Spot the problem with modern methods of construction

We have all heard the hype surrounding offsite and modern methods of construction (MMC). But if it is so wonderful, why is it not more widely used?

The Barker 33 Group, was set up to examine why the uptake of MMC is not greater. The think-tank originated out of the 33rd recommendation of economist Kate Barker's review of housing. The group comprises members from throughout the industry and after 18 months of deliberations, came up with some answers.

"The issue is not about the product," says Dr Ashley Lane, director of Westbury Partnerships and chair of the Barker 33 Group. "It's about skills: logistics and planning and project management, training labour, education."

The housing industry needs to rethink the way it organises its businesses and sites. Its construction managers simply do not have the skills required to get the best from modern methods of construction.

Unknown quantity

The problem with offsite or MMC is that no one is sure just how widely it is being used. One must begin by defining exactly what is meant by MMC and ‘offsite'.

It is generally understood that MMC encompasses panel construction of various types, volumetric offsite, hybrid - which combines panels, and volumetric and components such as roof trusses or thin joint blockwork. Taking all these elements into account, then 90% of housebuilders are likely to be using some form of MMC to some degree.

Recently Buildoffsite, a DTI-sponsored initiative to promote offsite, produced a report entitled: The value of the UK market for offsite. The authors, by examining recent market survey reports, calculated that the total value of offsite in 2004 was £2.2bn, or 2.1% of the UK construction sector. This includes commercial as well as housing.

A January 2004 Housing Forum report, UK capacity in offsite manufacturing, estimated that 17,000 houses a year are built using offsite methods. That figure must be much higher now. Panel manufacturer Space4, part of the Westbury Group (now Persimmon) claims it builds 30,000 homes a year for 30 house builders. That equates to 2% of all homes being built.

The Barker 33 Group came up with a different definition for MMC. The result is 59 words long and can be summed up as: "Modern Methods of Construction…engage people to seek improvement, through better processes, in the delivery and performance of construction." Or as Lane sees it, MMC makes a building site more like a factory.

So how many sites meet that definition of MMC? Perhaps only a very few?

There are several reasons why MMC - however it is defined - is not being used more. The Barker 33 Group initially identified a list of 10 barriers to the uptake of MMC at an interim reporting stage. These can be narrowed down to five areas:

There needs to be an investment in the generation of knowledge on how the market is changing

Andrew Eastwell, BSRIA

• Lack of information The reason why good data is essential, is that offsite manufacturers need to make business decisions and projections, according to Andrew Eastwell, chief executive of BSRIA. "There needs to be an investment in the generation of knowledge on how the market is changing," says Eastwell. The Government, he believes, should provide this investment, not least because it purchases 40% of construction output.
• Newness Because many have not used MMC before, it is inadequately understood. MMC also lacks a positive track record as yet. Then there are the negative stories, such as Joseph Rowntree Foundation's CASPAR development in Leeds built by Kajima. It was hailed at the time as a role model for offsite. Seven years down the line the residents have been moved out so that Arup can check its structural integrity. Stories like this grate with the sometimes inflated claims made for MMC.
• Cost Offsite champions claim that firms start looking at offsite solutions once a design is completed and are then disappointed when it does not look so cost effective compared to traditional methods. But to get the best out of such a system, it needs to be designed with this in mind.
• Inadequate skills There is a lack of the right skills across the whole project team. Architects need to design with MMC in mind, rather than expecting offsite methods to fit in somehow with the usual working practices. The construction manager needs to adapt as well. Construction does not happen in the same order when using something like finished panels. Craft workers also need to be re-educated; if a carpenter has not been told why a special sort of fixing is needed to ensure the engineering performance of a particular part of a building, why not use the old faithful six inch nail!
• MMC being imposed Then there is the feeling that Government is somehow trying to thrust MMC upon the industry. The Government can increase demand for MMC by dictating its use in a percentage of Housing Corporation projects and by its £60,000 home competition. But unless any benefits are visible and relevant it is unlikely to spill over into the private sector.

Recommendations

In its executive summary the Barker 33 Group, which has yet to publish its full report, has a more sophisticated interpretation on what the barriers are. House building is a flexible business which has to cope with all sorts of variables from site conditions to changing regulations to planning delays. It is not possible to get the best from MMC under these conditions because it requires planning and certainty. A design cannot be changed part way through a project if the walls have already been manufactured.

The Barker 33 Group has come up with recommendations under five headings to get over these barriers (see box The Barker 33 Groups' five steps to MMC). It also suggests Government set up a Central Forum to take these recommendations forward.

But it is the regulatory climate that gets a special mention. Planning delays, land supply and ever-changing building regulations create uncertainties to which MMC is just not suited.

Getting ahead

First, putting aside the issues of regulation, there are things which would encourage wider uptake of MMC. Firms need an honest account of the benefits, rather than the inflated claims that are often trotted out. A good place to start, would be with the National Audit Office (NAO) report Using modern methods of construction to build homes more quickly and efficiently (see box The truth about MMC).

Buildoffsite, which will be launched officially at Interbuild in April, is trying to spread information but its Government sponsorship probably means the message will always be upbeat.

Second, construction managers need to learn new processes, instead of trying to shoehorn new methods into old ways of doing things. The NAO study produced process maps for open panel, hybrid and volumetric methods, using a 22-house development as an example. They are not the same as for brick and block. NAO project director Raymond Fawcett explains that these will vary from firm to firm. But he urges planners to examine the differences between traditional and modern method programmes to get the real value from them.

Third and most importantly, there is the issue of training for both managers and crafts people. Offsite is often touted as an answer to dwindling skills because it requires less labour on site given the skills are used at the point of manufacture of components in the factory. However construction managers and the trades will have to be skilled-up in order to assemble buildings from offsite-manufactured components.

If those building houses do not learn a whole new set of management skills, there will be no hope for MMC, offsite, or whatever you want to call it.