Modern methods of construction (MMC) have been received by states as opportunities to stimulate economies and meet demands for new homes, largely due to conjectures that MMC are economically effective and efficient. Although many studies have commented on the implications of using specific MMC, arguing their economic performance, and contending areas of cost efficiencies and inefficiencies, the published studies lack robust substantiation. This paper offers an evaluation of the detailed cost performance of five MMC, namely steel-based and timber-frame modular construction, light-gauge modular and panelised light-gauge steel frame construction, and aerated concrete panelised construction systems, in a live house construction experiment. Unlike previous studies where the data required adjustments for, inter alia, time and location, the context in this live research experiment is a construction project that was managed by a single contractor on one construction site. The research method includes (i) an investigation of the site conditions, management team, and residential building design; (ii) interviews with relevant construction personnel, and (iii) analysis of project data. The actual cost performance of these five MMC was, in some instances, significantly poorer than estimated in the published literature. This is mainly attributable to the greater building superstructure costs. The actual preliminary costs and minor repair costs of MMC were also larger than argued in the available literature. This paper identifies areas of improvement in the cost performance of the aforementioned five MMC, in the stated context, enlightens governments, employers, contractors, and end users, and offers valuable research data and evaluation.
Vasil Atanasov (Fri,) studied this question.