Modern methods of construction (MMC) have been embraced by many countries, largely due to assertions that they offer economic advantages, mainly production time efficiencies and superior quality performance. As such, MMC are received by governments as opportunities to stimulate economies and support demands for new homes. Contractors and manufacturers see them as prospects to enter new markets and generate profits. However, end users typically lack the information required to make informed decisions. Although many studies comment on the implications of using specific MMC, arguing their superior quality performance, it is accepted that the arguments presented in the published literature lack robust empirical substantiation. This paper contributes to the fulfilment of the identified knowledge gap by presenting an evaluation of the defect performance of five MMC, namely two steel-based and one timber-frame modular construction systems, panelised light-gauge steel frame construction, and aerated concrete panelised construction methods, in one live house construction research experiment managed by a single construction contractor on one construction site. The mixed research method includes an investigation of the building design, interviews with relevant construction personnel, and analysis of project data. This paper reveals that (i) in terms of an average number of defects, the quality performance of those MMC was inferior or similar to traditional construction; (ii) although the types of defects were method-specific, MMC incurred the most consequential defects, and (iii) some off-site manufactured construction elements incurred many defects. These data and research findings should inform governments, construction employers, contractors, and end users.
Vasil Atanasov (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: