Insights into Architects’ Future Roles in Off-Site Construction

Abstract

Today’s construction industry is overflowing with new ideas about its future. Off-Site Manufacture and Construction (OSCM) is at the heart of the modern construction industry. Much has been written about the state and context of OSCM in different countries regarding its perceived benefits and barriers to implementation. Off-site production (OSP) plays an important role in improving fragmented construction processes. Although most OSP research targets the attitudes and practices of OSP adoption, there is limited understanding of the philosophical issues underpinning OSP-related architecture. The roles of the architects’ personal philosophies are neglected and this hampers their implementation of OSCM (which has had a largely technical focus). This paper explores the traditional thinking patterns of architects in China and predicts possible future roles for them. It then conceptualizes an “architectural work” mode and a “building product” mode of design and construction and identifies the shortcomings of architects in an OSCM environment. The arguments made are based on practitioners’ perceptions and the first author’s practical experiences of leading several real-life projects in recent years. The findings reveal the implications and significance of the transformation from an “architectural work” mode to a “building product” mode. We foresee a study approach that focuses on the order and rules for OSCM, resulting in architects’ existing mindsets being changed to thinking patterns and design methodologies better suited to OSCM.

Perceptions towards risks involved in off-site construction in the integrated design & construction project delivery

“…The highest ranked risk item in Table 3 is DR2 related to the design experience of designers in OSC, indicating that survey respondents perceived lack of design experience for OSC projects the most frequently occurring issues. This was consistent with findings from previous studies (e.g., Yunus and Yang, 2014;Luo et al, 2017) that designer readiness for OSC was one of the main critical factors to implement OSC. The second highest ranked risk item according to RII values calculated in Table 3 is DR5 (i.e., insufficient design code for joints between prefabricated components).…”

“… insufficiently developed laws, policies, and standards for OSC (Jiang et al, 2018a;Jiang et al, 2018b);  uncertainty in engineering performance of OSC projects due to lack of technical standards (Minghini et al, 2016);  the lack of design code could lead to more specific concerns in the design stage in OSC projects, such as the performance of connections between prefabricated structural components (Vaghei et al, 2016);  the risk in design uncertainty of joints between prefabricated components could lead to further risks in construction quality (Liao, 2018);  OSC design inadequately accommodating the local condition such as supply chain management (Zhang et al, 2014;Hong et al, 2018);  insufficient knowledge or experience of industry professionals in the design, construction, or management of OSC projects (Luo et al, 2017);  inadequate communication among OSC project teams such as lack of coordination between architects and contractor (Luo et al, 2015;Ismail et al, 2016;Pozin et al, 2017);  Higher initial cost (Mao et al, 2013;Mao et al, 2016) Among these factors, Luo et al (2015) identified these five risks more critical, namely: "poor cooperation between multi-interface," "inappropriate design codes and standards for industrialized buildings," "lack of management practices and experiences," "enormous difficulty in achieving return on high initial investment," as well as "lack of a quality monitoring mechanism for the production process." All these aforementioned risk items in OSC projects were also recognized by Mao et al (2013), with other risks also identified, for instance, improper storage or site layout of prefabricated components, the regular need for mobile crane to lift large load components, durability of prefabricated components, damage of prefabricated elements during transportation, and lack of quality monitoring on prefabricated components.…”

Factors influencing the performance of architects in construction projects

“…To do so, architects should work closely with their clients to learn the project objectives that they prioritise (Adinyira and Dafeamekpor, 2015;Marisa, 2018). Architects must realise that the common objectives of clients are the completion of the project on time, on budget and at the best quality (Meng, 2012;Luo, Zhang and Sher, 2017). Therefore, the ability to identify and prioritise project objectives is an important criterion for assessing the performance of architects.…”

“…The quality of the design of an architect has a connection with various aspects of performance (Salvatierra et al, 2019). Architects must guide their clients to prioritise project objectives, provide advice on the project feasibility and project requirement, interpret the ideas of clients into design and help them achieve the overall project objectives (Luo, Zhang and Sher, 2017;Doheim and Yusof, 2020). Moreover, architects must help the building occupants to fulfil their basic needs for dwellings and help them improve their quality of life by creating a place that can accommodate their activities (Abisuga, Famakin and Oshodi, 2016;Afolabi et al, 2018).…”

“…To date, little is known about the factors that can influence the performance of architects. Studies in architectural fields tend to focus on design tools (Li and Samuelson, 2020;Aburamadan and Trillo, 2020), design buildability issues (Van Phuong, 2017;Lee et al, 2018) and technology advancement that influence the profession (Luo, Zhang and Sher, 2017;Fürstenberg and Laedre, 2020). Furthermore, existing studies on the performance of architects fail to provide definitive evidence on which factors influence their performance.…”