search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
INDUSTRY SURVEY


In terms of the wider supply chain, respondents were asked the question ‘What do you want more of from product manufacturers who are engaging in offsite projects?’ Achieving warranties for offsite solutions from manufacturers of systems have been cited as an area of concern for some specifiers. Respondents were given a choice of possible answers, and ‘full guarantees/warranties’ was the most popular, with 70 per cent picking it. The next answers in descending order were ‘proven experience/case studies’ (67 per cent), ‘transparency of information’ (60 per cent), ‘demonstration of collaboration in the supply chain’ (54 per cent), and ‘long-term partnerships’ (28 per cent).


Suitable sectors We asked the architects which industry sectors were most appropriate for offsite construction. Housing was the top answer (45 per cent of respondents saying it was ‘very appropriate); only 4 per cent said it was ‘very inappropriate.’ However, following closely on its heels was Education and Student Accommodation (42 per cent ‘very appropriate’).


The next sector categories, in terms of their ratings as being ‘very appropriate’ were Healthcare and Social Care (28 per cent), High-Rise Residential (24 per cent), Commercial & Retail (16 per cent), Transport & Infrastructure (14 per cent), Sports & Leisure (13 per cent). Bringing up the rear, and some way behind, was Cultural & Civic Buildings – a mere 7 per cent of respondents said such buildings were very appropriate for offsite, though a total of 25 per cent saying they were somewhat appropriate.


Maintaining specifications ‘Specification switching’ during the value engineering process has been vilified by many commentators for negatively impacting buildings’ quality in a range of sectors, and potentially adding to the ‘performance gap’ between design and construction effectiveness.


However, our survey revealed that the move to precisely-controlled factory construction of building elements, with greater cost certainty, may be the panacea which avoids these late-stage substitutions for less effective products, once buildings are on site. In total, 77 per cent of respondents agreed that maintaining a specification would be easier to guarantee through a project due to ‘better quality controls’ in offsite construction, and 28 per cent ‘strongly agreed.’ This will be good news for not only architects and clients, but also for product manufacturers looking to engage in offsite construction. Despite this, even some respondents who ‘slightly agreed’ with the statement that specifications could be more ‘locked in,’ offered caveats. One commented that there was a trade-off between the reduction in specification switching due to freezing designs, and inflexibility to tailor designs and shop around because of increased standardisation: “Offsite manufacturers often have their supply chains set, and as architects this can reduce the scope for bespoke design and force us to take what the supply chain offers only.” Another said: “Due to only a specific number of products being suitable, the choice can be taken away from specifiers.”


There were mixed views on this however, with other commentators saying offsite projects were “more bespoke,” and that “the client is more involved at this [early] stage and is keen to maintain specification.”


Remaining barriers In conclusion, the survey found that barriers remain to the adoption of offsite across the supply chain. The biggest overarching issue, according to respondents, was a combination of the stigma still attached to offsite solutions, and ‘adherence to traditional approaches,’ with 69 per cent citing it as a barrier, and 28 per cent as a ‘serious barrier.’


The next biggest issue to resolve was ‘resistance to change in building contractors,’ with 21 per cent calling it a


39


‘serious barrier,’ – ‘resistance to change in the supply chain’ was in third place, with 18 per cent. Although seen as a ‘serious barrier,’ warranties and insurance of offsite systems was overall only seen as a barrier to wide adoption by 32 per cent, making it a relatively small issue. Contractural issues, ‘collaboration and coordination challenges,’ and cost all featured as issues of concern. However, their low scores suggested they were unlikely to be prohibitive, given the right amount of will. It’s clear from the survey that offsite is moving to the foreground of UK construction and design, but according to architects, a smooth trajectory is not yet assured. 


SELECTED COMMENTS


“Information and opportunities not advertised enough”


“Lack of skills and knowledge” “A lot of architectural technologists don’t understand it”


“There only seems to be marginal awareness of offsite construction and benefits of pre-fabrication in architectural education. Similarly, in practice it is not very widely discussed when in the design stages”


“The role appears to be led by contractors and design has generally taken a back seat”


“Snobbishness in the profession and a suspicion that creativity is limited and that their skills will be marginalised”


“Manufacturers do not sell themselves enough”


For the full version of the White Paper on this survey, please visit ADF online at: www.architectsdatafile.co.uk/news/hot-topic-exploring-current-thinking-in- offsite-construction


ADF NOVEMBER 2020


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132