),
misplacement of stored modules (TSR2), and delay in modules delivery to the site (TSR3). The
transportation – storage risk construct has significant moderate influence on onsite assembly risks.
Thus, strategies to minimize onsite assembly risks must also control transportation and storage
risks in residential MiC projects. Transportation – storage risks should be a concern to residential
MiC project teams in Hong Kong because it has the second highest importance or total effect (0.48)
and the least performance score (58.87) among the five risk constructs.
The supply chain risk construct contains nine significantly loaded indicators. These risk factors
include inadequate planning and scheduling (SCR1), limited MiC expertise and experience
(SCR2), higher initial capital requirement (SCR3), stakeholder fragmentation and complexity
(SCR4), supply chain disruptions (SCR5), inadequate project funding (SCR6), poor
communication, collaboration and information sharing between stakeholders (SCR7), unsuitable
project delivery method and procurement system (SCR8), and incomplete local MiC supply chain
(SCR9). The supply chain risk construct has a significant strong impact on design risks for
residential MiC projects. Thus, project teams must mitigate and control supply chain risks to
minimize the impact of design risks. Supply chain risks also have significant moderate influence
on the impact of factory production risks and transportation-storage risks. Thus, project teams can
minimize the impact of factory production, transportation, and storage risks on residential MiC
project performance through mitigating supply chain risk events. However, supply chain has an
insignificant weak influence on the impact of onsite assembly risks. Supply chain risks constitute
239
the most critical risk construct because it has the greatest total effect (0.80) and the second least
performance score (59.74). Thus, the influence of supply chain risks on design, factory production
risks and transportation-storage risks can collectively undermine the objectives of onsite assembly
risks, if left unmitigated.
The onsite assembly risk construct contains four significantly loaded indicators, including module
installation errors (OAR1), mechanical malfunction of cranes (OAR2), shortages of modules on
site (OAR3), and complex interfaces between systems (OAR4). The measurement model indicates
that these four onsite assembly risk factors can be significantly affected by all other risk factors
and construct.
5.3 Evaluating, Modelling, and Quantifying the CSFs for Residential MiC projects
5.3.1 Significant CSFs for Residential MiC Projects
Table 5.15 summarizes the mean indices, standard deviations, relativity scores, significance
indices, and rankings of the 23 CSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Apart from CSF19
and CSF21, the CSFs obtained mean indices higher than 3.50, indicating that 21 CSFs were
considered significant for ensuring the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The top
five significant CSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong include early design completion
and freezing (CSF5), early understanding and commitment of the client (CSF2), effective
leadership and support of specialist contractors (CSF3), adequate knowledge and experience of the
project team (CSF1), and collaborative working and information sharing among project teams
(CSF4).
Early design completion and freezing constitute the most significant CSF for implementing
residential MiC projects. Gibb and Isack (2003) considered early design freeze the most important
240
practice to reap the full benefits of the MiC method in construction projects. Detailed design
specification, owner's approval of the design, and early design freeze provide an adequate lead
time for pre-production activities such as mock-up testing and prototyping. Early design
completion enables a timely production of modules and shortening the construction time
(O'Connor et al., 2014). However, it is essential to incorporate the inputs of production engineers
in the design to proactively resolve downstream factory production constraints before the detailed
design hits the production line (Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021).
Table 5.15: Ranking of the CSFs for residential MiC projects

ID Critical success factors µ SD Relativity Significance Rank
index index (%)
CSF1 Adequate knowledge and 4.19 0.78 0.0470 83.76 4
experience of project team
CSF2 Early understanding and 4.23 0.76 0.0474 84.62 2
commitment of the client
CSF3 Effective leadership and support 4.20 0.78 0.0471 83.93 3
of specialist contractors
CSF4 Collaborative working and 4.17 0.74 0.0467 83.42 5
information sharing among
project teams
CSF5 Early design completion and 4.31 0.78 0.0483 86.15 1
freezing
CSF6 Suitable site characteristics and 3.79 0.78 0.0425 75.90 16
layout
CSF7 Suitability of the design for MiC 4.08 0.84 0.0457 81.54 6
CSF8 Extensive upfront planning for 3.97 0.80 0.0445 79.32 10
the MiC method
CSF9 Use of collaborative 3.64 0.88 0.0408 72.82 18
procurement system and
contracting
CSF10 Extensive supply chain 3.76 0.75 0.0421 75.21 17
coordination and seamless
integration
CSF11 Early and active involvement of 4.05 0.84 0.0454 81.03 7
CSF12 Effective coordination and 3.98 0.74 0.0446 79.66 8
integration of stakeholders
CSF13 Availability of sound transport 3.97 0.82 0.0445 79.32 10
infrastructure and site equipment
241
CSF14 Effective coordination of onsite 3.84 0.81 0.0430 76.75 13
and offsite work packages
CSF15 Using suitable structural system 3.97 0.84 0.0445 79.49 9
and construction material
CSF16 Effective use of building 3.55 0.94 0.0398 70.94 20
information modelling
CSF17 Effective management of critical 3.91 0.76 0.0438 78.29 12
CSF18 Early engagement of 3.64 0.91 0.0408 72.82 18
certification body for factory
inspection
CSF19 Inventory management and 3.44 0.77 0.0386 68.72 22
control
CSF20 Use of just-in-time delivery 3.81 0.86 0.0427 76.24 15
arrangement
CSF21 Effective use of document 3.38 0.81 0.0379 67.69 23
management system
CSF22 Use of hedging strategies and 3.51 0.81 0.0393 70.26 21
transport delay avoidance
CSF23 Adequate lead time for the 3.82 0.74 0.0428 76.41 14
bespoke MiC processes
Early understanding and commitment of the client constitute the second most significant CSF for
implementing residential MiC projects. Blismas (2007) identified early commitment as a
significant CSF for implementing residential MiC projects in Australia. Early understanding of the
requirements of the MiC method in a residential project and commitment of the client or owner
facilitates extensive upfront planning and designing for the technology. For instance, the client
must understand the tight demand for funding in residential MiC projects and the transport
restrictions defining the dimensions of the module envelope (Li, 2020). The early understanding
and commitment of the client would ensure that the project is designed for the MiC method and
adequate funding made available to procure suitable construction materials and structural systems
(Wuni and Shen, 2020b). It would also facilitate the early collaboration of clients, contractors,
production engineers, design managers, and demolition managers to share relevant information
required at various downstream phases to be incorporated into the design.
242
Effective leadership and support of specialist contractors was ranked the third most significant
CSF for implementing residential MiC projects. Choi et al. (2016) found that well-informed
leadership of a specialist contractor is required to successfully manage residential MiC projects.
The need to integrate the principles of design for manufacture, transportation, and assembly in
residential MiC projects reinvents the required contractors' skills and technical expertise. The
specialist contractor must know how the choice of construction materials, processes, decisions,
and the various stages of the construction process contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness
of the MiC method in a project (Kyrö et al., 2019). Such contractors must understand how to
integrate the workflows in the design, offsite factory production, transportation, and onsite
assembly of modules in residential MiC projects (Wuni and Shen, 2020b). It is also crucial for the
specialist contractors to have technical expertise in design for manufacture and assembly, tolerance
management, connection systems, production engineering, and value engineering (Fraser et al.,
2015).
Adequate knowledge and experience of the project team were ranked the fourth most significant
CSF for implementing residential MiC projects. Blismas (2007) and Choi et al. (2016) found
adequate relevant knowledge of project participants as a significant CSF for implementing
residential MiC projects. Several actors co-create residential MiC projects. These project
participants are situated at various stages of the delivery chain and provide interdependent roles
and services in residential MiC projects. Notably, design managers and BIM design consultants
should have adequate knowledge of design for manufacture and assembly and the information
required at various stages of the project delivery chain to integrate the MiC principles into the
design to facilitate efficient downstream manufacture and assembly of modules. Production
243
engineers must understand offsite production principles to make valuable contributions in the
design of the modules to support the goals of the MiC method in the project.
Collaborative working and information sharing among project teams constitutes the fifth most
significant CSF for implementing residential MiC projects. Collaboration, communication, and
information sharing constitute the most cited CSF for MiC projects (Wuni and Shen, 2020b).
Collaborative working and information sharing enables various project team members situated at
different supply chain stages to be abreast of key decisions and processes throughout the delivery
of residential MiC projects (Norouzi et al., 2021). It prevents dysfunctional conflicts, facilitates a
more streamlined project delivery process, and encourages proactive problem-solving through
knowledge sharing between downstream and upstream project participants. Norouzi et al. (2021)
corroborated that collaboration and information sharing among project participants is required to
ensure that activities at various levels of the supply chain significantly contributes to the success
of the residential MiC project.
5.3.2 Principal Components of the CRFs for Residential MiC Projects
The EFA rotation of the CSFs converged in 9 iterations. It generated five principal success factors
(PSFs) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining about 61.461% of the variance in the success
of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The five PSFs include supply chain management
(PSF1), early commitment (PSF2), enabling environment (PSF3), suitable project characteristics
(PSF4), and competency (PSF5). Table 5.16 summarizes the factor loadings and eigenvalues of
the CSFs and PSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Table 5.16: Factor loadings of the CSFs for residential projects

ID Critical success factors Components (Factor loadings)
Principal success factors 1 2 3 4 5
PSF1 Supply chain management
CSF19 Inventory management and control 0.819 - - - -
244
CSF22 Use of hedging strategies and transport delay - - - -
avoidance 0.714
CSF10 Extensive supply chain coordination and - - - -
seamless integration 0.631
CSF21 Effective use of document management system 0.615 - - - -
CSF12 Effective coordination and integration of - - - -
stakeholders 0.530
CSF14 Effective coordination of onsite and offsite work - - - -
packages 0.526
CSF20 Use of just-in-time delivery arrangement 0.469 - - - -
PSF2 Early Commitment
CSF18 Early engagement of certification body for - 0.811 - - -
factory inspection
CSF2 Early understanding and commitment of the - 0.684 - - -
client
CSF11 Early and active involvement of critical project - 0.647 - - -
stakeholders
CSF8 Extensive upfront planning for the MiC method - 0.629 - - -
CSF5 Early design completion and freezing - 0.521 - - -
PSF3 Enabling Environment
CSF4 Collaborative working and information sharing - - 0.761 - -
among project teams
CSF13 Availability of sound transport infrastructure and - - 0.715 - -
site equipment
CSF16 Effective use of building information modelling - - 0.657 - -
CSF9 Use of collaborative procurement system and - - 0.512 - -
contracting
PSF4 Suitable Project Characteristics
CSF6 Suitable site characteristics and layout - - - 0.697 -
CSF7 Suitability of the design for MiC - - - 0.586 -
CSF23 Adequate lead time for the bespoke MiC - - -
processes - 0.574
CSF15 Using suitable structural system and - - -
construction material - 0.538
PSF5 Competency
CSF3 Effective leadership and support of specialist - - - - 0.768
contractors
CSF1 Adequate knowledge and experience of project - - - - 0.762
team
CSF17 Effective management of critical tolerances - - - - 0.603
between interfaces
Eigenvalue 6.617 2.326 1.884 1.709 1.601
Variance explained (%) 28.77 10.11 8.19 7.43 6.96
Cumulative variance explained 28.77 38.88 47.07 54.50 61.46
245
5.3.2.1 Supply chain management (PSF1)
Supply chain management (PSF1) with an eigenvalue of 6.617 accounted for highest variance
(28.77%) in the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. PSF1 describes seven CSFs
linked to integration and coordination of the supply chain segments of residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong. Obtaining the highest factor loading of 0.819, inventory management and control
(CSF19) constitutes the most important CSF for effective supply chain management of residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. Blismas (2007) indicated that adopting systematic and dedicated
approach to sourcing, storing, and controlling the optimum quantity of construction materials,
equipment, and modules during offsite production, transportation, storage, and onsite assembly
can significantly improve the success of residential MiC projects. Receiving a factor loading of
0.714, hedging strategies and transport delay avoidance (CSF22) constitute the second most
important CSF for effective supply chain management in residential MiC projects. Hedging
constitutes a proactive risk management strategy aiming to limit risks and offset shortages of
module delivery to site (Zhai et al., 2018). Lead-time and buffer space hedging and coordination
generate stability, certainty, and resilience in the supply chain, resulting in continuous availability
of modules for the construction of residential MiC projects (Zhai et al., 2017, 2018). Hedging and
coordination almost eliminate module delivery uncertainties and delays, leading to a more stable
schedule of residential MiC projects. Extensive coordination and seamless integration of the
design, procurement, offsite production, transportation, and onsite assembly of modules constitute
well-established recipes for successful residential MiC projects (Choi et al., 2016). Blismas (2007)
concluded that establishing and applying document management system throughout the project
delivery improves supply chain management and the success of residential MiC projects. Also,
Luo et al. (2019) indicated that coordinating and managing the interests, powers, and relationships
246
among the supply chain stakeholders provide a stable environment and avoid dysfunctional
conflicts in the delivery of residential MiC projects. It is also essential to extensively and
effectively coordinate the onsite and offsite work packages to ensure smooth project continuity
and evade expensive systemic disruptions in the residential MiC project delivery process. Blismas,
(2007) also documented that leveraging just-in-time delivery arrangement can minimize shortages
of modules on site and costs of storage space.
5.3.2.2 Early commitment (PSF2)
Early commitment (PSF2) with an eigenvalue of 2.326 explained about 10.11% of the total
variance in the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. PSF2 contains five CSFs linked
to early commitment to the MiC method in residential building projects. Obtaining the highest
factor loading of 0.811, early engagement of a certification agency to conduct inspection of factory
works, especially when overseas production of modules is arranged constitutes the most important
CSF (Pan and Hon, 2018). The dedicated inspection improves quality control, quality assurance,
and adherence to local building codes and standards in Hong Kong before the modules arrive to
site for installation (Yang et al., 2021). Another crucial CSF is early and active involvement of the
critical project stakeholders (CSF11). Early and active involvement of designers, manufacturers,
main contractor, project managers, and logistics companies can significantly improve
troubleshooting, collaborative problem-solving, and efficient delivery of residential MiC projects
(Wuni, Wu, et al., 2021). Early commitment can also facilitate extensive upfront planning for the
MiC method (CSF8) in a residential project. Extensive front-end planning, leveraging
collaborative expertise of the critical project team members can improve the quality of information
and proactive risk management in residential MiC projects (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006). Thus,
a success residential MiC project requires extensive planning at the outset to integrate the
247
principles of design for offsite production, transportation, and onsite assembly of the modules into
the supply chain of the residential building project.
5.3.2.3 Enabling environment (PSF3)
Enabling environment (PSF3) with an eigenvalue of 1.884 accounts for about 8.19% of the total
variance in the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. It describes processes,
conditions, systems, and technologies that enables the effective implementation of residential MiC
projects. Collaborative working and information sharing among project teams (CSF4) received the
highest factor loading of 0.761 and constitutes the most important enabler for successful residential
MiC project delivery. Collaborative project delivery modes and procurement systems provide the
enabling environment for fruitful collaboration among the project team members in residential
MiC projects. Collaboration and information sharing enables various project team members
situated at different supply chain segments to be abreast of key decisions and processes throughout
the delivery chain. The collaboration prevents dysfunctional conflicts, facilitates a more
streamlined project delivery process, and encourages proactive problem-solving through
knowledge sharing between upstream and downstream project participants. According to Fox et
al. (2001), the collaboration enables the project participants and stakeholders to share a common
goal and value systems in residential MiC projects. Also, effective use of building information
modelling (CSF16) can improve collaborative work and information sharing throughout the
delivery chain of residential MiC projects (Wuni and Shen, 2020b).
5.3.2.4 Suitable project characteristics (PSF4)
Suitable project characteristics (PSF4) obtained an eigenvalue of 1.709, explaining about 7.43%
of the total variance in the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. PSF4 contains four
CSFs linked to characteristics of a project that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the
248
MiC method. Suitable site characteristics and layout obtained the highest factor loading of 0.697.
The Development Bureau (2020) established that sites with flat and simple terrains, adequate width
of the local transport network, and minimal surrounding traffic improves efficient, smooth, and
safe delivery of the modules to site and during installation. The second most prominent CSF is the
suitability of the design for MiC (CSF7). A suitable design must specify parameters, rules,
materials, processes, geometry, configurations, and structural systems to ensure that the detailed
working drawings facilitate efficient production, transportation and onsite assembly of the
modules (Gibb and Isack, 2003). Generally, the MiC method is most efficient in residential
building projects with repetitive design layout and units designed based DfMA principles. The
repetitions of the modules facilitate standardization and industrialization of the modules, leading
to economies of scale that generate significant cost savings (Development Bureau, 2020; Li, 2020).
Also, the availability of adequate lead time for the MiC processes (CSF23) provide enough design
and offsite production lead times to explicitly consider and integrate DfMA requirements into the
residential building project (Gibb and Isack, 2003). Additionally, accurate specification of suitable
structural system and construction materials (CSF15) in the design can significantly generate
performance improvements in residential MiC projects.
5.3.2.5 Competency (PSF5)
Competency (PSF5) with an eigenvalue of 1.601 explained about 6.96% of the total variance in
the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. PSF5 describes three CSFs linked to the
bespoke competences required of the project team to successfully deliver residential MiC projects.
Obtaining the highest factor loading of 0.768, effective leadership and support of a specialist main
contractor (CSF3) constitutes the most important competency factor. The need to integrate DfMA
principles reinvents skills and technical expertise required of main contractors to deliver residential
249
MiC projects (Fraser et al., 2015). The specialist contractor must have technical knowledge in
DfMA, tolerance risk management, connect systems, production engineering, and value
engineering. Also, the other project team members must have adequate knowledge and experience
in the MiC method and residential building construction. For instance, designers and BIM
consultants must have technical expertise in DfMA and value engineering. The production
engineers and manufacturers should have technical knowledge and competencies in DfMA,
precision engineering, and lean production to make valuable contributions in the design and ensure
cleaner production of the modules. The installers or assembly subcontractors and crane operators
must also have technical competencies in tolerance management, module alignment and
sequencing and experience in working with tight tolerances (Blismas, 2007). Additionally, the
onsite management team must understand effective management of critical tolerances between
module interfaces.
5.3.3 Quantifying the Impact of the PSFs for Residential MiC Projects
The FSE technique was used to quantify the impact levels of the PSFs for implementing residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. Table 5.17 summarizes the mean scores, weightings, and membership
functions of the CSFs and PSFs for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. PSF1 obtained the
highest weighting (25.72), followed by PSF3 (20.20), PSF4 (15.66), PSF2 (15.33), and PSF5
(12.30). The weightings were not used to rank the PSFs because they are sensitive to the number
of CSFs and could be biased towards PSFs containing the highest number of CSFs.
Table 5.17: Membership functions of the CSFs for residential MiC projects
ID Critical success factors Mean Weightings Membership function
Principal success factors
PSF1 Supply Chain Management 25.72 0.288 (0.01, 0.06, 0.33, 0.45, 0.16)
CSF12 Effective coordination and integration 3.98 0.155 (0.01, 0.03, 0.15, 0.60, 0.21)
of stakeholders
CSF14 Effective coordination of onsite and 3.84 0.149 (0.01, 0.03, 0.29, 0.47, 0.21)
250
CSF20 Use of just-in-time delivery 3.81 0.148 (0.00, 0.06, 0.30, 0.41, 0.23)
arrangement
CSF10 Extensive supply chain coordination 3.76 0.146 (0.02, 0.05, 0.26, 0.49, 0.18)
and seamless integration
Use of hedging strategies and (0.01, 0.09, 0.38, 0.44, 0.09)
CSF22 transport delay avoidance 3.51 0.136
CSF19 Inventory management and control 3.44 0.134 (0.00, 0.08, 0.50, 0.32, 0.09)
Effective use of document (0.00, 0.13, 0.44, 0.36, 0.08)
CSF21 management system 3.38 0.131
PSF2 Enabling Environment 15.33 0.172 (0.01, 0.06, 0.26, 0.43, 0.24)
CSF4 Collaborative working and 4.17 0.272 (0.01, 0.01, 0.12, 0.53, 0.33)
information sharing among project
teams
CSF13 Availability of sound transport 3.97 0.259 (0.01, 0.03, 0.22, 0.48, 0.26)
infrastructure and site equipment
CSF9 Use of collaborative procurement 3.64 0.237 (0.00, 0.08, 0.39, 0.34, 0.19)
system and contracting
CSF16 Effective use of building information 3.55 0.232 (0.01, 0.13, 0.33, 0.37, 0.16)
modelling
PSF3 Early Commitment 20.20 0.226 (0.01, 0.04, 0.18, 0.45, 0.33)
CSF5 Early design completion and freezing 4.31 0.213 (0.01, 0.01, 0.12, 0.39, 0.47)
CSF2 Early understanding and commitment 4.23 0.209 (0.00, 0.03, 0.09, 0.48, 0.39)
of the client
CSF11 Early and active involvement of 4.05 0.200 (0.01, 0.04, 0.15, 0.50, 0.31)
CSF8 Extensive upfront planning for the 3.97 0.197 (0.01, 0.03, 0.21, 0.51, 0.25)
MiC method
CSF18 Early engagement of certification 3.64 0.180 (0.01, 0.08, 0.37, 0.36, 0.19)
body for factory inspection
PSF4 Suitable Project Characteristics 15.66 0.176 (0.00, 0.04, 0.25, 0.46, 0.25)
CSF7 Suitability of the design for MiC 4.08 0.261 (0.00, 0.03, 0.21, 0.39, 0.36)
CSF15 Using suitable structural system and 3.97 0.254 (0.00, 0.04, 0.23, 0.44, 0.29)
construction material
CSF23 Adequate lead time for the bespoke 3.82 0.244 (0.00, 0.04, 0.25, 0.56, 0.15)
MiC processes
CSF6 Suitable site characteristics and layout 3.79 0.242 (0.00, 0.04, 0.30, 0.48, 0.18)
PSF5 Competency 12.30 0.138 (0.01, 0.02, 0.17, 0.48, 0.33)
CSF3 Effective leadership and support of 4.20 0.341 (0.01, 0.02, 0.12, 0.48, 0.38)
specialist contractors
CSF1 Adequate knowledge and experience 4.19 0.341 (0.01, 0.01, 0.15, 0.46, 0.38)
of project team
CSF17 Effective management of critical 3.91 0.318 (0.00, 0.03, 0.26, 0.50, 0.22)
Instead, the membership functions and weightings were used to quantify the impact level of the
PSFs for residential MiC projects. Table 5.18 summarizes the relevant computations and the
impact indices of the various PSFs. The FSE analysis revealed that the 23 CSFs collectively
251
generate a significant impact on the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong, with an
overall impact index 3.896 on a five-point rating scale.
Table 5.18: Impact indices and coefficients of the PSFs for residential MiC projects
ID Computation Impact Norm. Index
PSF1 =(0.01, 0.06, 0.33, 0.45, 0.16)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.687 0.188
= (0.01*1) + (0.06*2) + (0.33*3) + (0.45*4) + (0.16*5)
PSF2 = (0.01, 0.06, 0.26, 0.43, 0.24) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.848 0.196
= (0.01*1) + (0.06*2) + (0.26*3) + (0.43*4) + (0.24*5)
PSF3 = (0.01, 0.04, 0.18, 0.45, 0.33) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 4.053 0.207
= (0.01*1) + (0.04*2) + (0.18*3) + (0.45*4) + (0.33*5)
PSF4 = (0.00, 0.04, 0.25, 0.46, 0.25) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.920 0.200
= (0.00*1) + (0.04*2) + (0.25*3) + (0.46*4) + (0.25*5)
PSF5 = (0.01, 0.02, 0.17, 0.48, 0.33) * (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 4.104 0.209
= (0.01*1) + (0.02*2) + (0.17*3) + (0.48*4) + (0.33*5)
Overall = (0.005, 0.046, 0.247, 0.452, 0.250)* (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 3.896 Σ= 1.000
= (0.005*1) + (0.046*2) + (0.247*3) + (0.452*4) + (0.250*5)
Consequently, project teams must commit and allocate resources to ensure satisfactory results in
the 23 CSFs when implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Table 5.18 indicates that
the five PSFs have significant impact on the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong,
with each PSF obtaining an impact index exceeding 3.50 on a 5-point rating scale. Competency
(PSF5) with an impact index of 4.104 generates the most significant influence on the success of
residential MiC projects, followed by early commitment (PSF3), suitable project characteristics
(PSF4), enabling environment (PSF2), and supply chain management (PSF1) with impact indices
of 4.053, 3.920, 3.848, and 3.687, respectively.
These findings are exciting and representative because residential MiC projects require bespoke
competencies of project participants, early commitment, effective collaboration, information
management, stakeholder management, and seamless supply chain integration (Wuni and Shen,
2020b). Therefore, the client form a project team with core competencies and technical expertise
in the MiC method. The client and project team must commit to the MiC method at the outset to
252
ensure that the project design generate suitable features to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the technology.
5.4 Challenges and Lessons Learned from Real-World Residential MiC Projects
5.4.1 Description of Selected Residential MiC Case Studies
This section focuses on case studies of high-profile and signature residential MiC projects
implemented in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The Australian case
was particularly exceptional because it involved an adaptation of an existing building to
incorporate MiC modules (Blismas, 2007). Thus, the challenges encountered, and lessons learned
were incorporated into the best practices for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Table 5.19
summarizes the basic details of the six case studies, which are described next.
5.4.1.1 Case study 1 – InnoCell Project at Science Park
Project A is known as InnoCell and located at Hong Kong Science Park. It is a pilot project of
using MiC in Hong Kong. The 17-storey building sits on a 32,000-sq ft. site adjacent to the
southeast entrance of Hong Kong Science Park. Construction of InnoCell commenced in
December 2018 and completed in October 2020. The completed InnoCell has 17 superstructure
storeys and 15 MiC storeys. It has a total construction floor area of 19000m2 and MiC construction
floor area of 10900m2. The client engaged a design-build contractor who owned a fabrication plant
in Mainland China.
Table 5.19: Salient details of the six representative case studies

Project Case study 1 Case study 2 Case study Case study 4 Case study Case study
details (Project A) (Project B) 3 (Project (Project D) 5 (Project 6 (Project
C) E) F)
Location Hong Kong Hong Kong Australia Singapore Singapore London
Project type Residential Residential Serviced Residential Residential Residential
Apartments Condominium
253
Development New New New build New New New
type &
adaptation
Number of 17 16 - 17 14 40 13 29
stories
Contract date May 2018 Aug 2018 N/A April - 2016 N/A 2016
Completion 2020 2021 2007 2019 2016 2017
year
Duration 22 months 30 months N/A 24 months 24 months 12 months
Delivery Design-build Design - Design- Design - build Design- Design-
method build build build build
Structural Hybrid – Concrete Hybrid – Concrete MiC Hybrid – Hybrid –
system Steel and MiC system Steel and system Steel and Steel and
Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced
Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete
MiC system MiC system MiC system MiC system
Number of 418 3800 N/A 1899 676 679
modules
The contractor completed the design, produced the volumetric modules overseas and transported
them to Hong Kong. All completed overseas factory works were inspected and authorized by the
building authorities from Hong Kong. The contractor used a semi-precast slab in the structural
connection to generate a rigid diaphragm, prevent progressive collapse, improve waterproofing,
and accommodate the adverse impact of wind loads from typhoons. The contractor used tower
cranes to hoist and install a hybrid system of 418 reinforced concrete and steel-framed modules to
provide 5 types of room. Figure 5.13 shows an image of the Project A.
254
Figure 5.13: InnoCell at Hong Kong Science Park (Credit: HKSTP Corporation)
5.4.1.2 Case study 2 – Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department
Project B is known as Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department at Pak Shing Kok in
Tseung Kwan O. Constructed using 3,800 concrete MiC modules, project B commenced in August
2018 and completed in March 2021. Designed and constructed for the Architectural Services
Department of Hong Kong, Project B is the first public works project adopting MiC in Hong Kong.
The quarters has a total construction floor area of 47000m2 and MiC construction floor area of
32000m2. The completed project embodies five quarters blocks, comprising four 16 storeys and
one has 17 storeys. With 8 units on each floor, the quarters will provide 648 three-bedroom units
of 50 square metres. Figure 5.14 shows the image of Project B.
255
Figure 5.14: Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department (Credit: ArchSD)
5.4.1.3 Case study 3 – Newcastle Mercure Apartments Project
Project C is a 14 – storey residential MiC project in Newcastle of Australia, comprising a new
building and adaptation of an existing structure. Timwin Construction – a Chinese construction
company with offices in Sydney was selected to develop the site into private apartments to a
specific budget. Timwin decided to use various MiC modules for the bathrooms, ensuites and
kitchnes in the development to strictly adhere to the budget. The company engaged a
manufacturing firm in China to produce the specified modules. When the construction started, the
client decided to brand the building into the Mercure brand. Hence, its original use as private
apartments changed to serviced apartments. Consequently, the client engaged Duc Associates to
alter the module design to ensure that the décor and design and construction of the kitchens and
bathrooms fitted with the new Mercure branding and use. Duc Associates was experienced in the
design of large-scale serviced apartments and worked to ensure that standards were met, and the
256
designs fitted with the Mercure brand. The manufacturing firm in China took over Timwin during
the construction of the building. The overseas modules were shipped to Australia in standard
shipping containers, transported to the site and the modules were craned out of the containers
directly to the floor in which they were fitted. However, integrating the modules into the 50-year
existing structure generated critical problems.
5.4.1.4 Case study 4 – Clement Canopy
Located in Singapore, Project D is known as the Clement Canopy. The Clement Canopy is a
signature high-rise residential condominium constructed using a reinforced concrete composite
sheer wall system in the MiC technology (known as prefabricated prefinished volumetric
construction in Singapore). It comprises two 40-floor tower blocks with 505 residential units and
a gross floor area of 46000m2.
The developer appointed a specialist main contractor with experience in MiC to deliver the project.
Dragages was both the main contractor and modules supplier. The design-build contractor engaged
a specialist architect to design the project to incorporate 65% of MiC, consistent with local building
regulations. The six-sided volumetric concrete modules were 85% completed offsite with painting,
windows frame and glazing, doors, wardrobes and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP)
including water and sanitary pipes, electrical conducts, and ducting.
Weighing between 26 and 31 tons, two 48-ton capacity flagship tower cranes were used to install
1,899 volumetric concrete modules and delivered 505 apartments. It took 12 months to install the
modules and about 24 months to complete the construction. Constructed of concrete MiC system,
the 140m twin tower holds the title of the tallest concrete MiC project in the world. Figure 5.15
shows an image of Project D
257
Figure 5.15: Clement Canopy in Singapore (Credit: BCA of Singapore)
5.4.1.5 Case study 5 – Student Residence in Nanyang Technological University
Project E is 12-storey student residence in Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore
constructed using the MiC method. It is a pilot project that used steel-framed modules. Though a
student residence, Project E had limited repetitive layout, resulting in the use of 250 diverse
designs to produce 676 modules. The developer engaged an overseas manufacturer to produce the
modules, but the fitting out was completed in a local holding yard in Singapore. The overseas
manufacturer and supplier of the 676 modules had substantial experience in volumetric building
components and the DfMA technology. Thus, high-standard quality modules were produced.
Figure 5.16 shows an image of Project E.
258
Figure 5.16: 12 – Storey Student Residence at NTU (Credit: NTU in Singapore)
5.4.1.6 Case study 6 – Student Residence in North London
Project F is known as Apex House and located in Wembley, London, United Kingdom. It is a 29-
storey and 81m high student accommodation with 558 rooms. Tide Construction Development
was the main contractor and Vision Modular Systems was the modules supplier. The module
supplier and main contractors were subsidiaries of the client. The project was built using 679 steel-
framed MiC modules and took 13 weeks to install. The project construction period was around 14
months and only 22 onsite workers were utilized. The Apex House was constructed using hybrid
of steel and reinforced concrete MiC system. In 2017, the 29-storey Apex House was considered
the tallest MiC building in Europe and second tallest MiC building in the world in 2019. Figure
5.17 shows an image of Project F.
259
Figure 5.17: Apex House, Wembley, London, UK (Credit: HTA Design LLP)
5.4.2 Challenges Encountered in the Six Real-world MiC Projects
Each of the reviewed cases encountered both unique and shared challenges. The challenges
encountered in the studied residential MiC projects are discussed next.
5.4.2.1 Case study 1 – InnoCell Project at Science Park
Table 5.20 summarizes the challenges encountered and lessons learned from the InnoCell project
(Project A). Various challenges were encountered at different stages of the construction process.
The project team faced a challenge during the predesign stage because they were required to
extensively plan the various stages upfront. It was difficult because most of the project teams had
limited experience and there was also no concrete successful local case to serve as reference.
Though the project team relied on overseas projects as references, the contextual differences
260
generated bespoke challenges. At the time of construction, the local contractors still had limited
expertise in the MiC technology, which generated challenges with use of the local expertise.
Table 5.20: Challenges and lessons learned from Project A

Stage Challenges Lessons learned Critical success processes
encountered
Predesign • Limited local MiC • Carefully consider • Leadership and support of a
stage standards at the time and select appropriate specialist main contractor
of construction connection methods • Early understanding and
• Higher initial capital and cranes commitment of the client
cost commensurate with • Early incorporation of the MiC
• Complicated and site constraints, sizes, method
extensive upfront weights, and • Extensive and front-end planning
planning and dimensions of for the MiC method
engineering modules • Advanced work packaging for the
• Limited readiness of MiC method
local subcontractors to • Integrated project delivery method
implement the MiC and collaborative procurement
method system
Design stage • Limited flexibility for • Repetition of units • Managing and eliminating
design changes after and layout are ideal geometric and dimensional
freezing for the MiC method variabilities in the module design,
• Complicated design • Extensive production, and installation
requirements coordination and • Early design freezing and
communication is completion
required between • Standardized design of interfaces
designers, and modules.
consultants, statutory • Used novel interlocking
bodies, and main connections between modules
contractor • Cooperation and information
• The MiC method is sharing between architects,
suitable for highly consultants, production engineers,
repetitive floor plate main contractors, and building
• Standardizing the authorities.
module design • Application of building
improve fabrication information modelling throughout
efficiency and cost the project
savings through • Modularity in the design
economy of scale • High repetition with low variation
in types
• Ensured that the layout plan design
comply with regulatory
requirements
Production • Dimensional and • Early arrangement • Ensured that the size of modules
stage geometric variabilities and engagement of allow transportation from factory
of the modules during certification bodies to to site
trial assembly regularly supervise • Dimensional and geometric
tolerance risk management
261
• Inadequate overseas factory
manufacturing production works
technology in Hong
Kong, resulting in
heavy reliance on
overseas factories
Transportation • Transportation • Special arrangement
– Storage restrictions and and permissions are
stage constraints required for
• Additional escort transporting modules
arrangement for large- with a width larger
size modules than 2.5m
Onsite • Restrictive site layout • Smart digital • Suitable site characteristics and
assembly due to limited site technologies can layout
stage space and difficult improve supply chain • Extensive coordination and
terrain monitoring, visibility, seamless integration of the supply
• Limited site storage and management chain
capacity
• Immature digital
technologies and
associated technical
problems
Most of the challenges were associated with logistics, consistent with the findings of Yang et al.
(2021). There are limited fabrication yards in Hong Kong and so, the project team was compelled
to rely on manufacturers in mainland China. Though the main contractor had a fabrication yard in
China, the overseas production and transportation generated several intractable challenges. The
main contractor had to engage certification agency to inspect and supervise the module production
overseas to ensure adherence to local building regulations and quality assurance. Also, the cross-
border transportation required custom clearances and extensive supply chain management,
generating significant challenges (Pan and Hon, 2018). However, several lessons were learned,
and best practices were benchmarked.
5.4.2.2 Case study 2 – Married Quarters for the Fire Services Department
Table 5.21 summarizes the challenges encountered and lessons learned from the Married Quarters
for the Fire Services Department (Project B). Project B also suffered the challenges associated
262
with inadequate familiarity and limited relevant experience of the local workforce in the MiC
method. It resulted in deficient project planning and inaccurate estimation of the installation rate
at site. As the first public works using the MiC method in Hong Kong, the project faced challenges
associated with adhering to the complex statutory requirements such as restriction on module sizes
and dimensions.
Table 5.21: Challenges and lessons learned from Project B

Stage Challenges encountered Lessons learned Critical success processes
Predesign • Limited knowledge and • Unplanned adoption of
stage experience of project team digital technologies could
• Inadequate familiarity of inhibit innovation of
project teams with the MiC project teams
method
• Complex statutory
requirements
• Higher initial capital cost
• Ineffective planning and
scheduling
Design stage • Converting a site-built • Early engagement of
design to MiC design module suppliers and a
• Late design changes local contractor in the
• Failing to consider the MiC project is required to
supply chain and logistics complete the module
constraints in the design design early
• Local transport limitations • Proposed design must
on module sizes and explicitly consider local
dimensions building codes and
• Inaccurate material standards
specification • Narrow design of the
• Poor information sharing modules can eliminate
and synchronization complicated and
expensive escort services.
Production • Incomplete local supply • Uncertainties in • Well-designed workflows
stage chain and associated procuring materials could to production processes and
uncertainties significantly affect work packages is required
• Inadequate quality manufacturing schedules to maximize efficiency.
assurance and quality • Prototype, check, and test • Building prototypes of
control systems to module modules before mass modules and conducting
manufacturing production in factories mock-ups mitigates the
• Inadequate skills and • Conduct trial assemblies risks of late design
experience of factory and make relevant changes.
workers in module adjustments • Collaboration between
production • Excessive inventory of suppliers, manufacturers,
• Lack of qualified finished modules in the and main contractor to
inspectors production area can stall explicitly specify, approve,
263
• Absence of a well- manufacturing progress and thoroughly verify
established supervision and generate long and materials and products to
framework unpredictable production eliminate errors that could
• Poor performance of duration trigger reworks and
material suppliers • Workers failing to adhere manufacturing delays
• Lack of a skilled local to relevant factory
inspection team for the production protocols can
overseas offsite works generate reworks and
• Machine breakdowns or disruptions.
unavailable in overseas • It may be necessary to
factory adjust the manufacturing
• Varied levels of finished rate to match the onsite
modules quality acceptance installation rate
between client and supplier • Contractors should
provide greater flexibility
and freedom to module
suppliers to adjust
production schedules
appropriately and timely.
•
Transportation • Direct transportation of • Traffic congestion near • Just-in-time delivery of
– Storage modules from factory to project site can inhibit JIT modules to the assembly
stage site without buffering delivery arrangement site
limited just-in-time
delivery arrangement
• Unpredictable duration of
customs inspection
required in cross-border
transportation
• Narrow local transport
network and site traffic
congestion
• Inefficient information
management
• Improper protection of
modules during
transportation
• Improper transport
sequence of modules
• Severe and extreme
weather disruption of
transport schedule
Onsite • Site constraints to onsite • Little upskilling may not

assembly module transportation always be enough
stage • Insufficient lifting capacity
of the existing local tower
cranes for hoisting and
lifting the heavy MiC
modules
264
• Smaller site storage
capacity
• Inaccurate estimation of
installation rate
• Limited site storage area
• Module damage during
installation
Most of the challenges were associated with logistics. The fundamental source of the logistical
uncertainties and challenges in Project B was the incomplete local supply chain, which imposed
cross-border production and transportation of modules. The challenges of matching overseas
production rate with onsite installation rate, along with unpredictable duration of the complex
custom verifications and clearance increased uncertainties in coordinating offsite and onsite work
packages. Also, the absence of a well-established supervision framework posed a significant risk
to quality assurance and quality control of modules produced in China. Additionally, the site
storage constraints of the project coupled with limited tower cranes with sufficient capacity to hoist
and install the heavy concrete modules generated uncertainties in construction costs.
5.4.2.3 Case study 3 – Newcastle Mercure Apartments Project
Table 5.22 summarizes the challenges and lessons learned from the Newcastle Mercure Apartment
Project (Project C). The two fundamental sources of the uncertainties and challenges of the project
were integrating MiC modules into the old structure and the late design changes (Blismas, 2007).
The project team encountered intractable consistencies between the requirements of the MiC
method and nature of the old structure.
Table 5.22: Challenges and lessons learned from Project C

Stage Challenges encountered Lessons learned Critical success
processes
Predesign • Poor stakeholder communication • Fully established
stage documentation and
document management
system for recording all
265
aspects of the
construction process
stage by stage
Design stage • Several variations in the design • The MiC method is
limiting module standardization more suitable for
• Late design change new build
• Ineffective process design • Late design changes
can significantly
increase cost
Production • Reliance on overseas production • Structural rigidity of
stage of modules the modules is
• Long and uncertain lead time of required to enable
material supply safe hoisting and
• Poorly design production cranage
workflows • Local materials
could cost less
• It is cost effective to
use higher quality
materials
Transportation • Protection against
– Storage damage while
stage transporting modules
to avoid propagation
of cracks
Onsite • Most of the modules required in- • Covering and • Managing and avoid
assembly situ extension on them to bring protecting modules dysfunctional conflicts
stage them to the size necessary for the stored on site between multicultural
room • Supplying and fitting project teams
• Very thick topping of the floor out module on the
slab for the 50-year-old structure site can expose the
needed to be chiselled out to take modules to rain
the thickness of the module floors ingress, damage by
• Pouring of new screed to level splashes of concrete
chiselled floor slabs and general workers
• Step changes in the floor slab to in the vicinity
accommodate the modules led to
inefficient building process and
further restricted any future
changes to the building’s use
• Poor supply chain planning and
control
The requirement to chisel out some components of the 50-year-old structure’s floor slab to
accommodate the MiC modules and subsequently screeding to provide consistent levelling
generated both inefficiency and poor quality. Also, the variations in the modules design limited
standardization and economies of scale.
266
5.4.2.4 Case study 4 – Clement Canopy
Table 5.23 summarizes the challenges and lessons learned from the Clement Canopy (Project D).
Though Project D constitutes a successful example of MiC in residential building construction and
a signature reference project in Hong Kong, it also encountered fundamental challenges. As a land-
starved country, Singapore has limited fabrication yards. Thus, the project team relied on
manufacturing plants in the neighbouring Malaysia to fabricate the modules.
Table 5.23: Challenges and lessons learned from Project D

encountered
Predesign • Adopting an • Early recognition, commitment,
stage integrated project and planning for the MiC method
delivery method • Sufficient resources of owners
(e.g., design - • Early understanding and
manufacture - commitment of the client
assemble) improves • Engagement of project team
efficiency and members with relevant practical
consistency knowledge and experience.
Design stage • Repetitive design • Timely design freeze
layout generates cost • Building information modelling
savings
Production • Reliance of factories
stage in Malaysia for
production of modules
• Lack of skilled local
workforce
• Machine breakdown
• Complex material
procurement
• Over prescriptiveness
of client and
contractor to suppliers
Transportation • Long-distance
– Storage transportation
stage • Fluctuating fuel prices
Onsite Variability in • Suitable site characteristics and
assembly stage installation schedules layout
Unfitness of new • Leadership of a specialist main
technology with some contractor and manufacturer
entrenched • Sustained collaboration and
construction practices information sharing between
project teams
267
However, the local building regulations require some works on the modules to be completed in
Singapore (Building and Construction Authority, 2017). Hence, the fitting out of the modules had
to be completed in designated temporary holding yards in Singapore. The process encountered
challenges due to space constraints and limited local expertise to complete the fitting out. The lack
of skilled local workforce with relevant expertise in the MiC method compounded the challenges,
but the project team managed to complete project ahead of schedule.
5.4.2.5 Case study 5 – Student Residence in NTU
Table 5.24 summarizes the challenges encountered and lessons learned from the MiC construction
of a 12-storey Student Residence in Nanyang Technological University (Project E). The challenges
were entirely associated with the logistics. The project team relied on manufacturing plants in
China to produce the modules and suffered associated cross-border production and transportation
challenges. The challenges were pronounced because the project suffered inefficient planning and
scheduling of the offsite logistics (Yang et al., 2021).
Table 5.24: Challenges and lessons learned from Project E

encountered
Predesign • Ineffective offsite • Extensive planning to
stage logistics planning and balance overseas factory
scheduling production rate, transport
schedule of local fit-out,
and storage capacity of
local holding yards
Design stage • Highly diversified • Using building information • Using digital technologies
modular design modelling to support and for information sharing
optimize design decisions between relevant project
can evade late design teams
changes
Production • Long and • It is essential to build mock- • Early engagement of a
stage unpredictable lead up units before mass dedicated independent
times from suppliers production of modules testing and certification
• Reliance of factories • Collaboration between agency to continuously
in China for designers, clients, and inspect and supervise
production of modules module suppliers in materials overseas production of
268
• Inadequate local procurement can improve modules and local fitting
manufacturing efficiency yard for QA/QC
facilities • Flexibility and resilience of • Using innovative strategies
• Lack of skilled local module suppliers can to cure concrete modules
workforce in the account for unforeseen during cold weather
overseas factory production schedule issues • Packaging, controlling and
• Inefficient workflow • Establishing quality control inspecting modules to
at the holding yard for and inspection protocols for ensure conformance with
local fit-out processes overseas factory works can the specified and/or
• Insufficient skilled reduce reworks contracted requirements
workers to fit-out the • Ensure all structure
modules in the members are hot-dipped
holding yard in galvanized to prevent
Singapore corrosion
• Procuring large and • Providing and installing the
diverse construction manufacturer’s label on the
materials and products MiC modules for
that adhere to local identification
building standards and
requirements
• Inadequate
supervision of
overseas factory
works
• Poor performance of
material suppliers
• A lack of skilled local
inspection team for
overseas factory
works
• Inadequate strategies
for quality assurance
and quality control
Transportation • Two-stage • Weather conditions can • Setting up a comprehensive
– Storage complicated and affect module production and transportation plan
stage expensive offsite transport incorporating local traffic
logistics due to the • Extreme weather events can regulatory requirement
local requirement for affect the efficiency of just- • Use just-in-time delivery
some works on in-time delivery arrangement arrangement to ensure
modules to be and cross-border shipping of timely delivery of modules
completed in modules • Protect the modules to
Singapore • Complicated custom prevent potential damage,
• Limited storage clearance can significantly deformation, or
capacity of the extend the schedule of cross- deterioration of the installed
holding yard in border transport of modules finishing components
Singapore and/or to the structure while
• Long-distance in transit or during
transportation unloading at project site
269
Onsite • Limited production • A halt or change in • Manage site storage
assembly rate to match onsite installation schedule can • Optimize crane usage
stage installation of generate excessive module • Minimize hoisting and
modules inventory in offsite factories handling of modules
or buffer zones.
The local building requirements to complete some works in Singapore generated additional
challenges. Constraints of the local holding yard in Singapore such as limited storage space and
insufficient skilled workers generated expensive inefficient workflows during the fit-out
processes. Notably, the project teams could not match the overseas production rate with onsite
module installation rate in Singapore.
5.4.2.6 Case study 6 – Student Residence in North London
Table 5.25 summarizes the challenges encountered and the lessons learned from the Apex House
in Wembley of London (Project F). The challenges were mainly linked to skills gap of the local
labour force and logistical constraints. The materials suppliers performed badly and generated an
excessively long and unpredictable lead time for the materials delivery to the factory team. The
material supplier inefficiencies extended the production lead time in the project with a cascading
extension of the project schedule.
Table 5.25: Challenges and lessons learned from Project F

encountered
Predesign • Extensive upfront project
stage and supply chain planning
Design stage • Late design changes increase • Allocating adequate lead
factory production time for the design of the
unpredictabilities project
• Unsupportive design • Explicitly resolve and
constitutes a recipe for incorporate offsite
complex and inefficient logistics requirements and
manufacturing workflow limitations in the design
• Got the design right
Production • Shortage of project • Standardized modules can be • Strategically designing the
stage team members with produced efficiently through a factory to streamline the
relevant linear production mode manufacturing process
270
manufacturing whereby modules are moved • Suppliers and main
knowledges and skills along the production lines to contractors should
• Poor performance of the workers collaborate to generate the
material suppliers • Custom-designed modules be factory production
• Long and produced with greater schedule.
unpredictable lead flexibility using a static • Explicitly arranged for
time for materials production mode whereby quality control of the
supplied to the factory workers move to the modules modules
in fixed locations
• Periodically refining the
factory layout can improve
manufacturing capability and
efficiency.
Suppliers may have limited
knowledge factory production
schedule
Transportation • Narrow transport
– Storage network
stage • Heavy traffic
congestion at site
location inhibited just-
in-time delivery
arrangement
Onsite • Limited stock of
assembly heavy-duty cranes
stage capable of handling
modules
Also, the transport network at the project site were narrow along with heavy traffic congestion,
resulting in significant inefficiencies in just-in-time delivery arrangement and the module
transportation to site. The main contractor faced the challenge of acquiring tower cranes with
commensurate capacities to handle and install the modules.
Figure 5.18 shows the five persistent challenges and constraints encountered at the predesign,
design, factory production, transportation, storage, and onsite assembly stages of the six cases.
These challenges and constraints are insensitive to context and should be addressed when
271
Figure 5.18: Persistent challenges encountered in the various stages across all cases
5.4.3 Lessons Learned from the Six Real-World Residential MiC Projects
The cases considered in the study were signature projects in the respective territories. As such, the
project teams verified the root causes of the challenges and addressed most of them throughout the
delivery chain of the projects. The project teams also benchmarked the resolutions to the
challenges encountered and developed ‘lessons learned’, reflecting the set of interrelated actions
and activities to be performance in future residential MiC projects to achieve desired outcomes.
The lessons learned adhered to the five major stages of identifying comments and
recommendations for use in future projects, documenting and sharing findings, analysing and
organising results so that they can be applied, storing in a repository, and retrieving for use in
current residential MiC projects (Project Management Institute, 2017). The experiences distilled
272
from the six cases studies and the associated lessons learned at the various stages are discussed
next.
5.4.3.1 Predesign stage
The case studies revealed the importance of recruiting to recruit an MiC specialist or consultant to
advice on the suitability of using MiC in the project, based on the needs and specifications of the
client, project objectives, characteristics, risks, site attributes, and conditions. Though recent
advancement allows for the modification of a site-built design to MiC design, Projects B and C
showed that this practice can be inefficient, expensive, and detrimental to the main contractor or
manufacture who must deliver the project at contract cost that was signed-off before realizing the
full extent of the design conversion. Various factors and conditions determine the appropriateness
of the MiC method in a residential building project. For instance, the client of Project A directly
requested for the MiC method to be used and hence, ensured that the project was designed based
of DfMA principles. In Project B, the original traditional design was converted to an MiC design
because the proposed site was in a confined location and associated with access and time
constraints that rendered site-based construction inappropriate. Project C also used the MiC
method because there was the need to overcome the technical difficulties of cantilevered floors on
three sides and the lack of sheer walls to provide lateral stability for the glass-façade.
The case studies also demonstrated the importance of extensive upfront planning to integrate MiC
in the design and construction. The planning outcomes and information become input into the
design, construction, and management of the residential MiC project. For instance, at the planning
stage of Project C, structural steel was selected for the main structural frame of the facility because
it is easier and quicker to fabricate the many repetitive sections offsite; a choice which dictated the
project design. The case studies revealed important critical success processes during the planning
273
stage, include a detailed definition of activities to be performed in the residential MiC project,
robust schedule development, organizational planning, staff acquisition, procurement planning,
communications planning, resources planning, developing a project plan, and risk management
plan. For instance, Projects A and D showed that engaging client, consultants, MiC planning
specialist, building authorities, contractor, crane specialist, and project managers early help to
establish clear scope of work, obtain statutory approval and permitting, develop relevant
production and transportation plans, and informs the selection of a suitable procurement system,
structural systems and building materials. Also, Project A highlighted the need to carefully
consider, plan and select materials for residential MiC projects because there was the need to
change the floor finishes from timber floor to tiles and the door panel finishes from veneer to
plastic laminated sheet to reduce possible damages during installation and to ensure less
susceptibility to weather changes.
Another lesson learned in the planning stage is selection of collaborative procurement systems.
All the cases used design-build procurement system where the main contractor and manufacturer
or supplier were responsible for the design, fabrication, and installation of the modules. The cases
emphasized getting the process right up front, necessitating the engagement of key players such as
contractors, suppliers, engineers, crane specialist and architect to incorporate their expertise into
the MiC project planning. The specialist architect engaged during the planning of Project D
improved the layout and buildability. The engagement of a crane specialist in the production and
transportation planning of Project D enabled the team to accurately determine the weight of the
heaviest (29 tons) and lightest (17 tons) concrete modules to be used in the project. This prompted
the main contractor to check the crane market to find suitable products. The planning team with
the crane specialist selected and configured the layout of two commanding flagship cranes with a
274
maximum lifting capacity of 40 tons, commensurate with the weight of the heaviest concrete
modules and height of the project.
Though powerful cranes were ideal for hoisting the heavy concrete modules in Project D, Project
A revealed that bigger tower cranes not only cost more, but the mast may not fit in the re-entrance
area and may be less effective for lifting. Thus, crane planning and configuration constitute an
integral part of MiC project (site) planning. For instance, the location of the heavy-duty tower
crane in Project D influenced the requirements of the cranes’ foundation and their tie-back to the
main towers, which affected the overall structural design of the towers and the strength of the
modules to cater for this additional loading. Additionally, Projects A, B, and D showed that the
shorter construction time in residential MiC projects generate tight demand for cash inflows. There
was a tight demand for cashflows to fabricate the modules in Projects A and D. In project C, the
manufacturer received an initial 80% payment to start fabrication due to the large upfront
investment requirement and the retentions released when the project completed.
5.4.3.2 Design stage
The case studies demonstrated the need to spend more time in getting the design drawings right
and freezing the architectural, structural and MEP designs for detailing of the steel or RC concrete
elements early to facilitate fabrication of the modules. In Projects A and D, the architects and
engineers were dazzled at the speed of installation on site. Despite the significant pressure on the
design consultants to develop designs and provide production documentation at a much earlier
stage when MiC is used, the case studies showed that the design team should be provided with
commensurate time to complete the drawings and ensure compliance with required standards and
regulations.
275
The six cases demonstrated that the integrated project delivery facilitates a robust MiC project
design and provides a collaborative platform where manufacturers, designers, engineers,
consultants, contractors, assemblers, business partners, and clients work together to develop the
design. Even in cases where the design-build contractor subcontracts any of the phases, it should
usually involve companies or subcontractors that they know and have previously worked with.
The manufacturers of the design-build teams in Projects C, E, and F were responsible for the
engineering design and resultant production drawings, prior to the fabrication of the components;
an arrangement that allowed the fabricators to produce components based on their own design.
Projects A, B, D, and F actively engaged business partners, fabricators, end users, and regulators
early in the design and construction process to enable a smooth experience and increased
transparency for all.
The cases also showed the need to engage an experienced team to develop the detailed design and
working drawings. A lesson learned is using design engineers with technical knowledge of DfMA,
fastening of precast elements, connection systems, and their capacities provide more effective
design solutions. All the cases showed that engaging experienced manufacturers, assemblers,
clients, crane specialist, and design managing contractor early in the process enables the team to
explicitly consider buildability, assembly, transportation, health and safety, tolerance issues, and
other downstream constraints at the design phase. For instance, the valuable industry inputs of the
main steel fabricator into the value engineering process during the design of Project C enabled
options for key steel design elements to be reviewed and resolved efficiently. The inputs of the
fabricator informed the design team to place bulk steel ordering of key structural elements from
industry suppliers, while concurrently allowing the refinement of the design details prior to
commencing the shop drawings for manufacture.
276
Similarly, the inputs of the manufacturer during the design of Project F enabled the team to
consider and incorporate cranage points, durability for transportation, and balance points in the
design. This avoided downstream challenges during transportation and installation of the modules.
The inputs of installers, crane specialists, and manufacturers during the designs of Projects A and
C enabled the design team to consider the double wall and double slab effects in residential MiC
projects and the lifting capacity of cranes, especially the mast size. These cases showed that the
design of high-rise residential MiC projects must consider structural integrity and robustness to
accommodate the impact of higher wind loads in neighbourhoods with seasonal typhoons,
hurricanes, and cyclones. In Project A, the design engineers developed a semi-precast slab in the
structural connections to provide a rigid diaphragm, prevent progressive collapse, and provide
better water proofing.
The cases also revealed that failure to incorporate the inputs of the relevant project partners at the
design phase could trigger cataclysmic consequences. For instance, the contractor of Project C did
not engage experienced BS and M&E engineers early upfront during the design stage, resulting in
several design inconsistencies and issues when the steel was delivered on site. The design team
did not provide the internal cavity within the steel components to be a conduit for the electrical
wiring, and thus, the access points were overlooked during production of the modules. The
oversight necessitated a fresh consultation with electrical services engineers to resolve the
inconsistencies and resulted in significant fabrication delays and additional costs of rectifications.
The faulty design resulted in a poorly delivered project and the fabricator made several on-site
rectifications to meet design specifications. The lesson learnt was that effective communication
and information sharing between the design and production teams could avoid several problems.
277
Thus, it is recommended to involve experienced key actors at the design stage, irrespective of the
procurement system adopted.
Except Project C, the five cases demonstrated that BIM is mandatory for some residential MiC
projects and its roles exceeds clash detection analysis and visualizations purposes at the design
stage. In Project A, BIM was used to coordinate the design and MEP services together with the
modules early upfront. BIM was used for construction lifecycle management of the projects,
including front-end planning, design of each individual module, formwork, rebar and even tile
pattern.
5.4.3.3 Factory production stage
The cases demonstrated that bespoke manufacturing yards or reliable suppliers are necessary since
the modules are usually engineered-to-order or made-to-order, consistent with the unique design
specifications, dimensions, sizes, and material types for each MiC project. The modules are usually
ordered or manufactured in an offsite yard, but for large-scale projects, it may be economical to
set-up a temporary production yard (i.e., flying factory) close to the project. The cases studies
revealed that situating a new manufacturing plant closer to the site is economical to significantly
reduce transport costs and logistical challenges. However, adequate access and safe working
platform are required to ensure manoeuvrability of the modules. For instance, large access space
is required for the manoeuvrability of the heavy building components and equipment such as
carrier, portal gantry cranes, and mobile sling crawler for handling the modules from the moulds
and various operations leading up to loading and dispatch. Similarly, large space is required to
accommodate overhead cranes for easily moving the larger components in the factory. Moreover,
selection of molds types and module curing methods could make significant differences. The case
278
studies demonstrated that battery moulds operate exceptionally efficient and minimize space
requirements.
Another lesson learned is developing prototypes of each module, conduct mock-ups, and trial
assemblies to test out the initial designs prior to mass production. Projects A and D implemented
these practices, consulted stakeholders, made improvements, and guaranteed completion of the
projects without interface discrepancies and associated delays. Particularly, the prototyping
allowed accurate schedules to be produced and improved efficiency of the manufacturer. The cases
also corroborated the importance of allowing enough time and arranging for inspection of offsite
manufacturing works for quality assurance and control. In Projects A and D, the contractors
arranged local certification bodies and team of inspectors to inspect modules in the overseas
production plants for adherence to local building codes and standards. This practice is necessary,
especially in cross-border production, fitting-out, and transportation of the modules to avoid the
cost associated with rejecting the modules by building authorities after delivery to site.
5.4.3.4 Transportation and storage stage
The cases showed that developing a comprehensive transportation planning helps to identify the
economically and technically suitable mode of transport. The transportation planning should
consider the local transport and highway restrictions regarding the allowable sizes and weights of
the modules because violations could trigger transport challenges and demand police escort. The
manufacturer of Project A restricted the head room of each module to at most 3.0m because the
local Transport Department limits the sizes of the modules to 2.5mW x 4.5mH, but now accepts a
width less than 3.0m, subject to traffic management plan. Adherence to the transport regulation in
Project A was economical because modules with head room greater than 3.0m require night-time
movement and police escort, which increases costs.
279
The cases also demonstrated the significance of inventory management during transportation,
including inspection, packaging, labelling and protection of the modules. Effective labelling of the
modules facilitates easy identification and later referencing back to the shop drawings, when
needed. The poor handling and protection of modules during transportation can cause damages to
the modules, requiring onsite rectification and touch-up painting of the damaged areas. Project A
highlighted the relevance of temporary protection of the modules and ensuring water tightness of
modules during transportation. It is also essential to ensure real-time monitoring and control of the
modules through labelling and electronic tracking, especially during longer or cross-border
transportation. The contractor of Projects A and B successfully integrated RFID, blockchain, and
BIM to track, monitor, and manage real-time cross-border transportation of the modules.
The cases also showed that using JiT supply chain arrangement is economical in some
circumstances and conditions. Projects A and B showed that JiT delivery saves significant storage
cost in high-density cities, where storage spaces are scarce and expensive. Where JiT arrangement
is considered, commensurate buffer or temporary onsite storage space must be provided to
accommodate the modules. However, adequate space should be allocated for the modules to be
offloaded, temporarily stored, and later installed. Additionally, the delivered components must
also be packed in a manner to facilitate ease of accessing the components during installation. Due
to storage area shortages, when the delivered modules are stored on top of other component, it can
generate significant accessibility problems during the installation.
5.4.3.5 Onsite assembly stage
Using technologies such as internet of things, RFID, BIM, and Virtual Reality provides the
collaborative working teams and decision makers with the physical and functional digital
representations of the project. These technologies provided site managers, operatives, and workers
280
of Projects A and D with a collaborative platform that enabled real-time capture and exchange of
accurate data, traceability, and visibility functions. These arrangements improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of daily operations, decision making, collaboration, and supervision throughout on-
site assembly processes of MiC projects. It is crucial to ensure integration, coordination, and
communication among the participants to avoid ephemeral shifting coalition of the participants
from which divergent goals, value systems and interests could emerge to fuel dysfunctional
conflicts.
Moreover, Projects A and D demonstrated the need to select, configure, position, and manage
cranes on site, especially when dealing with heavier modules in constrained sites. The developer
of Project D used two powerful cranes with adequate height and lifting capacities to hoist, lift and
install the 17 – 29tons concrete modules up the 140m-tall twin-towers. Project A showed the
efficiency of situating the crane closer to the designated location of the modules, especially at the
re-entrance area. The crane usage also requires effective management of alignments and tolerances
of the complex interfaces. The two tower cranes used in Project D were configured to Micro-move
fine positioning mode, allowing the modules to be installed to an accuracy of 2mm. The higher
accuracy requirements of residential MiC projects demand precision in the onsite and offsite
elements fabrication, thorough shop drawing coordination, accurate survey, and set out work
because larger discrepancies could adversely affect the alignment of the entire building. The
contractor of Project A conducted thorough site planning, factory mock-ups and trial liftings, and
reviewed the entire delivery process, including setting out, mould design and production,
dimension checking, safety measures and installation to adhere to locally regulated allowable
tolerance of ±3mm.
281
The cases further demonstrated the lower risks associated with engaging experienced contractors,
installers, and crane operators with technical competencies in tolerance management, modules’
alignment and sequencing, and experience in working with tight tolerances. The crane providers
in Project D trained personnel of the main contractor as crane operators who successfully operated
the cranes and accurately installed the modules. Additionally, technical engineering skills are
required to manage the installation phase, especially when integrating MiC into an existing site-
built structure. The developer of Project C encountered several challenges when the MiC modules
were incorporated into the 150-old site-built structure. Excess thickness of the floor slabs in the
existing site-built structure was chiselled out to accommodate the floors of the industrialized
modules and required the pouring of new screed when the modules were installed.
5.4.3.6 Completion stage
The cases showed the importance of making adequate provisioning for the project closure by
arranging for completions of all testing and certifications to ensure compliance to local building
regulations and specifications of the client. The success of this stage demands effective
consultation with key stakeholders and settlement all financial transactions. It is also crucial to
invite stakeholders to inspect the delivered project and tentatively accept all the deliverables prior
to the official closure.
5.5 Best Practices for implementing Residential MiC Projects
The outcomes of sections 5.2 – 54 provided complementary evidence to derive the best practices
for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects. The study reconsidered,
integrated, and reconciled the various significant CRFs, CSFs, challenges, and lessons learned to
develop specific strategies that can deliver desired outcomes in the various stages of residential
MiC projects. These best practices are presented in Chapter 7.
282
The chapter rigorously examined the CRFs, CSFs, challenges, and lessons learned from represent
projects to derive the best practices for residential MiC projects. It quantified and prioritized
significant CRFs for residential MiC projects. It simulated the distributions and exposure profiles
to identify and prioritized significant CRFs for residential MiC projects at 95% and 97.5% risk
tolerance levels in the high-risk exposure zone and 82.5% and 85% risk tolerance level within the
medium-risk exposure zone. It used EFA to generate five principal components of the CRFs,
including design risks, factory production risks, transportation and storage risks, onsite assembly
risks, and supply chain risks. FSE is implemented to quantify the impact and PLS – SEM used to
model the chain reactions among the principal CRFs for residential MiC projects. The chapter also
quantified and prioritized significant CSFs for residential MiC projects. EFA is implemented to
derive five principal components of the CSFs, including supply chain management, early
commitment, enabling environment, suitable project characteristics, and competency. FSE is used
to quantify the impact of the principal CSFs for residential MiC projects. The chapter further
examined six representative residential MiC projects in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the
United Kingdom. The case studies revealed 85 practical challenges encountered and 55 lessons
learned from the six projects. The chapter triangulated, consolidated, and reconciled the identified
CRFs, CSFs, challenges, and lessons learned to derive best practices for implementing the various
stages of residential MiC projects. The next chapter presents a performance measurement system
for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
283
CHAPTER 6 – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR
RESIDENTIAL MiC PROJECTS
6.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on developing a performance measurement system for residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. The chapter begins with description of the relevance of performance
measurement for futureproofing, benchmarking, and continuous improvements of residential MiC
projects. Then, it defines the conditions, arrangements, and factors that can influence the outcomes
of residential building projects irrespective of the construction method used. It further describes
the key considerations and challenges of performance measurement of residential MiC projects.
Subsequently, the chapter describes the selected key performance indicators and defined specific
characteristics of the performance measurement system. Afterwards, it develops and demonstrates
the application of a computerized performance measurement system that enables project teams to
quantify the performance of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
6.2 Performance Measurement of Residential MiC Projects
Process-based and product-based performance evaluation are critical to futureproof residential
MiC projects. Futureproofing refers to the characteristic of a residential MiC project to continue
to meet its design objectives and the expectation of the end-users over the lifecycle (Love et al.,
2015). Process-based and product-based performance measurement facilitates future proofing
because they provide relevant information to anticipate the future impact of each process in
residential MiC project delivery and develop strategies during the construction process to add a
layer of resilience to the project to ensure its sustainability and longevity. There have been efforts
to measure the benefits of the MiC method in residential buildings in the United Kingdom (Horner
et al., 2019; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). There has also been a successful attempt to measure
284
the success of MiC projects in Hong Kong (Pan et al., 2020). This study leverages these relevant
works to develop an automated performance measurement system that can empower project teams
to easily measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in residential projects in
Hong Kong.
6.3 Key Project Descriptors
The outcomes of residential MiC projects are usually measured and compared with outcomes of
comparable (hypothetical or counterfactual) site-built residential building projects to ascertain the
added benefits of the MiC method (Pan et al., 2020). However, there are some external and
contextual factors that can influence the performance of a residential building project irrespective
of the construction method (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). These key project descriptors
(KPDs) may influence the outcomes of the project which cannot be attributed to the construction
method (i.e., MiC). Table 6.1 summarizes the major KPDs.
Table 6.1: List of KPDs for project characterization during performance measurement
KPDs KPDs
Sector (e.g., housing) Foundation type (e.g., piled, raft, etc)
Type of client (e.g., private) Types of material (e.g., steel frame module)
Project type (e.g., residential apartment) Number of storeys
Work type (e.g., newly built, extension) MEP strategy (e.g., natural ventilation, etc
Regional location Considerate Contractors’ score
Location description (e.g., urban or rural) Experience
Project description (e.g., MiC) Level of experience with MiC
Procurement system (e.g., design and build) Ranking of the project within portfolio
Form of contract (e.g., NEC3, design and build) Client mandate for incorporating MiC
RIBA stage when main contractor appointed Project-specific targets or requirements
Year when construction started Use of standard or bespoke modules
BIM level applied Suitability of MiC for the project
PMV level Level of complexity
285
The KPDs range from project type to procurement system and project size through to the extent
of BIM used in the project. For instance, a project where BIM is effectively used is expected to
perform higher than one in which BIM was not used, regardless of the construction method used.
Hence, the KPDs must be duly considered when measuring and evaluating each performance
outcome. They allow for meaningful comparison between projects and facilitate the exclusive
assessment of the areas where MiC delivers the greatest benefits or value in residential MiC
projects. The relevant KPDs that must be considered when measuring and comparing
performance outcomes of MiC with site-built residential projects because these factors can
significantly influence project outcomes (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
6.4 Key Considerations
Aside the KPDs, there are certain conditions and factors that could influence the impact of MiC in
a project. It is useful to highlight these issues prior to measuring and comparing the performance
of residential MiC projects. First, the structure and business model (e.g. traditional spin-off,
vertical integration or digital systems integration) of the main contractor may influence the
outcomes of the residential MiC project (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Second, early
consideration and commitment to the MiC method at the outset of the project with the design and
procurement processes structured to align with the requirements of the technology can maximizes
MiC impact in a project (Wuni and Shen, 2020c). Third, early engagement of and contributions
from contractors, suppliers, and manufacturers maximizes MiC impact in a residential project (van
Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Fourth, higher premanufactured value (e.g., fully finished
volumetric building components) can maximize the impact of the MiC method in residential
building projects (Bertram et al., 2019).
286
6.5 Challenges of Performance Measurement of Residential MiC Projects
van Vuuren and Middleton (2020) documented several constraints and challenges to a reliable
quantification of the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC method in residential building
projects. The first challenge is linked to variability in measurement methods for various metrics.
There are different metrics for measuring the various KPIs. The suitability of a metric is also
sensitive to the required measurement reporting level (e.g., project, community, industry, regional,
global). It is also difficult to identify metrics for comprehensively assessing KPIs which are not
directly measurable such as quality and local impact.
The second challenge relates to variability in data collection. Relevant performance measurement
data can be collected in varied ways in different projects, within a company, and across the
industry. The variabilities introduce layers of uncertainties over the integrity, quality, and accuracy
of the collected data. Though desirable, it is incredibly challenging for different organizations or
project teams to collect consistent and comparable data cross projects.
The third challenges is linked to accessibility and granularity of data. The suite of data required to
comprehensively assess the outcomes of residential MiC projects are accessible to multiple project
team members situated at different stages of the delivery chain. Different stakeholders have access
to a diverse range of the required data for the performance measurement due to the
multidisciplinary groups of players and actors involved in the offsite and onsite work packages in
residential MiC projects. Also, the common practice of aggregating project data does not provide
the granular and detailed information of interest in assessing the outcomes of completed residential
MiC projects.
The fourth constraints is linked to the allocation and outsourcing of project impacts. Residential
MiC projects involves significant offsite and onsite works. The greatest challenge is isolating the
287
impact of manufacturing processes associated with a specific project because manufacturing plants
usually deliver modules and products to multiple projects contemporaneously. The possibility of
outsourcing the impact of one project to another project or organization can prevail. The
performance measurement system developed in this study recognizes these factors and explicitly
defines the boundaries of the data to be fed into the system. It reduced metrics having a high
likelihood of external impact to provide reliable assessment.
The fifth challenges relates to abnormal influences. It is well-established that project outcomes
may not always directly reflect the exclusive impact of a construction method. For instance, the
KPDs can influence the outcomes of a project irrespective of a construction method. Thus, the
performance measurement system reports the project outcomes considering the KPDs. The system
also acknowledges and consider change logs and reasons for deviation from expected results in a
residential MiC project.
The sixth challenges is associated with inter-related influences. Beyond the KPDs, some decisions
or commitments could improve or reduce project performances not attributable to a construction
method. For instance, clients could allocate additional time and resources to achieve a certain
quality standard or sustainability target. These sources of uncertainty are recognized and
considered in the performance measurement system.
The final challenge relates to project constraints. Residential MiC projects are not constructed
using exclusively the MiC method. Various degrees and complexity of MiC and offsite products
are integrated with onsite work packages in residential MiC projects. Also, the MiC method is not
always an appropriate choice of construction method for residential buildings. Yet, it is obscure to
quantify the suitability of the MiC method for a residential MiC project. Nevertheless, chapter 4
presents a tool for quantifying the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects.
288
6.6 Specific Characteristics of the Performance Measurement System
The performance measurement system for residential MiC projects has some unique features. First,
the system supports two modes of assessment. It enables project teams to measure the absolute
values of outcomes of residential MiC projects. It also allows project teams to quantify the relative
benefit of the MiC method in residential projects through a comparison of the absolute
performance outcomes with predefined baseline or outcomes of comparable site-built residential
projects. The latter mode enables project teams to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the
MiC method in residential projects relative to the site-built technique (Neely et al., 1995).
Second, the system incorporates KPDs to enable project teams to reliably quantify the relative
benefits and performance improvement attributable to the MiC method alone in the project. Thus,
the system enables project teams to demonstrate the exclusive value of the MiC method in
residential projects.
Third, the performance measurement system was designed to avoid quantifying direct monetary
benefits because such an approach focuses on only financial measures. Thus, the system expresses
the performance in various units, but normalizes them into percentages to allow for meaningful
comparison. It also allows for quantifying qualitative performance measures.
Fourth, the system is designed for reporting at the project level and makes no distinction regarding
the exclusive receivers (e.g., client, society, government, etc) of the various performance
improvements. It is designed to assess actual outcomes of completed residential MiC projects
rather than predicting performance. Thus, it focuses on the construction of residential MiC projects
and does not consider operations, maintenance, lifecycle, or end-of-life impacts.
Sixth, the system is designed with due consideration of the possibility for double counting the
benefits of the MiC method in residential projects. The MiC method can generate overlapping
289
benefits in residential projects. For instance, MiC reduces onsite labour requirement which
minimizes costs of onsite labour and welfare facilities requirements, all of which contributes to
reduced overall construction costs (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).
6.7 Selection of Key Performance Measures
Suitable measures and metrics for measuring the performance of residential MiC projects depends
on several factors, aims and priorities of the specific clients, project objectives, availability and
accessibility of data, and strategic objectives of the implementing organizations (Horner et al.,
2019; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). This study selected fourteen KPIs along with relevant
metrics to facilitate futureproofing, experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous
improvement of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Table 2.4 summarizes the selected KPIs
and metrics.
6.8 Computerized Performance Measurement System
An automated MiC performance measurement system (hereafter MiC-PMS) was developed in
Microsoft Excel. The choice of development tool was the need for a reliable and simple tool
requiring zero or minimal amount of maintenance. Following the development of the MiC-PMS,
the study invited two industry experts from the Hong Kong to validate the system. The invited
industry experts have been directly involved in some of the pilot MiC projects in Hong Kong and
thus qualified for the validation. The two experts were requested to use the developed system to
evaluate performance of real-world residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. They found the system
very useful, practical, and representative. They commented on the output table and charts and
provided valuable suggestions for improving the design of the MiC-PMS.
290
6.8.1 Objectives of the MiC – PMS
The MiC – PMS has two main objectives: (i) to provide a convenient tool enabling project teams
to quantify the absolute outcomes of residential MiC projects and (ii) to support project teams in
measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC method in residential building projects. The
output of the performance measurement system would identify areas that require improvement in
subsequent projects.
6.8.2 Architecture of the MiC – PMS
The architecture of the MiC – PMS comprises three components: (i) a user interface, (ii) a database,
and (iii) a performance measurement algorithm. Figure 6.1 is a schematic of the MiC – PMS. The
user interface contains the dialogue, data input management, and output subsystems of the MiC –
PMS.
Project database Performance measurement algorithms
KPIs and metrics for Computes various KPIs based on relevant

residential MiC projects project data
Summarizes and generates charts of project
Relevant project data
outcomes for various KPIs
Input Output
Project data of interest of the KPIs for Measured outcomes of each

residential MiC projects KPI
Introduction to the Intelligent-MiC

Objectives of the MiC – PMS
objectives, KPIs and metrics, Charts and visualization of
measurement methods, and project various KPIs outcomes
details
Graphical User Interface (GUI)
Figure 6.1: The architecture of the MiC – PMS
291
Figure 6.2 shows the user interface of the MiC – PMS. It offers a user-friendly communication
between the performance assessor and the measurement algorithm. It receives the relevant data
and feeds it to the performance measurement algorithm to compute the outcomes of the various
KPIs. It enables project teams to assess both qualitative and quantitative KPIs. The user interface
contains three sections. Section one introduces and offers instructions on how to use the MiC –
PMS. It enables the project teams to specify basic details of the residential MiC project and the
comparable site-built residential project.
Figure 6.2: User Interface of the MiC – PMS system showing introduction and instructions
Section two enables the project team to confirm various key project descriptors and specify the
relevant data of interest of the various KPIs. As shown in Figure 6.3, Section two computes the
various KPIs based on the relevant data and generates charts to visualize outcomes.
292
293
Figure 6.3: User Interface of the MiC – PMS system showing the data entry component
The database subsystem of the user interface enables the project teams to input relevant data for
the various KPIs. The performance measurement algorithm component of the user interfaces
receives the relevant project data and quantifies the performance of residential MiC projects across
the various KPIs. It uses the various measurement methods outlined in section 2.8 to compute the
outcomes of the project across the relevant KPIs and generates relevant charts to visualize the
performance outcomes. Section three summarize the measured outcomes (Figure 6.4).
294
Figure 6.4: User Interface of the MiC – PMS system showing the output component
295
6.8.3 Application and validation of the MiC – PMS
The developed MiC – PMS was validated in two distinct stages. Stage 1 involved consultation
with three experienced industry practitioners with knowledge of the MiC method in Hong Kong.
The experts were requested to verify the suitability and comprehensiveness of the various KPIs,
KPDs, the required data, and design of the MiC – PMS. The experts provided comments and
feedback on the initial design and discussed opportunities for improvement. The revised
performance measurement system was verified and approved by the expert panel. Stage 2 focused
on demonstrating the application of the MiC – PMS. Relevant project data of the InnoCell Project
at Hong Kong Science Park (hereafter InnoCell Project) and the Disciplined Services Quarters for
the Fire Services Department at Pak Shing Kok (hereafter DSQ-FSD project) were used to
demonstrate the application of the MiC – PMS. The required data for two validation projects (i.e.,
DSQ-FSD and InnoCell) were derived from a recent industry report (Pan et al., 2020). Due to
confidentiality, the derived cost data and other relevant information are not reported in this thesis.
The outputs generated from the MiC – PMS are described as follows. Figure 6.5 shows the time
performance outcomes of the two case projects across four relevant metrics. The results indicate
that the two projects obtained schedule performance indices of 1.0, indicating that they were
completed on time or ahead of schedule. It can also be observed that the delivery speed of the
DSQ-FSD project (80.76m2/day) was faster than the InnoCell project (44.60m2/day). However, it
took two extra days to construct a typical floor in the DSQ-FSD project (5 days/floor) than the
InnoCell project (3days/floor). Table 6.2 summarizes the cost performance of the two projects
across various relevant metrics.
296
Figure 6.5: Time performance outcomes of the case projects across four metrics
The cost performance indices of 1.28 and 1.11 for the InnoCell project and DSQ-FSD project,
respectively indicates that both projects were delivered under budget. However, the relative cost
savings was higher in the InnoCell project compared to the DSQ-FSD project.
Table 6.2: Cost performance outcomes of the case projects across three metrics
Metric InnoCell DSQ-FSD
Cost performance index 1.28 1.11
Unit cost (HK$/m2) 32842.11 26479.76
Cost variance (certainty) -22.00 -10.00
On the other hand, the unit cost of the InnoCell project (HK$32842.11/m2) was higher than that of
the DSQ-FSD project (HK$26479.76/m2). The comparison is for illustration purposes only
because the two projects are not comparable. They had varied scales, sizes, durations, structural
systems, main contractors, and clients.
297
Figure 6.6 shows labour productivity performances in the two case projects. Overall, the offsite
and onsite labour were more productive in the DSQ-FSD project (0.120m2/man-hour) than the
InnoCell project (0.099m2/man-hour).
Figure 6.6: Quantified labour productivity performance of the two case projects
Though the two projects are not comparable, it would be interesting for residential MiC project
teams to probe the differences in the labour productivity levels across the two projects for
continuous improvements in future projects.
Figure 6.7 shows the premanufactured values of the two case projects. There are several
approaches for determining the PMV of MiC projects. However, the two common methods include
cost-based and material-based proportions (van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020). Figure 6.7 used the
proportion of total construction cost associated with the offsite works (labour plus materials) as a
measure of the degree of MiC method used in the case projects.
298
Figure 6.7: Premanufactured value indices of the two cases
The DSQ-FSD project comprised 80.82% of the MiC method and 19.18% site-based construction,
in terms of costs. Similarly, the InnoCell project comprised 73.44% of the MiC method and
26.56% site-based construction. Hence, the proportion of costs associated with onsite construction
was higher in the InnoCell project than the DSQ-FSD project. It would be interesting to benchmark
the PMVs of several residential MiC projects to ascertain the optimum level of MiC required in
the project to derive the greatest benefits.
Figure 6.8 summarizes the outcomes of waste, resource consumption, pollution, and stakeholder
satisfaction performances of the two case projects. It shows that more waste was generated from
the DSQ-FSD project (64.13kg/m2) and disposed at landfills compared to the InnoCell
(16.26kg/m2). Though a larger quantity of waste generated from the DSQ-FSD project
(29.50kg/m2) was reused and recycled, it constituted 46% of the waste generated. Conversely,
76.6%(12.45kg/m2) of the waste generated in the InnoCell project was reused and recycled.
299
Figure 6.8: Outcomes of the remaining KPIs for the two case projects
The per unit electricity consumption was generally more expensive in the InnoCell project
(HK$14.94/m2) than the DSQ-FSD project (HK$11.79/m2). Similarly, the per unit water
consumption was generally more expensive in the InnoCell project (HK$2.59/m2) than the DSQ-
FSD project (HK$2.06/m2). However, the cost per unit area of treating the polluted water was
higher in the DSQ-FSD project (HK$1.54/m2) than the InnoCell project (HK$0.78/m2). The noise
pollution in the DSQ-FSD project (~68dB) was higher than the InnoCell project (~66dB).
However, the air pollution was higher in the InnoCell project (~50µg/m3) than in the DSQ-FSD
project ((~49µg/m3). The client (4.71/5) and project team (4.75/5) of the InnoCell Project were
more satisfied that their counterparts in the DSQ-FSD project (see Figure 6.8). The reasons
accounting for the differences were not investigated in this study. Again, the comparison is for
illustration purposes because the projects are not comparable.
300
6.9 Discussions
The MiC – PMS system constitutes a comprehensive tool incorporating both qualitative and
quantitative KPIs for measuring the performance of residential MiC projects. It is designed to
enable project teams to systematically measure the outcomes of various residential MiC projects
for benchmarking purposes. It also enables project teams to compare performance of residential
MiC projects with a comparable site-built residential project to quantify the relative benefits or
performance improvements attributable to the MiC method in a project. By incorporating key
project descriptors, the MiC – PMS enables project teams to account for external factors and
conditions which could pollute a reliable quantification of the relative benefits of the MiC method
in residential building projects in Hong Kong. As such, the developed system can be used to
measure and benchmark the performance of any MiC project because the KPIs are generally
applicable to all MiC project types.
This chapter focused on developing a performance measurement system for residential MiC
projects (MiC – PMS) in Hong Kong. The system contains both quantitative and qualitative
performance measures along with user interface allowing project teams to verify key project
descriptors and inputting relevant data to compute the outcomes of various KPIs. The MiC – PMS
system contains a performance measurement algorithm, which automatically computes the various
KPIs across several metrics from the available data. Thus, it enables project teams to measure the
outcomes of residential MiC projects and to ascertain the effectiveness and efficiency of the MiC
method in residential projects. The next chapter focuses on developing a best practice framework
for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
301
CHAPTER 7 – DEVELOPING AND VALIDATING A BEST PRACTICE
FRAMEWORK FOR RESIDENTIAL MiC PROJECTS
7.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on developing a practice framework for successfully implementing residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. It begins with the key considerations at the major stages of the
residential MiC project delivery chain. Subsequently, it integrates and incorporates the findings
from series of systematic literature reviews, case studies, and questionnaires to develop a
framework of best practices for implementing residential MiC projects to achieve desired
outcomes. Afterwards, it uses expert opinion in Hong Kong to validate the developed best practice
framework. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings.
7.2 Stage-based Key Considerations for Residential MiC Projects
There are key considerations, relevant project players, and typical outputs required at the
predesign, design, production, transportation and storage, onsite assembly, and closure stages of
residential MiC projects. Figures 7.1 – 2 present these key considerations across the various stages.
It can be observed that certain critical considerations must be made in each stage of the residential
MiC project delivery process. Figures 7.1 – 2 also highlight the commonest scope of works,
deliverables, and relevant parties involved in the various construction stages of residential MiC
projects. It demonstrates that MiC project delivery requires some critical key decisions and early
involvement of relevant project partners at various stages of the delivery chain. Although some of
the considerations are applicable to site-built residential projects, there are several practices
peculiar to residential MiC projects. Particularly, the work packages in the different stages are
interconnected, with dynamic interlinkages in decisions made.
302
Key considerations Relevant stakeholders Deliverables
Predesign stage
• Identify the needs and specification of the client • Clients • Needs assessment report
or owner • Developers • Detailed concept paper
• Develop and evaluate project alternatives • Design Consultants • Detailed feasibility report
• Develop business case for better decision • Project Engineers • Detailed business case
support • Project managers • Selection of the MiC method
• Evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the • BIM Consultants • Risk management plan
MiC method for the residential project • Engineering managers • Selection of suitable project
• Commit to using the MiC method, if suitable • MiC Planning delivery method
• Plan and address key risks Specialist • Selection of suitable
• Develop project scope • Crane Specialist procurement system
• Estimate and mobilize required resources • Planning Authorities • Specification of suitable
• Decide and plan appropriate structural system structural system
• Decide and plan construction materials • Specification of appropriate
• Selection of project delivery method construction materials
• Selection of procurement system • Specification of suitable
• Plan crane usage cranes
Design stage
• Formation of the design team • Clients • Detailed design freeze

• Engage contractor, fabricator, suppliers, • Developers • Detailed working drawings
business partners, and logistics companies • Design Consultants • BIM models
• Engineering and design scope specification • BIM Consultants • Prototypes
• Design for manufacture and assembly • Architects
• Consider repetitiveness, compactness, and • Engineers
weight of modules • Main Contractors
• Consider local building and transport limitations • Production Engineers
• Detailed design with BIM or Manufacturers
• Early design freeze • Suppliers
• Considering allowable tolerance • Project managers
Factory production stage
• Appointment of experienced material supplier • Clients • Procurement of production

• Procurement of required building materials • Developers materials
• Selection of manufacturer (s) • Material Suppliers • Development and testing of
• Review of Working drawings and BIM models • Manufacturers prototypes
• Consider manufacturing tolerances • Certification Agencies • Mass production of modules
• Produce prototypes • Building Authorities/ • Temporary storage of
• Conduct checks, mock-ups, and trial assembly Inspectors modules
• Mass produce the modules
• Cure concrete modules
• Coordinate concurrent execution of onsite work
packages
Figure 7.1: Key considerations in the first three major stages of residential MiC projects
303
Key considerations Relevant stakeholders Deliverables
Transportation and Storage Stage
• Plan and manage marine transit and jurisdiction • Main contractor • Transportation contract
risks in case of cross-border transportation of • Manufacturers awarded
modules • Suppliers • Required modules delivered
• Consider and use just-in-tIme delivery • Logistics company • Modules buffered or stored
arrangement, if possible • Customs and Highway
• Arranging temporary storage or buffer location, Authorities
subject to the delivery and programme
• Make special traffic arrangement for
transportation of modules exceeding allowable
dimensions
Onsite Assembly Stage
• Form the onsite project management team and • Crane operators • Selection of installation team
manage relationships • Crane specialist and method
• Review and revise project plan to initiate onsite • Traffic controller • Mobilization of resources
assembly and installation of modules • Assembly contractors • Modules installed
• Control project budget and schedule • Project manager • Mechanical, electrical, and
• Monitor, evaluate and report project progress • Site operatives plumbing report
and performance • Site managers • Progress reports
• Make final selection, planning, and
• Building Authorities • Internal and external finishes
configuration of suitable crane (s) completed
or Inspectors
• Review of assembly sequence
• Main Contractor • Inspection certifications
• Consider onsite assembly tolerance • Environmental quality
• Coordinate onsite and offsite work packages certification
• Completion report
Closure and Handing-over Stage
• Final testing and inspection of the completed • Owner or Client • Final project completion
project • Developer report
• Preparing completion report • Project manager • Settlement of financial
• Settling all financial transactions • Main Contractor claims
• Commissioning the project • Building Authorities • Project commissioned
• Contract termination or Inspectors • Deliverables transferred
• Contract terminated
Figure 7.2: Key considerations in the last three major stages of residential MiC projects
For instance, the scope of the project, structural system selected (panelised or modularized),
selected building materials (wood, steel, concrete, or hybrid options), and the selected procurement
system during the early stages could significantly influence on the cost, quality, safety, and
sustainability performances of residential MiC projects. Also, each stage of the residential MiC
304
project delivery has a network of multidisciplinary stakeholders with their unique goals, value
systems, and roles (Luo et al., 2019). Thus, it is essential to employ collaborative procurement
systems that encourages effective integration, coordination, collaboration, and communication
between participants to avoid potential ephemeral shifting coalition of participants from which
divergent goals, value systems and objectives may emerge.
7.3 A Best Practice Framework for implementing Residential MiC Projects
The study developed the much-needed technical guidelines, detailed know-how, and strategies for
successfully implementing residential MiC projects. The best practice framework comprises three
complementary components: a decision support system, best practices, and a performance
measurement system. Figures 7.3 – 10 presents the best practice framework for implementing
The first component of the best practice framework is the decision support system, which
enables project teams to assess the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with a proposed
residential building project. It addresses the MiC suitability assessment challenge, computerizes
the process of quantifying the suitability of the MiC method, and establishes when it is appropriate
to use the MiC method. The suitability decision support system was developed in Microsoft VBA
and executed in Microsoft Excel. The significant factors determining the suitability of the MiC
method for residential buildings projects were derived from the questionnaire survey in Hong
Kong. Chapter 4 was devoted to developing the decision support system. Figure 7.3 shows a
framework of the significant factors and conditions influencing the suitability of the MiC method
for residential building projects in Hong Kong. These factors formed the basis for developing the
suitability decision support system.
305
Structure of significant factors determining the suitability of the MiC
method for residential building projects in Hong Kong
Project characteristics
Project objectives and requirements
• Suitability of the design for the MiC method • Business needs, client contract, or
• Dimensions and number of required MiC regulatory requirement
units • Expediting construction
• Nature, size, scope, and type of the project • Minimizing accidents and fatalities on site
• Presence of repetitive layout in design • Reducing construction waste footprint
• Number of stories • Reducing embodied energy and carbon
• Structural integrity of modules emissions
• Availability of adequate lead time for MiC • Minimizing environment nuisance and
modules neighbourhood noise
• Project procurement strategy and contract
• Reducing lifecycle construction costs
type
Organizational and industry readiness Location and site attributes

• Readiness of the project team, including • Accessibility and availability of temporary
contractor, consultant, designer storage areas at site location
• Availability and capacity of fabricators • Site layout, characteristics, and
• Availability of construction equipment environment
• Availability of skilled and experienced labour • Width of transport network to site and
force traffic conditions in the vicinity
• Availability of supportive technology
• Capability of local MiC supply chain
• Industry communication and collaboration
culture
Figure 7.3: Significant suitability determinants in the decision support system
306
The second component of the framework contains the best practices for implementing residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. Figures 7.4 – 9 presents the best practices for implementing the
predesign, design, production, onsite assembly, and closure stages of residential MiC projects.
Predesign stage – Inception, Conceptualization, and Planning
• Form a specialist planning team with knowledge of the MiC method (1.1)
• Consult and discuss alternatives, project requirements, and options with the client (1.2)
• Use building information modelling (BIM) (1.3)
• Determine the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with the project (1.4)
• Commit to the MiC method in the project (1.5)
• Conduct extensive planning for the MiC processes and requirements in the project (1.6)
• Conduct upfront planning to integrate the MiC method into the design layout (1.7)
• Conduct extensive organizational and supply chain planning (1.8)
• Clear definition of scope of work and responsibilities (1.9)
• Develop advanced work packaging (1.10)
• Establish workflow documentation system (1.11)
• Develop a detailed schedule (1.12)
• Form the core project team and engage relevant staff (1.13)
• Familiarize the team with the local MiC requirements and regulations (1.14)
• Develop communications planning (1.15)
• Develop a detailed project plan (1.16)
• Develop a robust risk management plan (1.17)
• Plan and mobilize resources (1.18)
• Consider the tight demand for cash inflows (1.19)
• Establish a strategic stakeholder partnership plan (1.20)
• Determine the appropriate time to engage main contractor, consultant, and MiC supplier (1.21)
• Conduct a detailed production planning (1.22)
• Determine the premanufactured value and extent of offsite works (1.23)
• Select a suitable structural system and construction materials (1.24)
• Select a collaborative procurement strategy for the substructure and superstructure construction (1.25)
• Determine optimum module quantity for economical production (1.26)
• Conduct module transportation planning (1.27)
• Plan appropriate site for logistics and module delivery (1.28)
• Plan for the crane(s) usage (1.29)
Figure 7.4: Best practices for the predesign stage of residential MiC projects
307
Design Stage
• Allocate enough time to design team (2.1)

• Form an experienced design team (2.2)
• Establish trust and confidence between the client, designer, contractor, and suppliers (2.4)
• Actively engage main contractor, fabricators, production engineers, suppliers, procurement specialist,
logistics company, crane specialist, and business partners (2.5)
• Early coordination among developer, architect, engineers, and MiC specialist (2.6)
• Develop a detailed engineering design specification and get the design right from the outset (2.7)
• Discuss all design options, aspects, decisions, and solutions with the client (2.8)
• Identify and manage design risks (2.9)
• Use high-quality design information (2.10)
• Reference the local building codes and specifications to develop the design (2.11)
• Develop building typology with adequate repetition (2.12)
• Minimize module design diversity to generate maximum repetition (2.13)
• Consider a repetitive design layout (2.14)
• Specify minimal external joints for better waterproofing (2.15)
• Design for manufacture, assembly, safety, and module integrity (2.16)
• Define an appropriate structural system (2.17)
• Provide adequate structural integrity and robustness in the modules for high-rise buildings (2.18)
• Considering lifting capacity and size of available tower crane (2.19)
• Carefully consider the size and weight of modules (2.20)
• Specify materials for module weight consideration (2.21)
• Specify proper module dimensions considering local transport restrictions and limitations (2.22)
• Identify and resolve dimensional variabilities in module design (2.23)
• Establish appropriate geometric configuration (2.24)
• Consider and incorporate allowable tolerance limit (2.25)
• Establish a robust structural core to cater for module installation (2.26)
• Reduce in-situ installation and module crossing (2.27)
• Early upfront coordination of design and MEP services in junction with structural components (2.28)
• Early upfront consideration of constraints for installation and maintenance (2.29)
• Early design completion and freezing at the appropriate time (2.30)
• Obtain building permit for the design (2.31)
Figure 7.5: Best practices for the design stage of residential MiC projects
308
Production Stage
• Establish a competent inspection team to supervise factory works (3.1)

• Organize training for supervisory staff (3.2)
• Proceed with concurrent execution of onsite work packages (3.3)
• Setting up a temporary production plant or flying factory, where feasible (3.4)
• Engage a manufacturer or supplier with adequate workshop space, access, and safe working platform (3.5)
• Identify a suitable procurement strategy for construction materials supply (3.6)
• Establish an agreed module quality acceptance level between client and supplier (3.7)
• Review the production workflows (3.8)
• Review the working drawings and consider manufacturing tolerances (3.9)
• Verify and resolve dimensional and geometric variabilities in the module design (3.10)
• Ensure adequate strength and robustness of modules to resist transportation damages (3.11)
• Know the details of factory assembly lines and method (3.12)
• Allow adequate time for quality assurance and quality control of the modules (3.13)
• Develop prototype modules to test out the initial design (3.14)
• Conduct mock-ups, trial assembly of modules, and receive feedback from client and consultant (3.15)
• Protect structural steel from rusting and corrosion using hot dip galvanizing coating (3.16)
• Configure the manufacturing rate to match site assembly rate (3.17)
• Avoid unnecessary pile up of modules in factory (3.18)
• Avoid disruption in module production (3.19)
• Careful product handling (3.20)
• Inventory management and control (3.21)
Figure 7.6: Best practices for the production stage of residential MiC projects
Transportation – Storage Stage
• Develop and implement a realistic transportation, traffic, and logistics management plan (4.1)
• Identify and manage logistics risks (4.2)
• Establish strategies to handle cross-border custom and material delivery constraints (4.3)
• Consider the impact of narrower roads on module delivery schedule (4.4)
• Determine and use economic transport modes (4.5)
• Establish a detailed plan for module delivery and storage (4.6)
• Decide routing and ways to maintain module integrity (4.7)
• Arrange adequate space for temporary holding and storage (4.8)
• Establish automated vessel tracking system to obtain real-time location of the shipment (4.9)
• Use 3D scanning along delivery route for trial run to ascertain possible obstructions (4.10)
• Use just-in-time delivery arrangement to reduce site storage requirements (4.11)
• Delivery modules to suit manufacturing and installation (4.12)
• Develop buffer and hedging strategies against module manufacturing disruption (4.13)
• Inspect, package, label, and protect the modules during transport (4.14)
• Provide adequate storage space and accessible orientation (4.15)
• Manage and control inventory (4.16)
Figure 7.7: Best practices for the transportation – storage stage of residential MiC projects
309
• Form and train a competent onsite project management and supervision team (5.1)
• Use building information modelling and 3D site scanning for vehicle path analysis (5.2)
• Develop a comprehensive site safety management plan for workers, machinery, materials, method, and
environment (5.3)
• Use digital technologies such 3D scanning, BIM, and AR/VR for proactive site safety management (5.4)
• Develop safe working practices and ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (5.5)
• Engage an independent heavy lifting specialist contractor or installer with expertise in working with tight
tolerances (5.6)
• Establish a competent lifting team of lifting safety supervisor, banksman/signaller, riggers, crane
operators, and elevated working platform operator (5.7)
• Train the lifting team in high-precision installation, module alignment, tolerance management, and safe
lifting operations (5.8)
• Review site layout plan (5.9)
• Conduct a detailed swept path analysis for onsite module transport (5.10)
• Conduct planning for craning, lifting, and hoisting (5.11)
• Confirm manoeuvrability space on site (5.12)
• Consider site constraints such as narrow, single road access and site entrance (5.13)
• Determine suitable crane configuration, location, and position based on site constraints (5.14)
• Determine crane suitability for onsite space, module weight, and project height (5.15)
• Use appropriate cranes commensurate with the weight of the modules (5.16)
• Developed a precise engineering design for the lifting frame (5.17)
• Ensure clear communication between crane operator and banksman (5.18)
• Check the route for the lifting and unloading area (5.19)
• Develop traffic layout and mitigation measures for heavy vehicles (5.20)
• Site planning for module transport, storage, sequencing, and installation (5.21)
• Adhere to an accurate installation sequence plan (5.22)
• Develop streamlined work process flows (5.23)
• Adhere to the predefined alignments, interfaces, and tolerances (5.24)
• Provide adequate site accessibility and safe working platform for rigging and unrigging load (5.25)
• Inspect and verify modules prior to installation (5.26)
• Ensure that proper functioning of automatic safe load indicator (5.27)
• Ensure correct use of lifting gear and lifting point (5.28)
• Install the modules within statutorily allowable tolerances (5.29)
• Avoid disruption in module installation (5.30)
• Coordinate the supply chain of the project (5.31)
• Manage working relationships to minimize dysfunctional and disruptive stakeholder conflicts (5.32)
• Coordinate onsite and offsite work packages (5.33)
• Use of document management system (5.34)
Figure 7.8: Best practices for the onsite assembly stage of residential MiC projects
310
Closure Stage
• Adequate provisioning for project closure (6.1)

• Use of a competent project manager (s) (6.2)
• Conduct water tightness, cable continuity, fire safety, and earthing megger tests (6.3)
• Obtain indoor air quality, completion, and occupation certificates (6.4)
• Arrange for the relevant stakeholders to inspect and accept the completed project (6.5)
• Develop project completion report (6.6)
• Transfer the deliverables (6.7)
• Settle all financial claims and transactions (6.8)
• Commission the project (6.9)
• Terminate the contract (6.10)
Figure 7.9: Best practices for the closure stage of residential MiC projects
The third component is the performance measurement system enabling project teams to evaluate
the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in residential building projects. Chapter 6 was
devoted to developing the performance measurement system for residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. Figure 7.10 presents the key performance indicators and metrics embodied in the
performance measurement system.
Overall, the best practice framework containing the three complementary components enables
project teams and construction organizations to align a proposed residential building project to the
MiC method, effectively implement the various stages of the project, and quantify the outcomes
and performance of the residential MiC project to facilitate experiential learning, benchmarking,
and continuous improvements. It is designed for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong but can
be adapted and modified for other project types involving adopting the MiC method in Hong Kong
and elsewhere.
311
Selected Key Performance Indicators and Metrics in the Performance
Measurement System for residential building projects in Hong Kong
Schedule performance metrics Cost performance metrics

• Total construction time • Total cost of building works (HK$)
• Schedule performance index • Cost performance index
• Project delivery speed (sq.m/days) • Unit cost (HK$/sq.m)
• Schedule variance (certainty) • Cost variance (certainty)
• Project schedule factor index • Project schedule factor index
• Floor construction cycle (days) • Floor construction cycle (days)
Productivity performance metrics Quality performance metrics

• Labour productivity (sq.m/man-hr) • Project quality quotient
• Material productivity (sq.m/HK$) • Frequency of defect (No./sq.m)
• Machinery productivity (sq.m/HK$) • Cost of rework (HK$/sq.m)
• Multifactor productivity (sq.m/HK$) • Rework cost ratio
Safety performance metric Pollution metrics

• Accident rate • Water pollution (HK$/sq.m)
• Noise pollution (dB)
Local community impact metric • Air Pollution (Air Quality Indicator)
• Vehicle movement (No./sq.m)
Premanufactured value (PMV) Waste performance metrics

• Material-based PMV • Waste disposed (kg/sq.m)
• Cost-based PMV • Waste reused and recycled (kg/sq.m)
Resource consumption metrics Client and team satisfaction metrics

• Electricity consumption (HK$/sq.m) • Client satisfaction mean index
• Water consumption (HK$/sq.m) • Project team satisfaction mean index
Figure 7.10: Key performance indicators in the performance measurement system
7.4 Validation of the Best Practice Framework
Validation constitutes an integral process in the development of frameworks, models, and theories
(de Wielde, 2018). It empowers the developer to ascertain the credibility, acceptability, quality,
applicability, suitability, and relevance of the framework (Gilb, 2005). Osei-Kyei (2017) indicated
that validation provides a tool to measure the extent to which the developed framework captures
real-world requirements and provides the intended function. The three methods of validation
312
include empirical validation, analytical validation, and comparative validation (de Wielde, 2018).
This study used an empirical approach to validate the best practice framework because it provides
opportunities to explore the external, construct, and content validities of the framework using
either case studies or expert opinion. The expert opinion was considered appropriate in this study
because validating each of the best practices in real-world projects could take a substantial period.
The empirical approach adopted in this study is consistent with method used to verify best practice
frameworks in previous studies (Cheung, 2009; Osei-Kyei, 2017).
Eight validation questions were developed to assess the external validity, internal validity,
construct validity, and content validity of the best practice framework. External validity measures
the generalizability and adaptability of the best practice framework to various MiC project types
in Hong Kong. Internal validity measures causality and establishes the degree to which the various
best practices can generate desired outcomes and cause success of residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. Osei-Kyei (2017) mentioned that internal validity assesses the extent to which the best
practice framework can be easily understood for practice. Construct validity assesses how well the
best practice framework aligns with real-world requirements of residential MiC projects. It
measures the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the framework. Similarly, content validity
measures the extent to which the identified best practices fairly captures reality and can generate
desired outcomes in residential MiC projects, if well implemented.
7.4.1 Validation questionnaire design and expert survey
The study developed a questionnaire containing relevant questions to validate the best practice
framework. The questionnaire survey was conducted with experienced MiC practitioners and
subject matter experts in Hong Kong in October 2021. The questionnaire contained four sections.
Section 1 collected relevant background information of the experts. Section 2 provided the experts
313
with a summary of the residential MiC project delivery process in Hong Kong. Section 3 presented
the best practice framework. Section 4 requested the experts to answer eight questions measuring
the external validity, internal validity, construct validity, and content validity of the best practice
framework. Drawing on Cheung (2009) and Osei-Kyei (2017), the experts were requested to assess
the extent to which the best practice framework met criteria embodied in the validation questions,
using a 5-point scale: 1(poor), 2(average), 3(good/satisfactory), 4(very good), and 5(excellent).
Five experienced and knowledgeable experts were recruited to participate in the validation survey.
Table 7.1 summarizes the relevant information of the experts.
Table 7.1: Background information of the validation expert panel

ID Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5
Position Technical Project Engineer Contractor Associate
Director Manager Professor
Institution Local Local Architectural Local Local
Construction Construction Services of Construction University
Company Company Department Company
Years of 20 years 8 years 15 years 16 years 7 years
construction
industry
experience in
Hong Kong
Years of MiC 6 years 4 years 3 years 4 years 3 years
experience in
Hong Kong
Table 7.1 shows that the expert panel had substantial years of construction industry experience in
Hong Kong and understood the local industry climate. They also had adequate years of MiC
experience in Hong Kong. Considering that the MiC method became officially promoted in 2017
and pilot projects commenced in 2018, the limited years of experience of the experts in the local
MiC adoption is justifiable. The experts also comprised four parties directly involved in the MiC
project implementation process and 1 academic with experience and knowledge of the MiC
314
method in Hong Kong. Thus, the expert panel was diverse and experienced enough to validate the
best practice framework.
7.4.2 Validation results
The expert panel completed the questionnaire survey, and five valid responses were received for
each of the eight-validation question. Table 7.2 summarizes the outcome of the validation
questionnaire survey.
Table 7.2: Best practice framework validation results

# Validation question Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Mean
1 Are the selected factors 4 5 4 5 3 4.20
determining the suitability of the
MiC method in residential
buildings in Hong Kong
adequate?
2 Are the selected best practices 5 5 3 4 4 4.20
for residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong reasonable?
3 Is the best practice framework 3 5 5 5 4 4.40
easily understandable for use in
practice?
4 Are the best practices in each 4 4 4 5 4 4.20
stage appropriate?
5 Is the best practice framework 5 5 5 4 4 4.60
comprehensive?
6 Can practitioners implement 5 5 3 5 5 4.60
residential MiC projects
successfully if the best practices
are carefully followed?
7 Are the key performance 4 5 5 3 3 4.00
indicators and metrics adequate
to measure the outcomes of
residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong?
8 Overall suitability of the best 5 5 4 4 5 4.60
practice framework for
implementing residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong
The validation results (Table 7.2) show that the expert panel generally considered the best practice
framework as very good across all eight validation questions. The mean scores of the validation
315
criteria ranged from 4.0 to 4.60 on a 5-point rating scale, indicating the experts approved the
various validity aspects of the best practice framework.
The external validity of the best practice framework was assessed using questions 1, 2, 7, and 8
(Table 7.2). Question 1 obtained a mean score of 4.20 (very good), indicating that the 21 factors
and conditions included in the intelligent suitability decision support system are adequate to
ascertain the suitability of the MiC method for building and construction projects in Hong Kong.
Question 2 obtained a mean score of 4.20 (very good), signifying that the established best practices
are reasonable for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Question 7 obtained a
mean score of 4.00(very good), demonstrating that the key performance indicators and metrics in
the performance measurement system are adequate to quantify the outcomes, efficiency, and
effectiveness of the MiC method in residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Question 8 obtained
a mean score of 4.60 (excellent), indicating that the overall suitability of the best practice
framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong is excellent.
Internal validity of the best practice framework was assessed using Question 3. Question 3
obtained a mean index of 4.40 (very good), signifying that the best practice framework can be
easily understood and applied in real-world residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
The construct validity of the best practice framework was measured using Questions 4 and 5.
Question 4 obtained a mean score of 4.20(very good) and Question 5 obtained a mean index of
4.60 (excellent). The outcomes indicate that the appropriateness of the best practices in each stage
is very good, and the comprehensiveness of the best practice framework is excellent.
316
The content validity of the best practice framework was assessed using Question 6. Question 6
obtained a mean score of 4.60(excellent), indicating that there is an excellent chance to achieve
success in residential MiC projects in Hong Kong if the best practices are carefully followed.
Overall, Table 7.2 indicates that the best practice framework is considered valid across the eight
validation criteria. Thus, the best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong was validated as reliable, comprehensive, adaptable, applicable, appropriate, and
suitable. It would be interesting to implement the framework in real-world residential MiC projects
in Hong Kong to further test the validation outcome. The Hong Kong Construction Industry
Council, Development Bureau, and Building Department are instrumental institutions that can
facilitate the adoption and application of the framework in Hong Kong. It would be appropriate to
arrange workshops and seminars to introduce the best practice framework and receive wider
feedback to develop a comprehensive practice note or guide for adopting the framework in future
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The best practice framework constitutes the first attempt
to integrate and standardize the managerial and technical know-how for implementing residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. Its significance in the MiC adoption in Hong Kong cannot be over-
emphasized.
7.5 Discussions and Implications
According to the World Health Organization (2017), robust and highly effective best practices
have sound theoretical positions, methodological rigor, tied to the extant literature, generate
desired outcomes consistently, and have social validity (i.e., validation by appropriate consumers
or implementers of the best practices). As demonstrated throughout the thesis, this study satisfied
all these conditions and employed a well-established protocol for developing best practices (World
317
Health Organization, 2017). Thus, the study outcomes have practical significance for adoption of
the MiC method in residential building projects.
First, various stakeholders in Hong Kong have participated in several modular building projects
and acquired practical knowledge and rich experiences. A useful direction is to maximize the
impact of the acquired knowledge, including project delivery research and experiential knowledge,
through effective knowledge-sharing and application. Project participants are expected to benefit
tremendously from exchanging experiences and hard-won solutions with one another. However,
one of the significant barriers to knowledge-sharing and reapplication of experience in
construction projects is the limited culture of information and knowledge documentation and
sharing. Although relevant knowledge may exist in people’s minds, it cannot always be tapped, or
it may exist in formats that limit people’s ability to know about it or find it. This underscores the
needs for MiC project participants, business partners, researchers, and community of practice to
be able find, use, and share knowledge on experiences of what works, and lessons learned.
Second, best practices are exemplary MiC project implementation practices that have achieved
results, and which need to be scaled up to benefit more people. The expansion and
institutionalization of successfully tested practices requires strategic planning. There are several
innovative and constructive processes that MiC organization and project participants in the
construction industry have used to improve project outcomes. Compiling and disseminating
knowledge of such actions and processes widely may prevent the repetition of mistakes and loss
of valuable resources, including time and money. Thus, the main rationale for documenting and
sharing “best practices” is to enable persons and organizations working on MiC projects to avoid
reinventing the wheel; to improve performance and avoid the mistakes of others.
318
Third, documenting and sharing best practices affords the opportunity to acquire knowledge on
lessons learned, how to improve and adapt strategies and activities through feedback, reflection,
and analysis, and implement large-scale, sustained, and more effective strategies.
This chapter developed and validated a best practice framework of for implementing residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. The validated framework has three novel components: a decision
support system, best practices, and a performance measurement system. The decision support
system enables project teams to assess the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with a
residential building project in Hong Kong. The best practices constitute specific processes or
delivery strategies that through practical experience and research, have proven reliable in
generating desired outcomes in implementing residential MiC projects. The performance
measurement system enables project teams to quantify the outcomes of a residential MiC project
and to also evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in residential building
projects. The chapter provides the first integrated best practice framework for implementing
residential MiC projects. It has developed standardized practices and systematic guidelines for
implementing residential MiC projects effectively and successfully in Hong Kong and elsewhere.
The next chapter draws relevant conclusions, contributions, and limitations of the study.
319
CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
8.1 Introduction
This chapter establishes relevant conclusions based on the objectives of the study. It begins with a
review of the objectives and the associated findings from the research study. Then, the chapter
outlines the novelty and contributions of the study to theory, practice, policy, and academia.
Subsequently, it declares some limitations and recommends area for future research. The chapter
concludes with a summary of the thesis.
8.2 Review of Research Objectives and Conclusions
This research aimed to develop a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong. The best practice framework should enable project teams and construction
organizations to align a proposed residential building project with the requirements of the MiC
method, guide the effective implementation of the various stages, and measure the outcomes of
the residential MiC project to facilitate experiential learning, futureproofing, benchmarking, and
continuous improvement. Thus, the aim was decomposed into six specific objectives:
1. To develop a decision support system that enables project teams to assess the suitability of the
MiC method for a residential building project.
2. To assess, simulate and model the critical risk factors for residential MiC projects.
3. To assess and model the critical success factors for residential MiC projects.
4. To critically examine representative local and international residential MiC cases to identify
challenges encountered and lessons learned.
5. To develop a performance measurement system that enables project teams to assess the
outcomes of residential MiC projects.
320
6. To consolidate the findings to develop a best practice framework for implementing residential
The study achieved the six objectives using mixed methods, including extensive systematic
literature reviews, in-depth case studies, structured questionnaire surveys, and semi-structured
interviews. The research data were analysed using thematic content analysis, mean score ranking,
risk significance index, factor analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, fuzzy synthetic evaluation, and
structural equation modelling. The major findings and conclusions of each objective are presented
as follows.
Objective 1 – To develop a decision support system that enables project teams to assess the
suitability of the MiC method for a residential project
• A systematic literature review revealed thirty-five (35) potential factors and conditions that
determines the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects. The
technology-organization-environment theoretical lens revealed four components of the
potential suitability decision making factors: (i) project characteristics and requirements, (ii)
location and site attributes, (iii) labour consideration, and (iv) industry readiness.
• Analysis of one-hundred and seventeen (117) responses from experienced construction
industry practitioners and subject matter experts in Hong Kong revealed 21 significant factors
determining the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects. The top five
significant decision-making factors include: (i) presence of repetitive layout in design, (ii)
suitability of the design for MiC, (iii) accessibility and availability of temporary storage areas
at site location, (iv) structural integrity of modules, and (v) width of transport network to site
and traffic conditions in the vicinity.
321
• Exploratory factor analysis derived four principal components of the significant factors and
conditions determining the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects: (i)
project characteristics, (ii) project objectives and requirements, (iii) organizational and
industry readiness, and (iv) location and site attributes.
• Fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis revealed that the twenty-five decision-making factors
collectively generate a significant influence on the suitability of the MiC method for
residential building projects in Hong Kong, with an overall impact index of 3.781 on 5-point
rating scale. The fuzzy model further revealed that each of four principal components
significantly influence the suitability of the MiC method for residential building projects.
Location and site attributes (3.993) has the most significant influence on the suitability of the
MiC method for residential building projects in Hong Kong, followed by project
characteristics (3.947), organizational and industry readiness (3.686), and project objectives
and requirements(3.570).
• The study developed a knowledge-based decision support system (known as Intelligent-MiC)
based on the significant factors determining suitability of the MiC method for residential
building projects. The Intelligent-MiC tool has a knowledge base, a decision support system
(DSS), and a user interface. The knowledge base comprises IF-THEN production rules to
compute the MiC suitability score with the efficient use of the powerful reasoning and
explanation capabilities of DSS. The tool receives the inputs of a decision-maker, computes
the MiC suitability score for a given project, and generates recommendations based on the
score. Thus, the study developed a decision support system that enables project teams to assess
the suitability of the MiC method for a residential project.
322
Objective 2 – To assess, simulate and model the critical risk factors for residential MiC projects
• A systematic literature review and the theory of construction project risks revealed thirty-five
potential critical risk factors for residential MiC projects. A thematic content analysis derived
six components of the potential critical risks factors for residential MiC projects: (i) predesign
risks, (ii) design risks, (iii) production risks, (iv) supply chain risks, (v) transportation and
storage risks, and (vi) onsite assembly risks.
• Analysis of one-hundred and seventeen (117) valid survey responses from experienced
practitioners and subject matter experts revealed ten significant critical risk factors for
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The top five significant critical risk factors include:
(i) late design completion and freezing, (ii) unsuitable site with restrictive space constraints,
(iii) inadequate planning and scheduling, (iv) heavy reliance on overseas factories, and (v)
inaccurate MiC design information.
• A Monte Carlo simulation revealed twenty-six significant critical risk factors for residential
MiC projects in Hong Kong. At 95% and 97.5% risk tolerance levels within the high-risk
exposure zone of the risk matrix, the simulation revealed nine significant critical risk factors
for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong: (i) late design freeze and completion, (ii) heavy
reliance on overseas factories, (iii) defective design and change order, (iv) unsuitability of the
design for MiC, (v) inadequate planning and scheduling, (vi) poor communication,
collaboration, and information sharing between project parties, (vii) unsuitable site with
restrictive space constraints, (viii) inaccurate MiC design information, and (ix) modular
production errors. At 82.5% and 85% risk tolerance levels within the medium-risk exposure
zones of the risk matrix, the simulation revealed three significant critical risk factors for
residential MiC projects in Hong Kong: (i) heavy reliance on overseas factories, (ii) late design
323
freeze and completion, (ii) inadequate planning and scheduling, and (iii) unsuitable site with
restrictive space constraints. Based on the critical indices, normalized criticality indices, and
risk signatures, the study developed proportional risk management resource allocation scheme
for mitigating and controlling the significant critical risk factors for residential MiC projects
at the defined risk tolerance levels across the medium-risk and high-risk exposure zones of
the risk matrix.
• Exploratory factor analysis generated five principal components of significant critical risk
factors for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong: (i) design risks, (ii) factory production
risks, (iii) transportation and storage risks, (iv) supply chain risks, and (v) onsite assembly
risks.
• Fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis showed that the twenty-six significant critical risk factors
risk factors collectively generate a significant moderate impact (3.48) on the performance of
residential MiC projects. The analysis of the components revealed that “design risks”
generates the highest adverse impact on the performance of residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong, followed by “transportation and storage risks (3.50),” “supply chain risks (3.45),”
“factory production risks (3.45),” and “onsite assembly risks (3.38).” Hence, the design stage
can significantly influence the performance of residential MiC projects.
• A partial least squares structural equation model of the principal components revealed chain
reactions and push effects among of the critical risk factors across the various stages of
residential MiC projects. Thus, the study established that there are interdependencies among
the critical risk factors at the various stages of a residential MiC project delivery chain, such
that risks at the previous stages (if not mitigated and controlled) propagate throughout the
delivery chain to reinforce the impact of onsite assembly risks on the performance of
324
residential MiC projects. The risk-path model showed that design risks, supply chain risks,
factor production risks, and transportation – storage risks collectively account for 79.8% of
the impact of onsite assembly risks on the performance of residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong. The model further revealed that the supply chain risk construct, containing nine
significantly loaded indicators constitutes the most significant symbiotic and dynamic risk
construct with the second least performance score (59.74%) and highest total effect (0.80)
among the five risk constructs.
Objective 3 – To assess and model the critical success factors for residential MiC projects.
• A systematic literature review and theory of critical success factors revealed twenty-seven
potential success ingredients for residential MiC projects. A thematic content analysis
revealed five principal components of the potential critical success factors: (i) competency,
(ii) suitable project characteristics, (iii) early commitment, (iv) enabling environment, and (v)
supply chain management.
• Analysis of one-hundred and seventeen (117) valid survey responses from experienced
construction industry practitioners and subject matter experts revealed twenty-one (21)
significant critical success factors for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The top five
significant critical success factors include: (i) early design completion and freezing, (ii) early
understanding and commitment of the client, (iii) effective leadership and support of specialist
contractors, (iv) adequate knowledge and experience of the project team, and (v) collaborative
working and information sharing among project teams.
• Exploratory factor analysis generated five principal components of the significant critical
success factors for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong: (i) supply chain management, (ii)
325
early commitment, (iii) enabling environment, (iv) suitable project characteristics, and (v)
competency.
• Fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis revealed that the twenty-one (21) significant critical
success factors collectively generate a significant influence on the success of residential MiC
projects in Hong Kong, with an overall significance index of 3.896 on a 5-point rating scale.
The analysis also revealed that each of the five principal success factors have a significant
influence on the success of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Competency obtained the
highest significant index of 4.104, followed by early commitment (4.053), suitable project
characteristics (3.920), enabling environment (3.848) and supply chain management (3.687).
Consequently, it is imperative for project teams to review and update their competencies,
design the project for manufacture and assembly, commit to the MiC method at the outset,
cultivate an enabling environment, and implement effective supply chain management to
achieve desired outcomes in residential MiC projects.
Objective 4 – To critically examine representative local and international residential MiC cases
to identify challenges encountered and lessons learned.
• The study conducted case studies of six signature residential MiC projects implemented in
Hong Kong (2 cases), Australia (1 case), Singapore (2 cases), and the UK (1 case) to identify
the practical challenges and lessons learned at the various stages of the delivery chain. The
analysis revealed eighty-five (85) practical challenges encountered and fifty-five (55) lessons
learned from the six case studies. The wicked challenges were associated with the design and
logistics. The analysis further revealed persistent challenges and constraints at the various
stages across the six cases.
326
• The five persistent challenges and constraints encountered at the predesign (inception and
planning) stage include: (i) limited local MiC standards at the time of construction, (ii)
inadequate familiarity of the project teams with the MiC method, (iii) complex statutory
requirements, (iv) poor communication between project parties, and (v) ineffective offsite
logistics planning and scheduling.
• The five persistent challenges and constraints encountered at the design stage include: (i) late
design changes, (ii) complicated design requirements, (iii) conversion of site-built design to
MiC design, (iv) highly diversified design layout limiting module standardization, and (v)
poor information sharing and synchronization.
• The five persistent challenges and constraints encountered at the factory production stage
include: (i) inadequate local manufacturing technology imposing reliance on overseas
factories, (ii) inadequate skills and experience of factory workers in module production, (iii)
lack of a well-established supervision frameworks and competent inspectors for factory
works, (iv) varied levels of finished modules quality acceptance between client and suppliers,
and (v) poorly designed production workflows.
• The five persistent challenges and constraints encountered at the transportation and storage
stages include: (i) local transport restrictions and constraints, (ii) additional escort
arrangement for large-size modules, (iii) unpredictable duration of customs inspection
required in cross-border transportation, (iv) narrow local transport network and site traffic
congestion, and (v) limited storage capacity of the local temporary holding yards.
• The five persistent challenges and constraints encountered at the onsite assembly stage
include: (i) restrictive site layout due to limited site space and difficult terrain, (ii) limited site
storage capacity, (iii) inadequate lifting capacity of local tower cranes for hoisting and lifting
327
heavy modules, (iv) integrating the MiC modules into an existing site-built structure, and (v)
significant variability between factory production rate and onsite module installation rate.
• The findings from the cases studies complemented the outcomes of the questionnaire surveys
and provided deeper understanding of the challenges, constraints, critical risk factors, critical
success factors, and best practices for implementing the various stages of residential MiC
projects.
Objective 5 – To develop a performance measurement system that enables project teams to assess
the outcomes of residential MiC projects.
• A systematic literature review revealed fourteen key performance indicators for residential
MiC projects: (i) cost, (ii) time, (iii) premanufactured value, (iv) quality, (v) productivity, (vi)
health and safety, (vii) predictability, (viii) flexibility, (ix) material waste, (x) resource
consumption, (xi) environmental footprint, (xii) local disruption, (xiii) community impact, and
(xiv) industry impact. These KPIs along with detailed metrics were selected in consultation
with experienced industry practitioners, stakeholders, and policymakers in Hong Kong to
facilitate futureproofing, experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous improvements
in residential MiC projects.
• A computerized performance measurement system (known as MiC – PMS), incorporating
both qualitative and quantitative KPIs is designed and programmed for measuring the
performance of residential MiC projects. It has a user interface, a database, and performance
measurement algorithm. It enables project teams to systematically measure the outcomes of
various residential MiC projects. It also enables project teams to compare performance of
residential MiC projects with a comparable site-built residential project to measure the relative
benefits or performance improvements attributable to the MiC method in a project. By
328
incorporating key project descriptors into the MiC – PMS, the system enables project teams
to account for external factors and conditions which could pollute the accurate quantification
of the relative benefits of the MiC method in residential building projects in Hong Kong.
Objective 6 – To consolidate the findings to develop a best practice framework for implementing
• The findings of objectives 1 – 5 were consolidated to develop a best practice framework for
implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The best practice framework comprises
three complementary components: a decision support system, best practices, and a
performance measurement system.
• The decision support system (component 1) enables construction organizations and project
teams to assess the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method for a residential building
project in Hong Kong. It enables project teams to identify and address deficient aspects of a
proposed project at the outset, align the proposed project to the requirements of the MiC
method, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in the residential
building project.
• The best practices (component 2) constitute specific standardized processes and technical
guidelines for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects to achieve desired
outcomes. It defines the technical competences, strategies, and know-how to successfully
implement each stage of the residential MiC project delivery chain.
• The performance measurement system (component 3) enables project teams to quantify the
outcomes of a residential MiC project and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC
method in residential building projects. It incorporates and filters the effects of relevant key
329
project descriptors, enabling the project team to quantify the benefits and performance
improvements attributable to the MiC method in the residential building project.
• The framework was validated using the opinions of five experienced practitioners and subject
matter experts in Hong Kong. The validation results indicated that the developed best practice
framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong is reliable,
comprehensive, adaptable, applicable, appropriate, and suitable.
8.3 Novelty and Contributions of the Study
8.3.1 Originality of the study
• The study developed and unified the complementary functions of a decision support system,
best practices, and a performance measurement system for implementing residential MiC
projects. These three components enables project teams and construction organizations to align
a proposed project to the requirements of the MiC method at the outset, effectively implement
the various stages, and measure the performance of residential MiC projects to facilitate
futureproofing, experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous improvements.
• It established a comprehensive set of standardized practices, specific processes, delivery
strategies, and technical guidelines for successfully implementing the various stages of
residential MiC projects. These best practices facilitate knowledge transfer and management to
improve the success of residential MiC projects.
• It established and codified the set of changes in the workforce, processes, competencies,
technologies, and technical know-how required to enable project teams and construction
organizations to achieve the full benefits of the MiC method in residential building projects.
Thus, the study generated a robust framework that can enable construction organizations and
project teams to develop strategies to better leverage working offsite in residential MiC projects.
330
8.3.2 Theoretical contributions
• The study established the fundamental hypothesis of a technology suitability theory for
construction projects. It demonstrated that the MiC method is not always physically supported,
economically viable, technically feasible, and geospatially appropriate for residential building
projects in any given context. It developed a theoretical checklist of the factors determining the
suitability of the MiC method for residential projects and established a set of specific project
characteristics, project objectives and requirements, location and site attributes, and
organizational and industry readiness factors that must converge to render the MiC method
suitable for residential projects in specific contexts.
• The study makes a significant theoretical contribution to risk management in MiC projects. It
developed a theoretical checklist of the critical risk factors associated with the MiC method in
residential building projects. It further established the causal relationships, chain reactions, and
push effects of specific risks along the delivery chain segments of residential MiC projects.
• It contributes and advances the theory of critical success factors for construction projects. It
established a theoretical checklist of critical success ingredients for residential MiC projects.
The study further revealed that suitable project characteristics, bespoke competencies, early
commitment, enabling environment, and supply chain management constitute the principal
ingredients in the recipe for success in residential MiC projects.
• The study advances the theory of performance measurement in construction projects. It
established an extended theoretical checklist of key performance indicators along with detailed
metrics for measuring the performance of residential MiC projects. The study exposed and
discussed key project descriptors, which can influence the outcomes of residential building
projects irrespective of the construction method used. Thus, it established a theoretical
331
foundation to improve accurate and reliable estimation of the impact of construction methods
on project performance and outcomes.
• It reconsidered and advanced the theory of construction project management. It reinforced the
theoretical position that effective project management is governed by the competing but
complementary theories of project, planning, execution, controlling, and management. Thus,
the study offers a fresh theoretical insight into the role of theory in construction project
management.
8.3.3 Managerial implications
• The decision support system enables project teams to ascertain the suitability, compatibility,
and viability of the MiC method for a proposed project at the outset to identify and address
deficient areas to improve project outcomes. Thus, it can help MiC practitioners avoid
implementing residential projects inconsistent with the MiC business model and save
significant resources.
• The study provides construction organizations and project teams with tools and guidelines to
prepare their workforce for the MiC method, more accurately identify shortcomings in their
proposed MiC projects, and identify which capabilities and technologies can be leveraged to
improve the successful delivery of MiC projects.
• The probabilistic risk assessment scheme provides project teams with a reliable and accurate
tool to capture distributions and profiles of various risks to identify, prioritize, and allocate
resources proportionally to manage the most significant risks.
• The structural risk-path model for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong provides project
teams with better insights into the chain reactions and dynamic causal relationships between
risks in the various stages of residential MiC projects. The outcomes provide a sound basis for
332
developing strategies to break the chain reactions and push effects to minimize the
complementary impacts of risks on the performance of residential MiC projects.
• The prioritized critical success ingredients can inform optimal resource allocation to ensure
the success of residential MiC projects. Thus, it provides project teams and construction
organizations with knowledge of the key areas where satisfactory results would improve the
success of residential MiC projects.
• The performance measurement system enables project teams to quantify the outcomes of a
residential MiC project and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in
residential building projects. It provides practitioners with a robust tool for detecting
problematic areas for continuous improvement in MiC projects in Hong Kong.
• The best practice framework offers construction organizations and project teams the much-
needed technical know-how and guidelines to successfully implement residential MiC
projects. The framework offers explicit instruction and guidance on how practitioners and
project teams should implement residential MiC projects to achieve desired outcomes and
facilitate continuous improvements.
8.3.4 Pedagogical implications
• The best practice framework comprising the three components calls for pedagogical reforms
in how modern methods of construction projects should be implemented. Thus, the study
provides construction management and engineering students and teachers with a new
perspective of how to effectively implement modern methods of construction projects.
• The best practices further provides the changes in construction engineering and management
curricula required to equip the next generation of industry practitioners, consultants, thought
333
leaders, and policy with the competencies and technical know-how to implement modern
methods of construction.
8.3.5 Policy implications
• The study established the changes in competencies, skillsets, and construction processes
required to implement residential MiC projects. Thus, it provides a sound basis and evidence
to inform policy reforms in developing strategies and courses to upskill and prepare the
construction industry practitioners for the transition towards the MiC integration in
construction projects.
• The best practices contain technical guidelines and critical success processes, which can be
incorporated into MiC policy guidelines and standards to inform and regulate the MiC
community of practice.
8.4 Limitations of the Study
Though the aim and objectives of the study were achieved, there are some limitations worth noting.
• The study developed a best practice framework for residential building projects in Hong Kong.
Although best practices are adaptable and flexible, the findings may not apply to other MiC
project types and contexts.
• The intelligent decision support system was developed using Microsoft Excel and Visual
Basic for Applications. Thus, it limited the use of more intelligent multicriteria decision
method such as fuzzy set theory, analytic hierarchy process, and adaptive fuzzy neural
network.
334
• The study only examined six residential MiC projects to complement and reinforce the
findings of the survey. Though adequate, the inclusion of more case studies could have
enriched the findings.
• The study could not validate the best practice framework in real-world residential MiC
projects.
8.5 Future Research Opportunities
Based on the limitations of the study, there are some opportunities for further research.
• Developing a more intelligent decision support system using advanced multicriteria decision
aid methods such as fuzzy logic, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system in powerful programming languages such as Python and MATLAB would
be interesting.
• It would be interesting to develop, test, and validate the model for predicting the success of
residential MiC projects
• The literature can also benefit from developing and validating a dynamic model for forecasting
the performance of residential MiC projects using real-world data.
• The developed best practice framework should be tested and further validated using real-world
residential MiC projects. Researchers can also investigate the adaptability of the framework
to other countries and project types.
8.6 Summary of the Thesis
This thesis developed a best practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong. It is organized into eight chapters. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 presented the thesis's general
introduction, literature reviews, and research methodology, respectively. Chapter 4 presented a
335
suitability decision support system for residential MiC projects. Chapters 5 focused on developing
best practices for implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects. Chapter 6 presented
a performance measurement system for residential MiC projects. Chapter 7 presented the best
practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong, comprising three
complementary components: a decision support system (Chapter 4), best practices (Chapter 5),
and a performance measurement system (Chapter 6). Chapter 8 presented the conclusions,
contributions, and limitations of the thesis.
336
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TEMPLATE
Dear Sir/Madam
Invitation to Contribute to a Ph.D. Research Project
We write to invite you to participate and contribute to an on-going Ph.D. research project entitled
“A Best Practice Framework for Implementing Residential Modular Integrated
Construction (MiC) Projects in Hong Kong.” The project is undertaken at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University and fully funded under the Hong Kong Ph.D. Fellowship Scheme
(HKPFS). The research seeks to draw on international best practices to facilitate the successful
implementation of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. This survey is part of the objective of
the research project.
The survey comprises 8 questions: 5 for background information and 3 for actual data
collection. The questionnaire survey form is attached to this letter and takes between 10 to 15
minutes to complete. All responses to the survey will be treated in strict confidence and used solely
for academic purposes. We are willing and able to share the summary of the research findings
upon request.
We would greatly appreciate if you could also suggest any other MiC expert or practitioners to us
who will be willing to contribute to this research project.
Thank you very much for your valuable time and please feel free to contact either Ibrahim
Yahaya Wuni (Email: ibrahim.wuni(at)_____________) for enquiries
Yours Sincerely
Mr. Ibrahim Yahaya Wuni (Ph.D. Student)
Cc: Professor Geoffrey Qiping Shen (Supervisor)
337
Important Instructions
1. Please complete the questionnaire and save as “Word Document or PDF Document” on
your PC, USB drive etc.
2. Return the completed questionnaire within FOUR WEEKS and email it to:
ibrahim.wuni(at)_______________
Outline of Questionnaire
Part One: Solicits your background information. Part Two: Requests you to rate the importance
level of critical success factors for MiC projects in your context. Part three: Request you to
evaluate the critical risks factors in MiC projects in your context. Part four: Request you to rate
the primary decision-making factors in deciding to implement MiC in a Project
Part One: Background Information of Expert

1. Which category do you belong?
Academia Industry
2. How many years of experience do you have in MiC practice or/and conducted MiC research?
Below 5 yrs 6 – 10 yrs 11 – 15 yrs 16 – 20 yrs 21yrs and above
3. Please indicate your position in your organization/ institution.
4. Please indicate the country you work in.
5. Which type of MiC project(s) have you been engaged or/and conducted research on? (more
than one can be selected)
Health/hospital projects Prisons/ defence
Schools/education Water treatment plant/ Sewage projects
Housing/ real estate Industrial Projects
Energy/ Power projects Commercial/Office projects (banks, hotels, headquarters)
338
Part Two: Critical Success Factors for Residential MiC Projects
Please rate the following factors contributing to the success of residential MiC projects in your
country on a Likert scale from 1-5: 1 – Least important, 2 –Fairly important, 3- Important, 4-
Very important, 5- Extremely important
No. Critical success factors Rating

1 Good working collaboration, communication and information sharing 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
among project participants
2 Effective supply chain coordination and management 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
3 Robust drawing specifications and early design freeze 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
4 Availability and active involvement of key project team members from the 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
earliest stages of the project
5 Design-build procurement and integrated project delivery 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Standardization and mass customization 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
7 Extensive project planning, scheduling and control 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
8 Effective coordination and management of stakeholders 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
9 Effective supply chain and execution risk management 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
10 Adequate experience and knowledge of key players 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
11 Realistic economic analysis, early decision and definition of MiC project 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
scope
12 Fabricator experience and capabilities in modules design and production 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
13 Availability of sound local transport infrastructure and site equipment 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
capabilities
14 Early advice and consideration from MiC design experts and professionals 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
15 Alignment on MiC project drivers and modules architecture 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
16 Support and early involvement of top management in supply chain 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
decision making
17 Early involvement of modules suppliers and fabricators 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
18 Module envelope limitations 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
19 Early completion and cost savings recognition 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
20 Knowledge and effective contractor leadership 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
21 Owner delay avoidance and adequate resources for continuity through 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
project phases
22 Hedging strategies and transport delay avoidance 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
23 Design robustness, flexibility and system integration 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
24 Continuous improvement 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
25 Availability of skilled workforce, management and supervising team 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
26 Appreciation of key early decisions and their implication between all 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
parties involved
27 Reasonable lead time to allow for factory trials 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
28 Effective coordination of on-site and off-site trades 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
29 Experienced workforce and technical capability 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
30 Supportive building codes and design specifications 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Please indicate and rate other Success factors for MiC projects (if any)
1 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
339
Part Three: Critical Risk Factors for Residential MiC Projects
Please rate the severity of the identified risk factors for residential MiC projects in your country
on a Likert scale from 1-5: 1 – Low critical, 2 –Fairly critical, 3- Critical, 4-Very critical, 5-
Most critical
No. Critical risk factors Severity of risk

1 Stakeholder fragmentation and management complexity 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
2 Higher initial capital cost 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
3 Poor supply chain integration and disturbances 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
4 Delays in delivery of modules to site 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
5 Poor government support and regulations 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Lack of MiC design codes and standards 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
7 Defective design and change order 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
8 Supply chain information gap and inconsistency 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
9 Inefficient scheduling 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
10 Limited MiC expertise and experience 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
11 Shortage of modular components 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
12 Complex interfacing between systems 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
13 Weather disruptions and force majeure 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
14 Transportation restrictions 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
15 Inexperience of contractors in MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
16 Specialist skilled labour requirement 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
17 Modular installation errors, complex rectifications, and reworks 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
18 Poor cooperation and communication among project 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
participants
19 Modular design complexity 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
20 Unsupportive planning and building regulations 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
21 Limited capacity of modular manufacturers/suppliers 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
22 Manual handling of heavy modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
23 Absence of standardized modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
24 Unable to freeze design early 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
25 Higher prices of modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
26 Diseconomies of scale and longer break-even period 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
27 Modular production system failure 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
28 Lack of best management practices 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
29 Inaccurate cost estimation 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
30 Geometric and dimensional intolerances 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Please indicate and rate other Risk factors in MiC projects (if any)
1 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
340
Part Four: Decision-making Factors for MiC Adoption in a Project
Please rate the following factors influencing the decision to implement MiC in a residential project
in your country on a Likert scale from 1-5: 1 – Least important, 2 –Fairly important, 3-
Important, 4-Very important, 5- Extremely important
No. Suitability decision-making factors Rating
1 Accessibility of skilled and experienced labour force 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
2 Availability of skilled management and supervising team 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
3 Demanding and tight project schedules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
4 Transport infrastructure, size restrictions and equipment accessibility 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
5 Strict requirement for improved construction safety 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Requirement for project quality control 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
7 Stringent project cost and budget constraints 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
8 Requirement for improved environmental performance 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
9 Overall project cost control requirement 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
10 Certainty of project completion date 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
11 Cost of labour at site location 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
12 Remote and difficult site location 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
13 Availability of key MiC project players in the earliest stages of the project 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
14 Reduced business disruption and neighbourhood noise 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
15 Project and contract types 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
16 Site accessibility 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
17 Owner’s understanding, receptivity and acceptance of MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
18 Site conditions, constraints and attributes 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
19 Organizational readiness and familiarity with MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
20 Need to minimize field construction cost 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
21 Presence of repetitive design layout and construction 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
22 Availability of fabrication facility within economical transport distance 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
23 Early upfront support and involvement of top management 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
24 Severe local area condition, harsh weather and climate 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
25 Suitability of design for MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
26 Construction equipment availability and accessibility 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
27 Availability of competent fabricators and suppliers 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
28 Need to minimize field construction time 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
29 Need for inspection and supervision of modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
30 Structural stability of individual and assembled modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
31 Availability and use of information technology 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
32 Supportive building codes and modules design standards 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
33 Size and type of project 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
34 Business needs, owner requirement, and regulatory demand 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
35 Site layout (e.g., availability of space to unload and store modules) 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Please indicate and rate other Decision-Making Factors for MiC Implementation (if any)
1 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
341
APPENDIX B: HONG KONG QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TEMPLATE
Dear Sir/Madam,
Invitation to Contribute to a Ph.D. Research Project on Residential MiC in Hong Kong
We humbly write to invite you to participate and contribute to an on-going Ph.D. research project
entitled “A Best Practice Framework for implementing Residential Modular Integrated
Construction Projects in Hong Kong”. The project is undertaken at the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University and fully funded under the Hong Kong Ph.D. Fellowship Scheme (HKPFS). The
research seeks to draw on international best practices and your knowledgebase to facilitate the
successful implementation of residential MiC in Hong Kong. This survey is part of the objective
of the research project.
The survey comprises four parts: part one requests your background information and
remaining parts request you to evaluate the suitability decision making factors, critical risk
factors, and critical success factors for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. The
questionnaire survey form is attached to this letter and takes between 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
All responses to the survey will be treated in strict confidence and used solely for academic
purposes. We are willing and able to share the summary of the research findings upon request.
We would greatly appreciate if you could also suggest any other MiC expert or practitioner to us
who will be willing to contribute to this research project.
Thank you very much for your valuable time and please feel free to contact either Ibrahim
Yahaya Wuni (Email: ibrahim.wuni(at)______________) for enquiries
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Ibrahim Yahaya Wuni (Ph.D. Candidate)
Cc: Professor Geoffrey Qiping Shen (Supervisor)
342
Important Instructions
1. Please complete the questionnaire and save as “Word Document or PDF Document” on
your PC, USB drive etc.
2. Return the completed questionnaire within FOUR WEEKS and email it to:
ibrahim.wun(at)_________________
Part One solicits your background information. Part Two request you to assess the significance
of the decision-making factors that are used to evaluate the compatibility and feasibility of MiC
for residential projects in Hong Kong. Part Three requests you to evaluate (a) the probability
of occurrence and (b) the severity of risk factors for residential MiC projects in Hong Kong. Part
Four requests you to rate the level of importance of the critical success factors for residential MiC
Part One: Background Information of the Respondent
1. Which of these sectors do you belong to?
☐ Public ☐ Private ☐ Both
2. What is your institution or organization? You can specify if not listed
Choose an item.
3. What is your occupation or position in the organization? You can specify if not listed
Choose an item.
4. How many years of the construction industry or research experience do you have in HK?
☐ 0 – 5 yrs ☐ 6 – 10 yrs ☐ 11 – 15 yrs ☐ 16 – 20 yrs ☐Over 20 yrs
5. How many years of MiC practice or research experience do you have in Hong Kong?
☐ 1 yr ☐ 2 yrs ☐ 3 yrs ☐ 4 yrs ☐ Over 4 yrs
343
Part Two: Decision-Making Factors for Residential MiC Projects
Please rate the significance of the following factors that influence the decision to implement
MiC in a residential project in Hong Kong using a five-point rating scale (i.e., 1=very
insignificant, 2=insignificant, 3=slightly significant, 4=significant, and 5=very significant)
# Suitability decision-making factors Levels of Significance

1 Presence of repetitive layout in design 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
3 Structural stability of individual and assembled modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
4 Availability of lead time for MiC modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
5 Site layout 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Sizes of MiC modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
7 Demanding and tight project schedules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
8 Availability of skilled and experienced labor force 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
9 Availability of skilled management and supervising team 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
10 Familiarity of the developer with the MiC method 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
11 Reducing business disruption and neighbourhood noise 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
12 Number of stories 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
13 Availability of construction equipment 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
14 Lower construction waste footprint 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
15 Reduced embodied energy and carbon emissions 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
16 Use of information and communication technology (e.g., 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
BIM)
17 Size and type of the project (i.e., project scope) 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
18 Availability of transportation infrastructure and equipment 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
19 Site location (i.e., accessibility and storage constraints) 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
20 Lesser accidents on site 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
21 Availability of fabrication facility, fabricators, and 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
suppliers
22 Project procurement system and contract type 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
23 Business needs, client contract or regulatory requirements 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
24 Supportive building codes and design standards 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
25 Reducing lifecycle construction costs 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
26 Industry communication and collaboration culture 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
27 Capability of local MiC supply chain 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Please indicate and rate other Decision-Making Factors for MiC Implementation
(if any)
1 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
344
Part Three: Risk Factors involved in Residential MiC Projects
A. Please, indicate an estimated probability (likelihood) of occurrence of each risk factor
based on the following scale: 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = Moderate; 4 = High; 5 = Very
high probability of occurrence.
B. Please, indicate an estimated severity of each risk factor based on the following scale: 1 =
Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = Moderate; 4 = High; 5 = Very high severity
# Critical risk factors A. Probability of B. Severity of risk

occurrence
1 Heavy reliance on overseas factories 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
2 Limited MiC expertise and experience 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
3 Supply chain disruptions 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
4 Stakeholder fragmentation and complexity 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
5 Supply chain segments disintegration 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Higher initial capital cost 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
7 Delay in modules delivery to the site 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
8 Defective design and change order 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
9 Unsuitability of design for MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
10 Late design completion and freezing 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
11 Inadequate planning and scheduling 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
12 Using unsuitable procurement system 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
13 Incomplete local MiC supply chain 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
14 Poor cooperation among critical 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
stakeholders
15 Limited systematic MiC design codes and 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
standards
16 Shortages of modules on site 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
17 Restrictive site space constraints 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
18 Complex interfaces between systems 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
19 Inaccurate MiC design information 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
20 Inappropriate selection structural system 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
and construction materials
21 Module installation errors 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
22 Misplacement of stored modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
23 Transportation restrictions 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
24 Specialist skilled labour requirement 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
25 Absence of standardized modules 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
26 Inadequate project funding and tight 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
27 Modular production system failure 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
28 Mechanical malfunction of cranes 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
29 Inaccurate cost estimation 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
30 Design information gap between designer 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
and manufacturer
31 Modules production errors 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Please indicate and rate other Risk factors in residential MiC projects (if any)
1 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
345
Part Four: Factors Contributing to the Success of Residential MiC Projects
Please rate the level of significance of the contribution of each factor to successful MiC projects
in in Hong Kong, using a five-point rating scale (i.e., 1=very insignificant, 2=insignificant,
3=slightly significant, 4=significant, and 5=very significant)
No. Critical success factors Levels of Significance

1 Adequate knowledge and experience of critical stakeholders 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
2 Early understanding and commitment of the client 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
3 Effective leadership and support of a specialist contractor 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
4 Collaborative working relationship among key stakeholders 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
5 Early design completion and freezing 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Standardized design of interfaces 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
7 Suitable site characteristics and layout 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
9 Extensive upfront planning for MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
10 Use of collaborative procurement system and contracting 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
11 Seamless supply chain coordination and integration 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
12 Early and active involvement of critical project stakeholders 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
13 Effective coordination and integration of stakeholders 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
14 Availability of sound transport infrastructure and site equipment 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
15 Involving manufacturers, crane specialist, and suppliers in the 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
design
16 Effective coordination of onsite and offsite work packages 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
17 Use of suitable structural system and construction material 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
18 Effective use of building information modelling 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
19 Effective management of critical tolerances between interfaces 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
20 Early engagement of registered certification body for factory 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
inspection
21 Inventory management and control 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
22 Use of just-in-time delivery arrangement 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
23 Effective use of document management system 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
24 Use of hedging strategies and transport delay avoidance
25 Use of skilled workforce, management, and supervising team 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
27 Adequate lead time for bespoke MiC processes 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Please indicate and rate other Success factors for MiC projects (if any)
1 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
346
APPENDIX C: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDES
PhD Research Project: A Best Practice Framework for Implementing Residential Modular
Integrated Construction Projects in Hong Kong.
Purpose of Interview
This interview aims to obtain your insights into the best ways to implement residential MiC projects in
Hong Kong. Your opinions would be treated with the highest level of confidentiality and anonymity in the
study. They would be integrated with opinions from other experts to achieve the aim of the research.
Background of the modular integrated construction (MiC) method

The Hong Kong government started promoted modular integrated construction (MiC) to address the
engineering and technical limitations of prefabrication for high-rise building construction in Hong Kong
and improve the performance of local construction industry. According to the Construction Industry
Council (2021), MiC refers to an innovative construction method, whereby free-standing integrated
modules (usually completed with finishes, fixtures, and fittings) are manufactured in an offsite workshop
and transported to the construction site for assembly and installation. Where circumstances merit and
favourable conditions prevail, effective implementation of the MiC method generates significant benefits
and performance improvements.
However, the pilot residential MiC projects have encountered tremendous challenges and problems in Hong
Kong. This study aims to develop a best practice framework to guide industry practitioners, construction
organizations and project teams to effectively implement the MiC method in residential building projects
to achieve desired outcomes. Given your experience and involvement in MiC projects in Hong Kong, this
research would like to obtain your opinions of some aspects of residential MiC project delivery in Hong
Kong.
Interview questions
1. How many MiC projects have you participated in Hong Kong?
2. What are some reasons that influenced the decision to implement the MiC method in the project?
3. What were the most difficult challenges encountered in the MiC projects in Hong Kong?
4. What are the key risks associated with residential MiC projects in Hong Kong?
5. What are the most important factors that influence the success of residential MiC projects?
6. What are the important lessons you have learned from the implemented residential MiC projects?
7. How would you want residential MiC projects to be implemented to achieve desired outcomes?
347
APPENDIX D: VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE
PhD Research Project: A Best Practice Framework for Implementing Residential Modular
Integrated Construction Projects in Hong Kong.
Purpose of Survey
This survey aims to validate the comprehensiveness, applicability, and practicality of the best
practice framework for implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.
Background of the best practice framework

The delivery chain of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong comprises six major stages, including
predesign, design, production, transportation/storage, on-site assembly and closure. Detailed
activities, practices, and considerations in each of these delivery chain segments have been
discussed in some industry guidelines. However, the available guidelines for implementing MiC
projects in Hong Kong only provide ‘what’ should be done to implement an MiC project but does
not give details on ‘how’ things should be done to deliver MiC projects successfully and
effectively.
Therefore, as part of the deliverables of an on-going PhD research study, the ‘know-how’ of
residential MiC project implementation in Hong Kong has been derived based on the findings from
literature review, international and local questionnaire surveys, international and local case studies,
and local interviews in Hong Kong. At each stage of the residential MiC project delivery chain,
clear instructions on how practitioners should act to implement the MiC method in a residential
building project in Hong Kong are provided. Though the framework is applicable to residential
building projects in a high-density metropolis, such as Hong Kong, it can be adapted to other
project types in Hong Kong.
Important Instruction
1. Please read through the framework in Section 3 and rate your satisfaction level of each of the
eight validation questions on a 5-point Likert scale in Section 4.
2. Please make your general reservation and comments on the framework in Section 4
3. Save as “Word Document or PDF Document” on your PC, USB drive, etc.
348
Section One: Solicits your general background information. Section Two: Presents a flow
diagram of the MiC delivery chain for residential building projects in Hong Kong for your
reference. Section Three: Presents the best practice framework for which you will validate in the
next section. Section Four: Requests you to rate your satisfaction level on a 5-point Likert scale
for each of the six validation questions. Kindly make your general reservations and comments in
this section.
Section One: Background Information of Expert

1. Which sector do you work?
2. What is your institution or organization? You can type if not listed
3. What is your occupation or position in the organization? You can type if not listed
4. How many years of construction industry or research experience do you have in Hong Kong?
5. How many years of MiC practice or research experience do you have in Hong Kong?
349
Section Two: Flow diagram of the residential MiC project delivery chain in Hong Kong
Predesign: Inception Material

Project Design
and Planning Procurement
Transportation of Buffering or
Factory Production
Modules Storage
Concurrent work packages
Onsite
Site Preparation Handing Over and
Assembly/
& Development Closure
Installation
350
Section Three: A Best Practice Framework for implementing Residential MiC Projects in
Hong Kong
Structure of significant factors determining the suitability of the MiC

method for residential building projects in Hong Kong
Project characteristics
Project objectives and requirements
• Suitability of the design for the MiC method • Business needs, client contract, or
• Dimensions and number of required MiC regulatory requirement
units • Expediting construction
• Nature, size, scope, and type of the project • Minimizing accidents and fatalities on site
• Presence of repetitive layout in design • Reducing construction waste footprint
• Number of stories • Reducing embodied energy and carbon
• Structural integrity of modules emissions
• Availability of adequate lead time for MiC • Minimizing environment nuisance and
modules neighbourhood noise
• Project procurement strategy and contract
• Reducing lifecycle construction costs
type
Organizational and industry readiness Location and site attributes

• Readiness of the project team, including • Accessibility and availability of temporary
contractor, consultant, designer storage areas at site location
• Availability and capacity of fabricators • Site layout, characteristics, and
• Availability of construction equipment environment
• Availability of skilled and experienced labour • Width of transport network to site and
force traffic conditions in the vicinity
• Availability of supportive technology
• Capability of local MiC supply chain
• Industry communication and collaboration
culture
351
Predesign stage – Inception, Conceptualization, and Planning
• Form a specialist planning team with knowledge of the MiC method (1.1)
• Consult and discuss alternatives, project requirements, and options with the client (1.2)
• Determine the suitability and compatibility of the MiC method with the project (1.4)
• Commit to the MiC method in the project (1.5)
• Conduct extensive planning for the MiC processes and requirements in the project (1.6)
• Conduct upfront planning to integrate the MiC method into the design layout (1.7)
• Conduct extensive organizational and supply chain planning (1.8)
• Clear definition of scope of work and responsibilities (1.9)
• Develop advanced work packaging (1.10)
• Establish workflow documentation system (1.11)
• Develop a detailed schedule (1.12)
• Form the core project team and engage relevant staff (1.13)
• Familiarize the team with the local MiC requirements and regulations (1.14)
• Develop communications planning (1.15)
• Develop a detailed project plan (1.16)
• Develop a robust risk management plan (1.17)
• Plan and mobilize resources (1.18)
• Consider the tight demand for cash inflows (1.19)
• Establish a strategic stakeholder partnership plan (1.20)
• Determine the appropriate time to engage main contractor, consultant, and MiC supplier (1.21)
• Conduct a detailed production planning (1.22)
• Determine the premanufactured value and extent of offsite works (1.23)
• Select a suitable structural system and construction materials (1.24)
• Select a collaborative procurement strategy for the substructure and superstructure construction (1.25)
• Determine optimum module quantity for economical production (1.26)
• Conduct module transportation planning (1.27)
• Plan appropriate site for logistics and module delivery (1.28)
• Plan for the crane(s) usage (1.29)
352
Design Stage
• Allocate enough time to design team (2.1)

• Form an experienced design team (2.2)
• Establish trust and confidence between the client, designer, contractor, and suppliers (2.4)
• Actively engage main contractor, fabricators, production engineers, suppliers, procurement specialist,
logistics company, crane specialist, and business partners (2.5)
• Early coordination among developer, architect, engineers, and MiC specialist (2.6)
• Develop a detailed engineering design specification and get the design right from the outset (2.7)
• Discuss all design options, aspects, decisions, and solutions with the client (2.8)
• Identify and manage design risks (2.9)
• Use high-quality design information (2.10)
• Reference the local building codes and specifications to develop the design (2.11)
• Develop building typology with adequate repetition (2.12)
• Minimize module design diversity to generate maximum repetition (2.13)
• Consider a repetitive design layout (2.14)
• Specify minimal external joints for better waterproofing (2.15)
• Design for manufacture, assembly, safety, and module integrity (2.16)
• Define an appropriate structural system (2.17)
• Provide adequate structural integrity and robustness in the modules for high-rise buildings (2.18)
• Considering lifting capacity and size of available tower crane (2.19)
• Carefully consider the size and weight of modules (2.20)
• Specify materials for module weight consideration (2.21)
• Specify proper module dimensions considering local transport restrictions and limitations (2.22)
• Identify and resolve dimensional variabilities in module design (2.23)
• Establish appropriate geometric configuration (2.24)
• Consider and incorporate allowable tolerance limit (2.25)
• Establish a robust structural core to cater for module installation (2.26)
• Reduce in-situ installation and module crossing (2.27)
• Early upfront coordination of design and MEP services in junction with structural components (2.28)
• Early upfront consideration of constraints for installation and maintenance (2.29)
• Early design completion and freezing at the appropriate time (2.30)
• Obtain building permit for the design (2.31)
353
Production Stage
• Establish a competent inspection team to supervise factory works (3.1)

• Organize training for supervisory staff (3.2)
• Proceed with concurrent execution of onsite work packages (3.3)
• Setting up a temporary production plant or flying factory, where feasible (3.4)
• Engage a manufacturer or supplier with adequate workshop space, access, and safe working platform (3.5)
• Identify a suitable procurement strategy for construction materials supply (3.6)
• Establish an agreed module quality acceptance level between client and supplier (3.7)
• Review the production workflows (3.8)
• Review the working drawings and consider manufacturing tolerances (3.9)
• Verify and resolve dimensional and geometric variabilities in the module design (3.10)
• Ensure adequate strength and robustness of modules to resist transportation damages (3.11)
• Know the details of factory assembly lines and method (3.12)
• Allow adequate time for quality assurance and quality control of the modules (3.13)
• Develop prototype modules to test out the initial design (3.14)
• Conduct mock-ups, trial assembly of modules, and receive feedback from client and consultant (3.15)
• Protect structural steel from rusting and corrosion using hot dip galvanizing coating (3.16)
• Configure the manufacturing rate to match site assembly rate (3.17)
• Avoid unnecessary pile up of modules in factory (3.18)
• Avoid disruption in module production (3.19)
• Careful product handling (3.20)
• Inventory management and control (3.21)
Transportation – Storage Stage
• Develop and implement a realistic transportation, traffic, and logistics management plan (4.1)
• Identify and manage logistics risks (4.2)
• Establish strategies to handle cross-border custom and material delivery constraints (4.3)
• Consider the impact of narrower roads on module delivery schedule (4.4)
• Determine and use economic transport modes (4.5)
• Establish a detailed plan for module delivery and storage (4.6)
• Decide routing and ways to maintain module integrity (4.7)
• Arrange adequate space for temporary holding and storage (4.8)
• Establish automated vessel tracking system to obtain real-time location of the shipment (4.9)
• Use 3D scanning along delivery route for trial run to ascertain possible obstructions (4.10)
• Use just-in-time delivery arrangement to reduce site storage requirements (4.11)
• Delivery modules to suit manufacturing and installation (4.12)
• Develop buffer and hedging strategies against module manufacturing disruption (4.13)
• Inspect, package, label, and protect the modules during transport (4.14)
• Provide adequate storage space and accessible orientation (4.15)
• Manage and control inventory (4.16)
354
• Form and train a competent onsite project management and supervision team (5.1)
• Use building information modelling and 3D site scanning for vehicle path analysis (5.2)
• Develop a comprehensive site safety management plan for workers, machinery, materials, method, and
environment (5.3)
• Use digital technologies such 3D scanning, BIM, and AR/VR for proactive site safety management (5.4)
• Develop safe working practices and ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (5.5)
• Engage an independent heavy lifting specialist contractor or installer with expertise in working with tight
tolerances (5.6)
• Establish a competent lifting team of lifting safety supervisor, banksman/signaller, riggers, crane
operators, and elevated working platform operator (5.7)
• Train the lifting team in high-precision installation, module alignment, tolerance management, and safe
lifting operations (5.8)
• Review site layout plan (5.9)
• Conduct a detailed swept path analysis for onsite module transport (5.10)
• Conduct planning for craning, lifting, and hoisting (5.11)
• Confirm manoeuvrability space on site (5.12)
• Consider site constraints such as narrow, single road access and site entrance (5.13)
• Determine suitable crane configuration, location, and position based on site constraints (5.14)
• Determine crane suitability for onsite space, module weight, and project height (5.15)
• Use appropriate cranes commensurate with the weight of the modules (5.16)
• Developed a precise engineering design for the lifting frame (5.17)
• Ensure clear communication between crane operator and banksman (5.18)
• Check the route for the lifting and unloading area (5.19)
• Develop traffic layout and mitigation measures for heavy vehicles (5.20)
• Site planning for module transport, storage, sequencing, and installation (5.21)
• Adhere to an accurate installation sequence plan (5.22)
• Develop streamlined work process flows (5.23)
• Adhere to the predefined alignments, interfaces, and tolerances (5.24)
• Provide adequate site accessibility and safe working platform for rigging and unrigging load (5.25)
• Inspect and verify modules prior to installation (5.26)
• Ensure that proper functioning of automatic safe load indicator (5.27)
• Ensure correct use of lifting gear and lifting point (5.28)
• Install the modules within statutorily allowable tolerances (5.29)
• Avoid disruption in module installation (5.30)
• Coordinate the supply chain of the project (5.31)
• Manage working relationships to minimize dysfunctional and disruptive stakeholder conflicts (5.32)
• Coordinate onsite and offsite work packages (5.33)
• Use of document management system (5.34)
355
Closure Stage
• Adequate provisioning for project closure (6.1)

• Use of a competent project manager (s) (6.2)
• Conduct water tightness, cable continuity, fire safety, and earthing megger tests (6.3)
• Obtain indoor air quality, completion, and occupation certificates (6.4)
• Arrange for the relevant stakeholders to inspect and accept the completed project (6.5)
• Develop project completion report (6.6)
• Transfer the deliverables (6.7)
• Settle all financial claims and transactions (6.8)
• Commission the project (6.9)
• Terminate the contract (6.10)
Selected Key Performance Indicators and Metrics in the Performance

Measurement System for residential building projects in Hong Kong
Schedule performance metrics Cost performance metrics

• Total construction time • Total cost of building works (HK$)
• Schedule performance index • Cost performance index
• Project delivery speed (sq.m/days) • Unit cost (HK$/sq.m)
• Schedule variance (certainty) • Cost variance (certainty)
• Project schedule factor index • Project schedule factor index
• Floor construction cycle (days) • Floor construction cycle (days)
Productivity performance metrics Quality performance metrics

• Labour productivity (sq.m/man-hr) • Project quality quotient
• Material productivity (sq.m/HK$) • Frequency of defect (No./sq.m)
• Machinery productivity (sq.m/HK$) • Cost of rework (HK$/sq.m)
• Multifactor productivity (sq.m/HK$) • Rework cost ratio
Safety performance metric Pollution metrics

• Accident rate • Water pollution (HK$/sq.m)
• Noise pollution (dB)
Local community impact metric • Air Pollution (Air Quality Indicator)
• Vehicle movement (No./sq.m)
Premanufactured value (PMV) Waste performance metrics

• Material-based PMV • Waste disposed (kg/sq.m)
• Cost-based PMV • Waste reused and recycled (kg/sq.m)
Resource consumption metrics Client and team satisfaction metrics

• Electricity consumption (HK$/sq.m) • Client satisfaction mean index
• Water consumption (HK$/sq.m) • Project team satisfaction mean index
356
Section Four: Validation Questions
A. Please rate the extent of your satisfaction for each of the eight-validation question on a 5-point
Likert Scale; 1 – Poor, 2 – Average, 3 – Good/Satisfactory, 4 – Very Good, 5 – Excellent.
# Validation Aspects/Questions Levels of Satisfaction

1 Are the selected factors determining the suitability of the MiC 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
method in residential buildings in Hong Kong adequate?
2 Are the selected best practices for residential MiC projects in 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
Hong Kong reasonable?
3 Is the best practice framework easily understandable for use in 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
practice?
4 Are the best practices in each stage appropriate? 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
5 Is the best practice framework comprehensive? 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
6 Can practitioners implement residential MiC projects 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
successfully if the best practices are carefully followed?
7 Are the key performance indicators and metrics adequate to 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
measure the outcomes of residential MiC projects in Hong
Kong?
8 Overall suitability of the best practice framework for 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
implementing residential MiC projects in Hong Kong
B. IF ANY; Please highlight your comments and reservations on the identified best practices at
each stage in the table below.
Delivery chain Comments

Predesign
Design
Production
Transportation/Storage
On-site Assembly
Closure
C. Please give your general comments and observations that could help improve the framework
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your time. Please, return the completed questionnaire by email
to: ibrah.y.wuni(at)_________________
357
REFERENCES
Abdul Nabi, M. and El-adaway, I.H. (2021), “Understanding the Key Risks Affecting Cost and
Schedule Performance of Modular Construction Projects”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 4, p. 04021023.
Abdul Nabi, M. and El-Adaway, I.H. (2020), “Modular construction: determining decision-
making factors and future research needs”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 36
No. 6, available at:https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000859.
Abu Hammad, A., Salem, O., Hastak, M. and Syal, M. (2008), “Decision Support System for
Manufactured Housing Facility Layout”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 14 No.
2, pp. 36–46.
Adabre, M.A., Chan, A.P.C., Edwards, D.J. and Adinyira, E. (2021), “Assessing critical risk
factors (CRFs) to sustainable housing: The perspective of a sub-Saharan African country”,
Journal of Building Engineering, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 41 No. September, p. 102385.
Adekunle, T.O. and Nikolopoulou, M. (2016), “Thermal comfort, summertime temperatures and
overheating in prefabricated timber housing”, Building and Environment, Elsevier Ltd, Vol.
103, pp. 21–35.
Agunbiade, M.E. (2012), Land Administration for Housing Production, The University of
Melbourne, available at: http://www.csdila.unimelb.edu.au/publication/theses/.
Ahadzie, D.K. (2007), A Model for Predicting the Performance of Project Managers in Mass
House Building Projects in Ghana, University of Wolverhampton.
Aibinu, A.A. and Al-Lawati, A.M. (2010), “Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction
organizations’ willingness to participate in e-bidding”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier
B.V., Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 714–724.
Akintoye, A.S. and MacLeod, M.J. (1997), “Risk analysis and management in construction”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31–38.
Alaka, H.A., Oyedele, L.O., Owolabi, H.A., Ajayi, S.O., Bilal, M. and Akinade, O.O. (2016),
“Methodological approach of construction business failure prediction studies: a review”,
358
Construction Management and Economics, Routledge, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 808–842.
Albright, S.C. (2016), VBA for Modelers: Developing Decision Support Systems with Microsoft
Office Excel, 5th Editio., Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Almer, B. (1967), “Modern General Risk Theory”, ASTIN Bulletin, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 136–169.
Alwazae, M.M. (2015), Template-Driven Documentation of Best Practices, Stockholm University.
Alwazae, M.M., Perjons, E. and Johannesson, P. (2020), “Template-driven Best Practice

Documentation”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 348–365.
Alwazae, M.M.S., Johannesson, P. and Perjons, E. (2015), “Evaluation of a classification system

for best practices”, Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, IEEE, Vol. 2015-March, pp. 3702–3711.
Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P.C. (2015), “Evaluation and ranking of risk factors in public-private
partnership water supply projects in developing countries using fuzzy synthetic evaluation
approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 5102–5116.
Arcadis. (2018), Tackling Costs in the Digital Age: International Construction Costs 2018,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, available at:
https://www.arcadis.com/media/F/1/E/%7BF1E33F46-EA9C-4F75-A642-
E0E0F31420BD%7DInternational-Construction-Costs-2018-Arcadis-Updated_001.pdf.
Arif, M. (2009), “Editorial – Special issue on offsite manufacturing”, Construction Innovation,

Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5–6.
Arif, M. and Egbu, C. (2010), “Making a case for offsite construction in China”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 06, pp. 536–548.
Awa, H.O., Ukoha, O. and Igwe, S.R. (2017), “Revisiting technology-organization-environment

(T-O-E) theory for enriched applicability”, Bottom Line, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 2–22.
Ayinla, K.O., Cheung, F. and Tawil, A.R. (2019), “Demystifying the concept of offsite
manufacturing method: Towards a robust definition and classification system”, Construction
Innovation, available at:https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-07-2019-0064.
359
Azman, M.N.A., Ahamad, M.S.S., Majid, T.A., Yahaya, A.S. and Hanafi, M.H. (2013), “Statistical
evaluation of pre-selection criteria for industrialized building system (IBS)”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 19 No. sup1, pp. S131–S140.
Baccarini, D. (1999), “The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 25–32.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models Cite this paper”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 74–94.
Bailey, K.D. (1994), Methods of Social Research, 4th Editio., Free Press, Maxwell Macmillan
Canada. Maxwell Macmillan International, New York and Toronto.
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2000), Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, Volume 1., MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2003), “Managing in an Age of Modularity”, in Garud, R.,
Kumaraswamy, A. and Langlois, R.N. (Eds.), Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures,
Networks, and Organizations, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Malden, p. 424.
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2006), “Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering
Systems”, in Braha, D., Minai, A.A. and Bar-Yam, Y. (Eds.), Complex Engineered Systems:
Science Meet Technology, Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 175–205.
Baloi, D. and Price, A.D.F. (2003), “Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 261–269.
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T. and Hedges, I. (2004), “KPIs : a critical appraisal of their
use in construction”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93–117.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), “A new framework for determining success/failure factors in
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141–151.
Bendi, D., Rana, M.Q., Arif, M., Goulding, J.S. and Kaushik, A.K. (2020), “Understanding off-
site readiness in Indian construction organisations”, Construction Innovation, Vol. ahead-of-
p No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1–17.
Bergek, A. and Norrman, C. (2008), “Incubator best practice: A framework”, Technovation, Vol.
360
28 No. 1–2, pp. 20–28.
Bertram, N., Fuchs, S., Mischke, J., Palter, R., Strube, G. and Woetzel, J. (2019), Modular
Construction: From Projects to Products, New York, United States, available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/capital projects and
infrastructure/our insights/modular construction from projects to products new/modular-
construction-from-projects-to-products-full-report-new.ashx.
Blismas, N.G. (2007), Off-Site Manufacture in Australia : Current State and Future Directions,
Brisbane, AUstralia, available at: http://www.construction-
innovation.info/images/pdfs/Publications/Industry_publications/Off-
site_manufacture_in_Australia.pdf.
Blismas, N.G., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A.G.F. (2006), “Benefit evaluation for off-site production
in construction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 121–130.
Blismas, N.G., Pendlebury, M., Gibb, A.G.F. and Pasquire, C. (2005), “Constraints to the use of
Off-site production on construction projects”, Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 153–162.
Blismas, N.G. and Wakefield, R. (2009), “Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite
manufacture in Australia”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 72–83.
Bogenstätter, U. (2000), “Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 28 No. 5–6, pp. 376–386.
Boothroyd, G. (1994), “Product design for manufacture and assembly”, Computer-Aided Design,
Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 505–520.
Borch, K. (1967), “The Theory of Risk”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 432–467.
Boussabaine, A. (2014), Risk Pricing Strategies for Public-Private Partnership Projects, edited
by Metcalfe, M., 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.1982.tb00672.x.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research
361
in Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77–101.
Brown, T.A. (2015), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, edited by Little, T.D.The
American Statistician, 2nd ed., Vol. 62, The Guilford Press, New York, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2008.s98.
Bryan, J.D. and Zuva, T. (2021), “A Review on TAM and TOE Framework Progression and How
These Models Integrate”, Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 137–145.
Bryde, D.J. and Volm, J.M. (2009), “Perceptions of owners in German construction projects:
Congruence with project risk theory”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27
No. 11, pp. 1059–1071.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011), Business Research Methods, 3rd Editio., Oxford University Press
Inc., Oxford.
Building and Construction Authority. (2017), Overview of Design for Manufacturing and
Assembly (DFMA), Singapore.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017), Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses-2016,

Washington, D.C., United States, available at:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_11092017.pdf.
Caldas, C.H., Kim, J.-Y., Haas, C.T., Goodrum, P.M. and Zhang, D. (2015), “Method to Assess
the Level of Implementation of Productivity Practices on Industrial Projects”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 141 No. 1, p. 04014061.
Cao, X., Li, X., Zhu, Y. and Zhang, Z. (2015), “A comparative study of environmental
performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 109, pp. 131–143.
Cepeda, G. and Martin, D. (2005), “A review of case studies publishing in Management Decision
2003-2004. Guides and criteria for achieving quality in qualitative research”, Management
Decision, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 851–876.
Cerny, B.A. and Kaiser, H.F. (1977), “Multivariate Behavioral A Study Of A Measure Of
362
Sampling Adequacy For Factor- Analytic Correlation Matrices”, Multivariate Bahavioral
Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3–22.
Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), “Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203–221.
Chan, Y. and Walmsley, R.P. (1997), “Learning and understanding the Kruskal-Wallis one-way
analysis-of- variance-by-ranks test for differences among three or more independent groups”,
Physical Therapy, Vol. 77 No. 12, pp. 1755–1762.
Chen, Y., Okudan, G.E. and Riley, D.R. (2010), “Decision support for construction method
selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization”, Automation in
Construction, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 665–675.
Cheung, E. (2009), Developing a Best Practice Framework for Implementing PPP in Hong Kong,
Queensland University of Technology.
Chiang, Y.H., Hon-Wan Chan, E. and Ka-Leung Lok, L. (2006), “Prefabrication and barriers to
entry-a case study of public housing and institutional buildings in Hong Kong”, Habitat
International, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 482–499.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, New Jersey, pp. 295–336.
Choi, J.O., O’Connor, J.T. and Kim, T.W. (2016), “Recipes for Cost and Schedule Successes in
Industrial Modular Projects: Qualitative Comparative Analysis”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 10, p. 04016055.
Chou, Y.-M., Polansky, A.M. and Mason, R.L. (1998), “Transforming Non-Normal Data to
Normality in Statistical Process Control”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.
133–141.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. and Loh, P.K. (1999), “Critical Success Factors for Different Project
Objectives”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 142–
150.
363
Circle Economy. (2021), The Circularity Gap Report 2021, Global (Online).
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2018), Research Methods in Education, 8th Editio.,
Routledge - Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York.
Construction Industry Council. (2016), Building for a Better Future: Vision 2030 for the Hong
Kong Construction Industry, Hong Kong.
Construction Industry Council. (2017), Survey on the Potential Utilization of Prefabrication Yards
in Hong Kong - Survey Report, Hong Kong.
Construction Industry Council. (2019a), Guidelines on the Statutory Requirements for Modular
Integrated Construction Project, Hong Kong.
Construction Industry Council. (2019b), A Comprehensive Productivity Appraisal of the Hong

Kong Construction Industry, Hong Kong.
Construction Industry Council. (2020), Reference Material on the Statutory Requirements For
Modular Integrated Construction Projects, Hong Kong.
Construction Industry Development Board. (2018), “Manual for IBS Content Scoring System (
IBS SCORE )”, Construction Industry Development Board, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Construction Industry Institute. (2013), Applying Probabilistic Risk Management in Design and
Construction Projects, Austin, TX.
Creswell, J.W. (2013), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method
Approaches, Sage Publications, Inc, London, United Kingdom.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol.
16 No. 3, pp. 297–334.
Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research
Process, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousands Oaks, London, available at: http://proxy-
remote.galib.uga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eds
bl&AN=RN081395391&site=eds-live.
Daget, Y.T. and Zhang, H. (2019), “Decision-making model for the evaluation of industrialized
housing systems in Ethiopia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
364
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 296–320.
Dainty, A.R.J. (2008), “Methodological pluralism in construction management research”, in

Knight, A. and Ruddock, L. (Eds.), Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment,
Wiley-Blackwell: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Oxford, UK, pp. 2–14.
Dattalo, P. (2008), Determining Sample Size: Balancing Power, Precision, and Practicality,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dawood, N.N. (1995), “An integrated bidding management expert system for the make-to-order
precast industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 115–125.
Development Bureau. (2020), “Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 2/2020
Modular Integrated Construction (MiC)”, The Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, Hong Kong.
Dickinson, R.A., Ferguson, C.R. and Sircar, S. (1984), “Critical Success Factors and Small
Business”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 49–57.
Drazin, R. (1991), “The processes of technological innovation”, Journal of Technology Transfer,

Vol. 16, pp. 45–46.
Duijm, N.J. (2015), “Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices”, Safety Science,
Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 76, pp. 21–31.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, London,
UK, available at:https://doi.org/Construction Task Force. Uk Government.
El-Sayegh, S.M. and Mansour, M.H. (2015), “Risk Assessment and Allocation in Highway
Construction Projects in the UAE”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 6,
p. 04015004.
Farmer, M. (2016), The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model; Modernise or Die,
London, United Kingdom, available at: http://www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Farmer-Review.pdf.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2015), Research Methods for Construction, Fourth Edi., John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd, United Kingdom.
365
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014), “Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-
generating qualitative systematic reviews”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 341–
352.
Fox, S., Marsh, L. and Cockerham, G. (2001), “Design for manufacture: A strategy for successful
application to buildings”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 493–
502.
Fraser, N., Race, G.L., Kelly, R., Winstanley, A. and Hancock, P. (2015), An Offsite Guide for the
Building and Engineering Services Sector, Loughborough, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.13.00031.
Freund, Y.P. (1988), “Critical Success Factors”, Planning Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 20–23.
Gann, D.M. (1996), “Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences

between industrialized housing and car production in Japan”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 437–450.
Gao, S., Jin, R. and Lu, W. (2019), “Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: a
review”, Building Research and Information, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1–13.
Gao, S., Low, S.P. and Nair, K. (2018), “Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA): a
preliminary study of factors influencing its adoption in Singapore”, Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 440–456.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.-C. (2000), “Structural Equation Modeling and Regression:
Guidelines for Research Practice”, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 4 No. October, pp. 1–79.
Ghasemi, A. and Zahediasl, S. (2012), “Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-
statisticians”, International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp.
486–489.
Gibb, A.G.F. (1999), Off-Site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-Assembly and Modularization, 1st
ed., Whittles Publishing, Latheronwheel, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1680/bimpp.63693.109.
366
Gibb, A.G.F. (2001), “Standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using
case study research”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 307–315.
Gibb, A.G.F. and Isack, F. (2001), “Client Drivers for Construction Projects”, Engineering
Gibb, A.G.F. and Isack, F. (2003), “Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations and
drivers”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 146–160.
Gibb, A.G.F. and Neale, R.H.. (1997), “Management of prefabrication for complex cladding: Case
study”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 60–69.
Gilb, T. (2005), Competitive Engineering: A Handbook for Systems Engineering, Requirements

Engineering, and Software Engineering Using Planguage, 1st Editio., Elsevier Butterworth–
Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Goodier, C., Gibb, A.G.F., Mancini, M., Turck, C., Gjepali, O. and Daniels, E. (2019),
“Modularisation and offsite in engineering construction: an early decision-support tool”,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, pp. 1–45.
Gosling, J., Pero, M., Schoenwitz, M., Towill, D. and Cigolini, R. (2016), “Defining and
Categorizing Modules in Building Projects: An International Perspective”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, No. 04016062, pp. 1–11.
Goyal, M. and Netessine, S. (2011), “Volume flexibility, product flexibility, or both: The role of
demand correlation and product substitution”, Manufacturing and Service Operations
Graupner, S., Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Singhal, S. and Basu, S. (2009), “Making processes from
best practice frameworks actionable”, Proceedings - IEEE International Enterprise
Distributed Object Computing Workshop, EDOC Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International
Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOCw 2009, 1-4 September 2009,
IEEE, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 25–34.
Grix, J. (2019), The Foundations of Research, 3rd Editio., Red Globe Press, England, United
Kingdom.
367
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Editio., SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand
Oaks, California.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2–24.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2018), Advanced Issues in Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling, SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles.
Hong Kong Housing Authority. (2021), Report on Housing Authority Industry Forum on
Innovative Construction Method for Public Housing Developments and Progress Update on
the Use of Modular Integrated Construction, Hong Kong.
Hong, W.-K. (2020), “Application to the modular construction”, Hybrid Composite Precast
Systems, Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier Ltd., Sawston, United Kingdom, pp. 331–346.
Horner, M., El-haram, M. and Vitali, D. (2019), Advanced Industrialised Methods for the
Construction of Homes (AIMCH) - Work Package 2: Productivity Mapping and Literature
Review, Scotland.
Hsu, P.Y., Aurisicchio, M. and Angeloudis, P. (2019), “Risk-averse supply chain for modular
construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier, Vol. 106 No. June, p. 102898.
Hubbard, D.W. (2014), How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of “Intangibles” in
Business, Third Edit., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review
of four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195–204.
Hwang, B.-G., Shan, M. and Looi, K.-Y. (2018a), “Key constraints and mitigation strategies for
prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier
Ltd, Vol. 183, pp. 183–193.
Hwang, B.-G., Shan, M. and Looi, K.Y. (2018b), “Knowledge-based decision support system for
prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier,
Vol. 94 No. July, pp. 168–178.
368
Infrastructure and Projects Authority. (2019), Best Practice in Benchmarking, London, United
Kingdom, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/best-practice-in-
benchmarking.
Jaillon, L. and Poon, C.S. (2008), “Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in
dense urban environment: A Hong Kong case study”, Construction Management and
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, Elsevier
Ltd, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 309–320.
Jockey Club Design Institute for Social Innovation. (2020), PolyU Jockey Club “Operation
SoInno” - Transitional Social Housing Action Project Report, Hong Kong.
Johannesson, P. and Perjons, E. (2014), An Introduction to Design Science, Springer International

Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, available at:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10632-8.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed
Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come”, Educational Researcher,
Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14–26.
Kamali, M. and Hewage, K. (2016), “Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical
review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, Vol. 62, pp. 1171–1183.
Kamali, M. and Hewage, K. (2017), “Development of performance criteria for sustainability

evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 142, pp. 3592–3606.
Kamali, M., Hewage, K. and Milani, A.S. (2018), “Life cycle sustainability performance
assessment framework for residential modular buildings: Aggregated sustainability indices”,
Building and Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 138 No. November 2017, pp. 21–41.
Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A.P.C. and Cheung, E. (2011), “Understanding the risks in China’s PPP
projects: Ranking of their probability and consequence”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 481–496.
369
Khang, D.B. and Moe, T.L. (2008), “Success Criteria and Factors for International Development
Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp.
72–84.
Kim, T.K. (2015), “T test as a parametric statistic”, Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 68
No. 6, pp. 540–546.
Kivunja, C. and Kuyini, A.B. (2017), “Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in
Educational Contexts”, International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 5, p. 26.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structured Equation Modeling, edited by Little,
T.D., The Guilford Press, New York, United States.
Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002), “The theory of project management: Explanation to novel
methods”, Proceedings 10th Annual Conference on Lean Construction, pp. 1–11.
Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2008), “The underlying theory of project management is obsolete”,
IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 22–34.
KPMG. (2016), Smart Construction: How Offsite Manufacturing Can Transform Our Industry,
United Kingdom, available at:
https://www.buildoffsite.com/content/uploads/2016/08/KPMG-Smart-Construction.pdf.
Kuhn, T.S. (2012), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th Anniversary Edition Witn an
Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking, 4th Editio., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
and London.
Kyrö, R., Jylhä, T. and Peltokorpi, A. (2019), “Embodying circularity through usable relocatable
modular buildings”, Facilities, Vol. 37 No. 1–2, pp. 75–90.
Latham, S.M. (1994), Constructing the Team: The Latham Report, London, UK.
Lee, H.L. and Sasser, M.M. (1995), “Product universality and design for supply chain
management”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 270–277.
Lee, J.S. and Kim, Y.S. (2017), “Analysis of cost-increasing risk factors in modular construction
in Korea using FMEA”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1999–2010.
Leon, H., Osman, H., Georgy, M. and Elsaid, M. (2018), “System dynamics approach for
370
forecasting performance of construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 34 No. 1, p. 04017049.
Li, C.Z., Hong, J., Xue, F., Shen, G.Q., Xu, X. and Mok, M.K. (2016), “Schedule risks in
prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: a social network analysis”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 134 No. Part B, pp. 482–494.
Li, C.Z., Shen, G.Q., Xue, F., Luo, L., Xu, X. and Sommer, L. (2017), “Schedule risk modeling in
prefabrication housing production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 153,
pp. 692–706.
Li, C.Z., Xu, X., Shen, G.Q., Fan, C., Li, X. and Hong, J. (2018), “A model for simulating schedule
risks in prefabrication housing production: A case study of six-day cycle assembly activities
in Hong Kong”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 185, pp. 366–381.
Li, C.Z., Zhong, R.Y., Xue, F., Xu, G., Chen, K., Huang, G.G. and Shen, G.Q. (2017), “Integrating
RFID and BIM technologies for mitigating risks and improving schedule performance of
prefabricated house construction”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 165, pp.
1048–1062.
Li, D., Li, X., Feng, H., Wang, Y. and Fan, S. (2019), “ISM-based relationship among critical
factors that affect the choice of prefabricated concrete buildings in China”, International
Journal of Construction Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1–16.
Li, H.X., Al-Hussein, M., Lei, Z. and Ajweh, Z. (2013), “Risk identification and assessment of
modular construction utilizing fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and simulation”,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 1184–1195.
Li, K.H.F. (2020), “Modular Integrated Construction”, The Hong Kong Institute of Architects,
Hong Kong.
Li, L., Li, Z., Wu, G. and Li, X. (2018), “Critical success factors for project planning and control
in prefabrication housing production: A China study”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 10
No. 836, pp. 1–17.
Liao, S.H. (2005), “Expert system methodologies and applications-a decade review from 1995 to
2004”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 93–103.
371
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243–248.
Lingard, H.C. and Rowlinson, S. (2006), “Letter to the Editor”, Construction Management and
Love, P.E. d., Holt, G.D. and li, H. (2002), “Triangulation in construction management research”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 294–303.
Love, P.E.D., Liu, J., Matthews, J., Sing, C.P. and Smith, J. (2015), “Future proofing PPPs: Life-
cycle performance measurement and Building Information Modelling”, Automation in
Construction, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 56, pp. 26–35.
Luo, H., Liu, J., Li, C., Chen, K. and Zhang, M. (2020), “Ultra-rapid delivery of specialty field
hospitals to combat COVID-19: Lessons learned from the Leishenshan Hospital project in
Wuhan”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier, Vol. 119 No. April, p. 103345.
Luo, L., Jin, X., Shen, G.Q., Wang, Y., Liang, X., Li, X. and Li, C.Z. (2020), “Supply Chain
Management for Prefabricated Building Projects in Hong Kong”, Journal of Management in
Luo, L., Mao, C., Shen, L. and Li, Z. (2015), “Risk factors affecting practitioners’ attitudes toward
the implementation of an industrialized building system a case study from China”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 622–643.
Luo, L., Shen, G.Q., Xu, G., Liu, Y. and Wang, Y. (2019), “Stakeholder-associated Supply Chain
Risks and Their Interactions in a Prefabricated Building Project : A Case Study in Hong
Kong”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 1–14.
Macomber, J.D. (1989), “You can manage construction risks”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 155–61, 63–5.
Mahdiyar, A., Tabatabaee, S., Yahya, K. and Mohandes, S.R. (2021), “A probabilistic financial
feasibility study on green roof installation from the private and social perspectives”, Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening, Elsevier GmbH, Vol. 58 No. August 2019, p. 126893.
Maisel, R. and Persell, C.H. (1996), How Sampling Works, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks,
372
California.
Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L. and Tang, L. (2013), “Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions
between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of
residential projects”, Energy and Buildings, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 66, pp. 165–176.
Mao, C., Xie, F., Hou, L., Wu, P., Wang, J. and Wang, X. (2016), “Cost analysis for sustainable
off-site construction based on a multiple-case study in China”, Habitat International, Elsevier
Ltd, Vol. 57, pp. 215–222.
Martin, E.W. (1982), “Critical Success Factors of Chief MIS / DP Executives”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1–9.
Mbachu, J. and Nkado, R. (2006), “Conceptual framework for assessment of client needs and
satisfaction in the building development process”, Construction Management and
McGraw Hill Construction. (2013), Safety Management in the Construction Industry: Identifying
Risks and Reducing Accidents to Improve Site Productivity and Project ROI, Smart Market
Report, Bedford, MA, available at:
https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/publications/SafetyManagementinConstructionSM
R-2013_0.pdf.
McKay, L.J. (2010), The Effect of Offsite Construction on Occupational Health and Safety,
Loughborough University, available at: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2134/6381.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2017), Reinventing Construction: A Route To Higher Productivity,

New York, United States.
Mishra, P., Pandey, C.M., Gupta, U., Sahu, C. and Keshri, A. (2019), “Descriptive Statistics and
Normality Tests for Statistical Data”, Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 67–
72.
Modular Building Institute. (2017), Modular Advantage for the Commercial Modular
Construction Industry: The Offsite Construction Issue, Canada.
Monahan, J. and Powell, J.C. (2011), “An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
373
methods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework”,
Energy and Buildings, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 179–188.
Morgan, D.L. (2007), “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications
of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 48–76.
Mossman, A. and Ramalingam, S. (2021), “One bad apple - The Arithmetic of quality and cost of
rework”, Proceedings of Indian Lean Construction Conference 2021, Ahmedabad, India.
Murtaza, M.B., Fisher, D.J. and Skibniewski, M.J. (1993), “Knowledgment-Based Approach to
Modular Construction Decision Support”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Nachar, N. (2008), “The Mann-Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent
Samples Come from the Same Distribution”, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13–20.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: A
literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Ng, E. and De Colombani, P. (2015), “Framework for selecting best practices in public health: a
systematic literature review”, Journal of Public Health Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, available
at:https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2015.577.
Nibbelink, J.G., Sutrisna, M. and Zaman, A.U. (2017), “Unlocking the potential of early contractor
involvement in reducing design risks in commercial building refurbishment projects–a
Western Australian perspective”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Taylor
& Francis, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 439–456.
Norouzi, M., Chàfer, M., Cabeza, L.F., Jiménez, L. and Boer, D. (2021), “Circular economy in the
building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis”, Journal of Building
Engineering, Vol. 44, p. 102704.
Norusis, M.J. (2008), SPSS 16.0 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ., available at:https://doi.org/10.1080/02331889108802322.
374
Nunnally, J.C. and Berstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd Editio., McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York.
O’Connor, J.T., O’Brien, W.J. and Choi, J.O. (2014), “Critical Success Factors and Enablers for
Optimum and Maximum Industrial Modularization”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 140 No. 6, p. 04014012.
Office of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. (2017), The Chief Executive’s 2017 Policy Address:
We Connect for Hope and Happiness, Hong Kong, available at:
https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2017/eng/pdf/PA2017.pdf.
Oke, A. (2003), “Drivers of volume flexibility requirements in manufacturing plants”,

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 11–12, pp.
1497–1513.
Osburn, J., Caruso, G. and Wolfensberger, W. (2011), “The concept of ‘best practice’: A brief
overview of its meanings, scope, uses, and shortcomings”, International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 213–222.
Osei-Kyei, R. (2017), A Best Practice Framework for The Public-Private Partnership

Implementation for Infrastructure Development in Ghana, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.
Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A.P.C. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2017), “A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis of
operational management critical success factors for public-private partnership infrastructure
projects”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 2092–2112.
Ostertagová, E., Ostertag, O. and Kováč, J. (2014), “Methodology and application of the Kruskal-
Wallis test”, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 611, pp. 115–120.
Ott, R.L. and Longnecker, M. (2016), An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis,
7th Editio., Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2012), “Strategies for Integrating the Use of Off-Site
Production Technologies in House Building”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
375
Pan, W. and Hon, C.K. (2018), “Modular integrated construction for high-rise buildings”,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, pp. 1–12.
Pan, W., Zhang, Z., Xie, M. and Ping, T. (2020), Modular Integrated Construction for High-Rises:
Measured Success, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Perleth, M., Jakubowski, E. and Busse, R. (2001), “What is ‘best practice’ in health care? State of
the art and perspectives in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the European health
care systems”, Health Policy, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 235–250.
Peters, M.T. and Heron, T.E. (1993), “When the best is not good enough: An examination of best
practice”, The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 371–385.
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003), Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of
Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research, Vol. 3, Sage
Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, available at:
http://repositorio.unan.edu.ni/2986/1/5624.pdf.
Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1988), “Variations in Critical Success Factors Over the Stages in the
Project Life Cycle”, Journal of Management.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988), “Critical Success Factors in Effective Project
Implementation”, in Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R. (Eds.), Project Management Handbook,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 167–190.
Pollard, C. and Cater-Steel, A. (2009), “Justifications, strategies, and critical success factors in
successful ITIL implementations in U.S. and Australian companies: An exploratory study”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164–175.
Pollatsek, A. and Tversky, A. (1970), “A theory of risk”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology,

Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 540–553.
Project Management Institute. (2017), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK Guide), 6th Editio., Project Management Institute, Newton Square, Pennsylvania,
available at:https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21345.
376
Qazi, A., Shamayleh, A., El-Sayegh, S. and Formaneck, S. (2021), “Prioritizing risks in sustainable
construction projects using a risk matrix-based Monte Carlo Simulation approach”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 65 No. November 2020, p. 102576.
Qazi, A. and Simsekler, M.C.E. (2021), “Risk assessment of construction projects using Monte
Carlo simulation”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. Ahead-of-p
No. Ahead-of-print, pp. 1–17.
Qin, X., Shi, Y., Lyu, K. and Mo, Y. (2020), “Using a TAM-TOE model to explore factors of
building information modelling (Bim) adoption in the construction industry”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 259–277.
Quale, J., Eckelman, M.J., Williams, K.W., Sloditskie, G. and Zimmerman, J.B. (2012),
“Construction Matters Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and
Conventional Homes in the United States”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.
243–253.
Rentschler, C., Mulrooney, M. and Shahani, G. (2016), “Modularization: The key to success in
today’s market”, Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 95 No. 12, pp. 27–30.
Rockart, J.F. (1982), “The changing role of the information systems executive : a critical success
factors perspective”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3–13.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd ed., The Free Press: A Division of Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc., New York, available at:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3885-4.
Ruan, X., Yin, Z. and Frangopol, D.M. (2015), “Risk Matrix Integrating Risk Attitudes Based on
Utility Theory”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1437–1447.
Sadiq, R. and Rodriguez, M.J. (2004), “Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of disinfection by-products - A
risk-based indexing system”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 1–
13.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M. and Coyle, M. (1992), “Critical Success Factors
for Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118
No. 1, pp. 94–111.
377
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016), Research Methods for Business Students,
Seventh Ed., Pearson Education Limited, England, United Kingdom.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2015), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
4th Editio., Routledge - Taylor & Francis Group, New York and London, available
at:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315749105.
Scotland, J. (2012), “Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology

and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical
research paradigms”, English Language Teaching, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 9–16.
Shahtaheri, Y., Rausch, C., West, J., Haas, C. and Nahangi, M. (2017), “Managing risk in modular
construction using dimensional and geometric tolerance strategies”, Automation in
Construction, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 83, pp. 303–315.
Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965), “An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete
Samples)”, Biometrika, Vol. 52 No. 3/4, pp. 591–611.
Sharafi, P., Rashidi, M., Samali, B., Ronagh, H. and Mortazavi, M. (2018), “Identification of
Factors and Decision Analysis of the Level of Modularization in Building Construction”,
Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 2, p. 04018010.
Simon, H.A. (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity”, Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society, Vol. 106, pp. 467–482.
Smyth, H.J. and Morris, P.W.G. (2007), “An epistemological evaluation of research into projects
and their management: Methodological issues”, International Journal of Project
Söderlund, J. (2004), “Building theories of project management: Past research, questions for the
future”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 183–191.
Song, J., Fagerlund, W.R., Haas, C.T., Tatum, C.B. and Vanegas, J.A. (2005), “Considering
Prework on Industrial Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.
131 No. 6, pp. 723–733.
Sullivan, T. (2002), Evaluating Environmental Decision Support Tools, Upton, NY: Brookhaven
378
National Laboratory, available at: https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/30163.pdf.
Sutrisna, M. and Goulding, J. (2019), “Managing information flow and design processes to reduce
design risks in offsite construction projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Tam, V.W.Y., Fung, I.W.H., Sing, M.C.P. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2015), “Best practice of
prefabrication implementation in the Hong Kong public and private sectors”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 109, pp. 216–231.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X. and Ng, W.C.Y. (2007), “Towards adoption of
prefabrication in construction”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 3642–3654.
Tan, T., Lu, W., Tan, G., Xue, F., Chen, K., Xu, J., Wang, J., et al. (2020), “Construction-Oriented
Design for Manufacture and Assembly Guidelines”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 146 No. 8, p. 04020085.
Tang, W., Cui, Y. and Babenko, O. (2014), “Internal Consistency : Do We Really Know What It
Is and How to Assess it ?”, Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.
205–220.
Taroun, A. (2014), “Towards a better modelling and assessment of construction risk: Insights from
a literature review”, International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 32 No.
1, pp. 101–115.
Tatum, C.B., Vanegas, J.A. and Williams, J.M. (1986), Constructability Improvement Using
Prefabrication, Preassembly, and Modularization, California.
Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011), “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”, International Journal
of Medical Education, Vol. 2, pp. 53–55.
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009), Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences, SAGE
Publications, Inc., United States.
Tornatzky, L.G., Eveland, J.D., Boylan, M.G., Hetzner, W.A., Johnson, E.C., Roitman, D. and
Schneider, J. (1983), The Process of Technological Innovation: Reviewing the Literature,
379
Washington, D.C., available at:
http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=N8426
466AH.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review”, British
Journal of Management.
Transport and Housing Bureau. (2020), Long Term Housing Strategy Annual Progress Report
2020, Hong Kong, available at:
https://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/policy/housing/policy/lths/LTHS_Annual_Progress_Report_20
20.pdf.
Triumph Modular Corporation. (2019), “Critical Success Factors for Volumetric Modular
Construction”, Triumph Modular, Littleton.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013), “Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study”, Nursing and Health Sciences,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 398–405.
Vargha, A. and Delaney, H.D. (1998), “The Kruskal-Wallis Test and Stochastic Homogeneity”,
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170–192.
Volker, L. (2019), “Looking out to look in: inspiration from social sciences for construction
management research”, Construction Management and Economics, Routledge, Vol. 37 No.
1, pp. 13–23.
van Vuuren, T.J. and Middleton, C. (2020), Methodology for Quantifying the Benefits of Offsite
Construction, London, UK.
Walker, D.H.. T. (1997), “Choosing an appropriate research methodology”, Construction

Management and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 149–159.
Wang, Z., Hu, H. and Gong, J. (2018), “Simulation based multiple disturbances evaluation in the
precast supply chain for improved disturbance prevention”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 177, pp. 232–244.
380
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analyzing the Past To Prepare for the Future : Writing a
Literature Review”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii–xxiii.
Weiner, B.J. (2009), “A theory of organizational readiness for change”, Implementation Science,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1–9.
de Wielde, P. (2018), Building Performance Analyis, 1st Editio., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Oxford,
UK.
Winch, G.M. (2010), Managing Construction Projects: An Information Processing Approach, 2nd
Editio., Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom.
Wong, P.S.P., Zwar, C. and Gharaie, E. (2017), “Examining the Drivers and States of
Organizational Change for Greater Use of Prefabrication in Construction Projects”, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 7, p. 04017020.
World Health Organization. (2017), “A guide to identifying and documenting best practices in
family planning programmes”, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wuni, I.Y. and Shen, G.Q. (2019), “Towards a decision support for modular integrated
construction: an integrative review of the primary decision-making actors”, International
Journal of Construction Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. Early Cite No. Early Cite, pp.
1–20.
Wuni, I.Y. and Shen, G.Q. (2020a), “Barriers to the adoption of modular integrated construction:
Systematic review and meta-analysis, integrated conceptual framework, and strategies”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 249 No. March, p. 119347.
Wuni, I.Y. and Shen, G.Q. (2020b), “Critical success factors for modular integrated construction
projects : a review”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 763–784.
Wuni, I.Y. and Shen, G.Q. (2020c), “Critical success factors for management of the early stages
of prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction project life cycle”, Engineering,
Wuni, I.Y. and Shen, G.Q. (2020d), “Fuzzy modelling of the critical failure factors for modular
integrated construction projects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 264C
381
No. August, p. 121595.
Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Hwang, B. (2020), “Risks of modular integrated construction : A
review and future research directions”, Frontiers of Engineering Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 63–80.
Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Mahmud, A.T. (2019), “Critical risk factors in the application of
modular integrated construction : a systematic review”, International Journal of Construction
Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. Early Cite, pp. 1–15.
Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2020), “Quantitative evaluation and ranking of the
critical success factors for modular integrated construction projects”, International Journal
of Construction Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. Early Cite No. 7, pp. 1–13.
Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2021), “Evaluating the critical success criteria for
prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction projects”, Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, Vol. ahead-of-p No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1–19.
Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q., Osei-Kyei, R. and Agyeman-Yeboah, S. (2020), “Modelling the critical
risk factors for modular integrated construction projects”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. Early Cite, pp. 1–14.
Wuni, I.Y., Wu, Z. and Shen, G.Q. (2021), “Exploring the challenges of implementing design for
excellence in industrialized construction projects in China”, Building Research &
Information, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1–15.
Xie, G. (2020), “A novel Monte Carlo simulation procedure for modelling COVID-19 spread over
time”, Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group UK, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1–9.
Xu, Y., Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Wang, S.Q. and Ke, Y. (2010), “Developing
a risk assessment model for PPP projects in China-A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach”,
Automation in Construction, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 929–943.
Xu, Z., Zayed, T. and Niu, Y. (2020), “Comparative analysis of modular construction practices in
mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd,
Vol. 245, p. 118861.
382
Yang, Y., Pan, M., Pan, W. and Zhang, Z. (2021), “Sources of Uncertainties in Offsite Logistics
of Modular Construction for High-Rise Building Projects”, Journal of Management in
Yin, R.K. (2018), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th Editio., SAGE
Publications, Inc., Los Angeles, available at:https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108.
Yunus, R. and Yang, J. (2014), “Improving ecological performance of industrialized building

systems in Malaysia”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 32 No. 1–2, pp. 183–
195.
Zakaria, S.A.S., Gajendran, T., Skitmore, M. and Brewer, G. (2018), “Key factors influencing the
decision to adopt industrialised building systems technology in the Malaysian construction
industry: an inter-project perspective”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 14 No. 1–2, pp. 27–45.
Zhai, X., Reed, R. and Mills, A. (2014), “Factors impeding the offsite production of housing
construction in China: An investigation of current practice”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 32 No. 1–2, pp. 40–52.
Zhai, Y., Zhong, R.Y. and Huang, G.Q. (2018), “Buffer space hedging and coordination in
prefabricated construction supply chain management”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 200 No. December 2015, pp. 192–206.
Zhai, Y., Zhong, R.Y., Li, Z. and Huang, G. (2017), “Production lead-time hedging and
coordination in prefabricated construction supply chain management”, International Journal
of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 55 No. 14, pp. 3984–4002.
Zhang, H. (2016), “Two Schools of Risk Analysis: A Review of Past Research on Project Risk”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 5–18.
Zhang, W., Lee, M.W., Jaillon, L. and Poon, C.S. (2018), “The hindrance to using prefabrication
in Hong Kong’s building industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 204
No. 2018, pp. 70–81.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.-G. and Low, S.P. (2015), Enterprise Risk Management in International
Construction Operations, Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., Singapore, available
383
at:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-549-5.
Zhao, Y., Chen, W., Arashpour, M., Yang, Z., Shao, C. and Li, C. (2021), “Predicting delays in
prefabricated projects: SD-BP neural network to define effects of risk disruption”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. ahead-of-p No. ahead-of-
print, pp. 1–24.
Zou, P.X.W., Zhang, G. and Wang, J. (2007), “Understanding the key risks in construction projects
in China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 601–614.
Zwikael, O. and Globerson, S. (2006), “From Critical Success Factors to Critical Success
Processes”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44 No. 17, pp. 3433–3449.
384

A Best Practice Framework For Implementing Residential Modular Integrated Construction Projects in Hong Kong

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

A Best Practice Framework For Implementing Residential Modular Integrated Construction Projects in Hong Kong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright Undertaking

This thesis is protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

IBRAHIM YAHAYA WUNI

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Department of Building and Real Estate

A Best Practice Framework for implementing Residential Modular Integrated

Ibrahim Yahaya Wuni

Ibrahim Yahaya Wuni

Modular integrated construction (MiC) is a modern construction method whereby free-standing

conventional modular construction for high-rise building construction. Outcomes of completed

organizational and industry readiness.

impact on the performance of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong.

suitable project characteristics, and (v) competency.

logistics, site constraints, and immaturity of the local supply chain.

impact, and (xiv) industry impact.

MiC projects to facilitate futureproofing, experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous

implementing the various stages of residential MiC projects.

Integrated Construction; Performance Measurement System; Residential Projects; Hong Kong.

and avoid repetitions in background and methodologies.

A. Refereed Journal Papers from Ph.D. Research (Published/Accepted): 2018 – 2022

C. Refereed Conference Papers (Published): 2018 – 2021

D. Technical Workshops (Presented ): 2018 – 2021

E. Awards and Recognitions during the PhD Study: 2018 – 2021

3. International Journal of Construction Management Featured Article entitled “Critical risk

4. International Journal of Construction Management Featured Article entitled “Towards a

Rabb who has no comparable.

discussions with me.

Your generous award was well-utilized throughout the Ph.D. study.

Acronym Explanation – Full Form Acronym Explanation – Full Form

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................................. iii

Figure 1.1: Linkages among the research objectives ................................................................... 13

concludes with an explanation of how the thesis is organized and structured.

1.2 Research Background

construction methods such as offsite production, industrialized construction, modular construction,

specification of the most sophisticated conventional building, without compromise in project

objectives and stakeholder requirements (Modular Building Institute, 2017).

irregularities between prefabricated components, geometric inconsistencies of prefabricated

loads and seismic forces (Tam et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2020).

construction (MiC) to encourage innovation, enhance construction productivity, address the

improve the cost-effectiveness of construction projects, enhance competitiveness of the

engineering of the traditional construction process (Pan and Hon, 2018).

Adopting MiC in a project generates several performance improvements, including shortened

superstructure construction time, reduced overall construction schedule, elimination of weather

economies of scale, improved labour productivity, and enhanced environmental sustainability

stakeholders effectively and efficiently.

guidelines to successfully implement residential MiC projects, whilst facilitating experiential

to improve the adoption of the MiC method in the construction industry.

three specific knowledge and practice gaps.

characteristics (Blismas et al., 2005; van Vuuren and Middleton, 2020).

poorly understood impact on the outcomes of residential MiC projects.

two-dimensional mapping of probability – impact (P – I) rating to assess the overall exposure of

2021). A simulation-based prioritization scheme can facilitate probabilistic risk assessment to

and impose significant threats to project success.

method in residential building projects to facilitate experiential learning, benchmarking, and

building projects. Thus, it is imperative to develop a performance measurement system for

evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiC method in a project.

1.4 Research Questions

residential building projects in Hong Kong?

across the various stages of residential MiC projects in Hong Kong?

completed real-world residential MiC projects?

and facilitate experiential learning, benchmarking, and continuous improvements?

1.5 Research Aim and Objectives

1.5.1 Research Aim