Matching supply networks to a modular product architecture in the house-building industry

Hofman, Erwin; Voordijk, Hans; Halman, Johannes I.M.

doi:10.1080/09613210802628003

Cited by 61 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast with manufacturing, there is often limited incentive for suppliers to design and produce modules for a large number of projects. This is also related to the fact that building projects are one-of-a-kind, which means that the modules developed for a project are unlikely to be suitable for other projects [4]. Table 1 summarizes the differences between construction and manufacturing to be considered in product modularity.…”

Section: Product Modularity In Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, much of the design effort goes into designing modules that can be combined to produce a wide range of solutions [6]. This determines, to a large extent, the degree of customisation of dwellings and the level of efficiency that can be achieved in production [4,7,8]. Despite the potential benefits of product modularity, there are two main difficulties in the dissemination of this concept in the house-building sector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of a set of interchangeable components sub-assemblies (modules) to build a wide range of dwellings has been pointed out as one of the necessary strategies to improve the performance of the house-building industry [4,5]. In this context, much of the design effort goes into designing modules that can be combined to produce a wide range of solutions [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adopting Product Modularity in House Building to Support Mass Customisation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product modularity is a concept that can contribute to the improvement of product quality and production efficiency in house-building. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature on the concepts that define product modularity. Furthermore, little attention has been given to the differences between building construction and manufacturing, for which product modularity was originally developed. This research aims to address that gap by adapting the conceptualization of product modularity so that it can effectively be used in the house-building industry. The methodological approach adopted in this study was Design Science Research, and two empirical studies were carried out on construction companies based in Brazil and in the U.K. Those studies are used to illustrate the applicability and utility of the proposed concepts and tools. Research findings indicate that the adoption of product modularity concepts results in benefits to both traditional construction technologies and prefabricated building systems.

show abstract

Section: Product Modularity In Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adopting Product Modularity in House Building to Support Mass Customisation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specific applications of these concepts in capital good industries and related industries (e.g. construction) can be found in Veenstra et al (2006) and Hofman et al (2009). The second stream is the large and growing body of literature on engineering change management.…”

Section: Related Literature Research Motivation and Research Aimmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many capital good firms deliver products that are not strictly one-off, but instead share a certain degree of similarity with other deliveries. In the delivery of the product, they aim to balance stability and variety in their product design and processes. The issue of engineering change plays an important in how they manage to do so. Our aim is to gain more understanding into how capital good firms manage engineering change, design variety and process variety, and into the role of the product delivery strategies they thereby use. Product delivery strategies are defined as the type of engineering work that is done independent of an order and the specification freedom the customer has in the remaining part of the design. Based on the within-case and cross-case analysis of two capital good firms several mechanisms for managing engineering change, design variety and process variety are distilled. It was found that there exist different ways of (1) managing generic design information, (2) isolating large engineering changes, (3) managing process variety, (4) designing and executing engineering change processes. Together with different product delivery strategies these mechanisms can be placed within an archetypes framework of engineering change management. On one side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to open product delivery strategies, have some practices in place to investigate design reuse potential, isolate discontinuous engineering changes into the first deliveries of the product, employ 'probe and learn' process management principles in order to allow evolving insights to be accurately executed and have informal engineering change processes. On the other side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to a closed product delivery strategy, focus on prevention of engineering changes based on design standards, need no isolation mechanisms for discontinuous engineering changes, have formal process management practices in place and make use of closed and formal engineering change procedures. The framework should help managers to (1) analyze existing configurations of product delivery strategies, product and process designs and engineering change management and (2) reconfigure any of these elements according to a 'misfit' derived from the framework. Since this is one of the few in-depth empirical studies into engineering change management in the capital good sector, our work adds to the understanding on the various ways in which engineering change can be dealt with.

show abstract

“…However, the case study approach is more appropriate for exploratory research addressing 'why' and 'how' questions (Yin 2003). The case study approach is often applied in organizational studies, for instance, of re-engineering the construction process in UK speculative house-building by Roy et al (2003), matching supply networks to Dutch modular house-building by Hofman et al (2009), and managing technological innovation and processes of Swedish building component manufacturers by Larsson et al (2006). In this present study, the six case studies together aimed to contextualize, verify and expand the conceptual decision criteria framework developed from the review of existing knowledge.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing and Weighting Decision Criteria for Building System Selection in Housing Construction

Pan

Dainty

Gibb

2012

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: PAN, W., DAINTY, A. and GIBB, A., 2012. Establishing and weighting decision criteria for building system selection in housing construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and AbstractA lack of value-based decision criteria leads to an inability to effectively compare prefabrication and offsite production with conventional construction, which inhibits the realization of benefits of offsite approaches. This paper develops value-based decision criteria and quantifies their relative importance, for assessing building technologies systematically. The research employed a multi-methodological strategy within a broad case-study based design, with six large housebuilding organizations in the UK. These companies together accounted for over a tenth of new-build homes completions in the UK.Over fifty criteria were developed, grouped under cost, time, quality, health and safety, sustainability, process, procurement, and regulatory and statutory acceptance. Cost was ranked most important, which, coupled with time and quality, predominated technology selection in these companies. Sustainability, process and procurement were weighed lower, while health and safety and regulatory and statutory acceptance were deemed compulsory, hence offering no trade-off opportunity. A lack of incorporating innovative sustainable technology into corporate strategy is observed. The developed criteria and the systematic process should help housebuilding organizations manage technological innovation and hopefully achieve more informed corporate decisions.

show abstract

Matching supply networks to a modular product architecture in the house-building industry

Cited by 61 publications

References 40 publications

Adopting Product Modularity in House Building to Support Mass Customisation

Adopting Product Modularity in House Building to Support Mass Customisation

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Establishing and Weighting Decision Criteria for Building System Selection in Housing Construction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About