Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Reading 2
Two important aspects of
Part A
have been to explain the importance of resource
efficiency and to overview the characteristics of various market structures. We
suggested that, in most cases, the market structures in the construction sector are
different from those found in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing is mostly
dominated by a concentration of very large companies that are able to utilise
capital-intensive modes of mass production and benefit from economies of scale.
Whereas, in direct contrast, the construction industry is traditionally characterised
by a large number of small firms, with very few barriers to entry, a dispersed market
structure and a relatively low level of fixed costs. Which sector achieves greatest
resource efficiency (value for money) is left open to debate.
In the first of two extracts relating to
Part A,
Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb argue
that cost benefit evaluations of off-site production (OSP) are currently too focused
on costs, and that they need to become far more holistic to take full advantage of
the resource efficient benefits offered by OSP. While studying the extract, therefore,
a useful exercise would be to try to identify some of the cost-based evaluations
to account for the slow uptake of OSP and some of the broader resource efficient
advantages that would make it more economically viable.
Nick Blismas, Christine Pasquire and Alistair Gibb (2006) 'Benefit evaluation for
off-site production in construction',
Construction Management and Economics
24: 121-30
Introduction
Recent UK government reports, including
the Egan Report Rethinking Construction
(1998), produced by the Construction Task
Force, discussed the need for performance
improvements in the UK construction
industry. Egan (1998) identified supply chain
partnerships, standardisation and off-site
production (OSP) as having roles in improv-
ing construction processes. The Australian
construction industry has also recently iden-
tified OSP as a key vision for improving the
industry over the next decade (Hampson &
Brandon, 2004).
The uptake of OSP in construction
is limited however, despite the well docu-
mented benefits that can be derived from such
approaches (Neale et al., 1993; Bottom et al.,
1994; BSRIA, 1999; CIRIA, 1999, 2000;
Housing Forum, 2002; Gibb & Isack, 2003).
A major reason posited for the reluctance
among clients and contractors to adopt OSP
is that they have difficulty ascertaining the
benefits that such an approach would add to
a project (Pasquire & Gibb, 2002). The use
of OSP, by many of those involved in the
construction process, is poorly understood
(CIRIA, 2000). Some view the approach as
too expensive to justify its use, whilst others
view OSP as the panacea to the ills of the
construction industry's manifold problems
(Groak, 1992; Gibb, 2001). Neither of these
views is necessarily correct.
The benefits of OSP are largely depend-
ent on project-specific conditions, and the
combination of building methods being used
on a project. Decisions, regarding the use of
OSP, are consequently unclear and complex.
Direct comparison of components is not
usually possible due to interdependencies
between elements, trades and resources. These
complexities make the derivation and use
of holistic and inclusive evaluation methods
difficult. The unlimited combinations of
components, site conditions and degrees
of OSP do not permit the derivation of a
