This document is a dissertation submitted by a student at the University of Northumbria at Newcastle in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree in Construction Management. The dissertation focuses on investigating negative perceptions of offsite production in the UK construction industry that stem from past failings, and how these perceptions have impacted the uptake of offsite production. The student conducted a literature review on the history and definitions of offsite production. They also examined past failures of offsite production in the UK and modern perceptions. A questionnaire was distributed to gather perspectives from industry professionals. The results were then analyzed to determine if negative perceptions from past failures have directly impacted the use of offsite production.

1. UNIVERSITY OF NORTHUMBRIA AT NEWCASTLE
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT
An investigation into negative perceptions of offsite production
from past failings and its effect on industry uptake: A UK study
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
Construction Management
Dissertation declaration form
By
08028701
March 2013

2. 2
Abstract
This study focuses on past failings of offsite production and the effect they have had
on people’s perceptions within the UK construction industry. The topic of offsite
production is one that has been researched greatly in recent times, focusing
predominantly on the general benefits and barriers toward the uptake of offsite
production. This study looks at the barrier of ‘past failings’ in more detail in an
attempt to gauge a deeper understanding of how much these past events have
affected peoples perceptions.
The researcher began by defining offsite production and identifying past failures
regarding the use of offsite production before understanding how offsite production
is generally perceived. The UK government was identified as a supporter toward the
uptake of offsite production and from this the researcher then reviewed the extent in
which the Government is pushing the implementation of offsite production within
UK construction. An assessment of the modern day industry perception toward
offsite production was carried out through the means of a structured questionnaire. A
comparative analysis of certain variables was then carried out to prove/disprove the
researchers hypothesis.
The results highlighted that many industry professionals still gauge their perception
toward offsite production from past failures rather than that of modern day offsite
methods, which are a drastic improvements to that of past methods. The study
revealed that ‘past failures’ is most responsible for the stigma that has been
associated to offsite production even more than cost implications, which the
researcher initially presumed based from previous studies. It was ultimately revealed
that in order for many industry professionals to begin taking offsite production
seriously, their out-dated, negative perceptions must be addressed.

3. 3
Acknowledgement
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who took the time out to complete the
questionnaire. Without this information there would be no study.
I would like to offer my appreciation to Victor Samwinga for his continued support
throughout the year, helping me understand what it is that makes a study successful.
Last but not least, a big thank you to my family for their invaluable support and
patience throughout this challenging time.

4. Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Nature of the problem ......................................................................................... 8
1.2 Aim ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 9
1.4 Outline research methodology ............................................................................ 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction to chapter ...................................................................................... 11
2.2 Offsite Production (OSP): A definition ............................................................ 11
2.3 A Background to the use of OSP ...................................................................... 13
2.4 Barriers affecting the uptake of OSP ................................................................ 14
2.5 Historical failings with the use of OSP within the UK ..................................... 16
2.6 Modern day negative perception toward OSP .................................................. 17
2.7 Government involvement towards improving the image of OSP in the UK .... 18
2.8 Summary of chapter .......................................................................................... 19
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction to chapter ...................................................................................... 20
3.2 Statement of aim ............................................................................................... 20
3.3 Objectives .......................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Relating theory to research ............................................................................... 21
3.5 Research approach & rationale ......................................................................... 22
3.7 Questionnaire design ......................................................................................... 23
3.8 Research Sampling ............................................................................................ 24
3.9 Pilot study ......................................................................................................... 25
3.10 Method of analysis .......................................................................................... 25
Chapter 4: Analysis of results
4.1 Scope of chapter ................................................................................................ 28
4.2 Descriptive analysis of results ........................................................................... 28
4.3 Inferential statistical testing (Chi-squared test) ................................................ 44
Chapter 5: Conclusion
References
4

5. 5
List of illustrations
Figure 3.1: 5 steps to consider before carrying out Bivariate Analysis 26
Figure 3.2: Chi-squared formula 27
Figure 4.1: Industry experience against knowledge of past failings 30
Figure 4.2: Response to Question 4 31
Figure 4.3: Response to Question 5 33
Figure 4.4: Response to Question 6 33
Figure 4.5: Response to Question 7 34
Figure 4.6: Response to Question 7 (excluding respondents who have not used 35
offsite production)
Figure 4.7: Response to Question 8 37
Figure 4.8: Response to Question 9 38
Figure 4.9: Response to Question 10 39
Figure 4.10: Response to Question 11 40
Figure 4.11: Response to Question 12 41
Figure 4.12: Response to Question 14 42
Figure 4.13: Response to Question 15 43
Figure 4.14: Negative perception/consider using offsite production 45

6. 6
List of tables
Table 1.1: Levels of MMC 12
Table 3.1: Differences between quantitative and qualitative research strategies 21
Table 4.1: Frequency results of respondents’ age 28
Table 4.2: Frequency results of respondents' profession 29
Table 4.3: Frequency results of respondents' experience 29
Table 4.4: Locality of offsite suppliers within the UK 31
Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for Section One 32
Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for Section Two 36
Table 4.7: Chi-square test result 45

7. 7
Abbreviations
MMC – Modern Methods of Construction
OSP – Offsite Production

8. 8
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Nature of the problem
With the ever-growing pressure to deliver buildings quicker, cheaper and to a higher
standard, many industry professionals as well as the UK government have begun to
realize that offsite production (OSP) may be the solution. The benefits of OSP have
been one of much interest to the UK government ever since it was highlighted within
the 1998 Egan report as a possible solution to improving the way in which projects
can be delivered. Several pan-industry review groups has been set up by the
government since the 1998 Egan report to gauge further understanding of the general
advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of OSP, with most offering
positive feedback.
It is widely accepted that offsite production (OSP) can, if delivered properly, can
offer levels of quality and accuracy of which traditional methods simply cannot
match (CIC, 2013). As OSP is ultimately a process in which parts, or on rare
occasions all of a building, are manufactured away from the buildings final
destination, some projects have also seen project times reduced by as much as 50%
(Cook, 2006). The OSP industry is one that has had to reinvent itself in recent times
due to numerous failings in the past, occurring mostly during the post-war era.
Unfortunately there are many industry professionals today who still perceive OSP to
be risky and dangerous, which has no doubt stemmed from these past failings, and as
a result OSP has failed to reach the economies of scale it has the potential to be. If
industry professionals with out-dated perceptions are not educated on the fact that
OSP has drastically improved since these past failings, then the uptake of OSP will
continue to suffer as a result.
This study aims to find out the extent of out-dated, negative perceptions toward OSP
that exists within the UK construction industry, and will ultimately reveal whether
negative perceptions from past failings has a direct impact toward the uptake of OSP.

9. 9
1.2 Aim
The aim of this study is to determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past
failings have a direct impact toward the uptake of the OSP industry.
1.3 Objectives
1. To examine the historical failures that influenced negative perceptions of
offsite construction
2. To find out whether negative perception of offsite construction still exists
3. To assess the governments performance in improving the image of offsite
construction
4. To determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past failings has
a direct impact toward the uptake of OSP.
1.4 Outline research methodology
Stage One: Literature review
The literature review will form the qualitative data of the study supported by
numerous primary sources of research such as published papers, government
publications as well as several industry review reports. The majority of the study’s
aims will be identified within this section and these outcomes will heavily influence
the direction of the study.
Stage Two: Data collection
Quantitative data will be gathered in the form of a questionnaire to strengthen the
researchers initial aims. 32 responses were collated and included only construction
industry professionals including Designers, Contractors, Consultant and Offsite
manufacturers. Of the 15 questions asked, 13 were closed as the researcher required
specific answers and 2 were open to allow researcher the opportunity to explore
additional information from the respondents. A pilot study was conducted prior to

10. 10
the official release of the study to give the researcher an opportunity to remedy any
issues relating to the questions.
Stage Three: Data analysis (including inferential statistical testing)
The data will then be analysed to uncover any similarities between responses as well
as identifying any trends that could offer the researcher answers to support the
conclusion of the study. Inferential tests were also carried out to test the researchers’
hypothesis on whether or not negative perceptions of OSP from past failings have a
direct impact on the uptake of OSP within the UK.
Stage Four: Conclusion and recommendations
A conclusion will summarize the findings of the study and the researcher will then
offer recommendations for future research as well as highlighting the limitations
faced within this particular study.

11. 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction to chapter
This chapter critically analyses existing literature on the use of offsite production
(OSP) in the UK. The chapter is structured into several key sections. The first of
which will define what is meant by OSP. From limited resources, the study will then
identify the history of OSP, before discussing instances of past failings of OSP use
within the UK. The following section discusses the modern day negative perception
of OSP within the industry before finally discussing the influence UK Government
has toward the uptake of OSP.
Although the subject of OSP has been one of great interest in recent times, most
research has aimed to identify a generalisation of advantages and disadvantages of
OSP. As well as an increase in academic literature, there has been several pan-industry
review groups set up by UK Government over recent years to look into the
potential of OSP, however these initiatives have again produced a more general
insight into the benefits and constraints of offsite use. Whilst these researches may
have provided useful information of the pros and cons with regards to the
implementation of OSP, there appears to be a need to investigate each benefit and/or
barrier in much more detail to fully understand the level of influence each has on the
industry. Due to limitations of this particular research, only the barrier of negative
perceptions from past failings will be looked at in more detail in an attempt to fill the
void that has been left by previous, generalised researches.
2.2 Offsite Production (OSP): A definition
As far back as the 19th Century, the term ‘offsite production’, or as was more
commonly referred to as ‘prefabrication’, has divided many with regards to its
specific meaning (White, 1965). One of the most accurate earlier definitions is
referenced within Burnham Kelly’s’ The prefabrication of Houses (1951, p. 2)
whereby “a prefabricated home is one having walls, partitions, floors, ceilings and/or
roof composed of sections of panels varying in size which have been fabricated in a
factory prior to erection on the building foundation”. Further definitions mentioned

12. 12
within White (1965) share similar views and it is generally accepted that
prefabrication is ultimately a process in which parts, or on rare occasions all of a
building, are manufactured away from the buildings final destination.
In more recent times, the definition of ‘offsite’ has not changed dramatically.
Buildoffsite (2007, p.10) emphasizes offsite as a coming together of groups and
businesses with a common goal of creating the elements of the built environment
under factory conditions as opposed to on site. According to Nadim and Goulding
(2011, p.137), Offsite Production (OSP) falls under the overarching umbrella of
Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), which is a term coined by UK
Government to describe a number of innovations of which most are offsite
technologies, moving work from the construction site to the factory’.
Cook (2006, p.51) identifies five levels of MMC. The most basic level of MMC is
the sub-assembly of components for particular building modules such as the roof,
moving all the way up to full volumetric units that can be delivered to site fully
finished and serviced. For the purpose of this study, the author aims to focus
primarily on Level 3 and Level 4 MMC.
Level of MMC Extent Description
Level 0 Basic materials With no pre-installation
assembly aspects
Level 1 Component sub-assembly Small sub-assemblies that
are habitually assembled
prior to installation.
Level 2 Non-volumetric pre-assembly
Planar, skeletal or
complex units made from
several individual
components – and that are
sometimes still assembled
on-site in traditional
construction.
Level 3 Volumetric pre-assembly Pre-assembled units that
enclose useable space –
can be walked into –
installed within or onto
other structures – usually
fully finished internally.

13. 13
Level 4 Modular building Pre-manufactured
buildings – volumetric
units that enclose useable
space but also form the
structure of the building
itself – usually fully
finished internally, but
may have external finishes
added on site.
Table 1.1: Levels of MMC (Cook, 2006)
2.3 A Background to the use of OSP
Whilst it may appear OSP is a relatively new process, there are numerous evidences
to suggest otherwise. According to Gibb (1999, p.8) OSP is not that new in itself and
that specialist books dealing with timber buildings date off-site production to the
twelfth century (Hewitt, 1980). Another early use of OSP occurred in New South
Wales, Australia, between 1827 and 1829, which consisted of “well-made wooden
houses, built in sections in England and packed especially for import” (Herbert,
1978). Several readings, including Herbert (1979) and Herbert (1984) refer to an
1830 advertising pamphlet that advertised a ‘comfortable dwelling that can be
erected in a few hours after landing’.
The first real surge of OSP within the United States of America surfaced in 1941 as a
result of two Architects’ dream of the “Packaged House” (Herbert, 1984). According
to Herbert (1984, p.xi), both Walter Gropius and Konrad Wachsmann began to
collaborate on a project for industrialized modular housing. Unfortunately the
projects success was short lived and Herbert (1984, p.xii) goes on to explain that the
ambitious project had effectively collapsed by the 1950’s.
With regards to the introduction of OSP in the UK, there is evidence to suggest that
it did not pick up seriously until the end of the 19th Century (White, 1965; Herbert,
1984; Gibb, 1999). External influences around this time were Henry Ford’s
advancement with the use of assembly lines in car manufacturing as well as the
provision to standardize in mass production heavily influenced by World War One
(White, 1965). The greatest interest in OSP within the UK came at the turn of world
war two. As mentioned by Hillbrandt (1944, p.8) ‘the National Builder devoted

14. 14
considerable attention to housing, both long term and short term, and reported
developments in the design and production of prefabricated housing as well as the
overall needs at the end of the war’.
OSP took a further step forward by mid-1950s. As highlighted by Cook (2007, p.
67), the introduction of a consortium of Local Authority, pre-fabricated systems in
1957, including CLASP (Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme),
SCOLA (Second Consortium of Local Authorities) and MACE (Metropolitan
Architectural Consortium for Education) was seen as a breakthrough moment of
prefabrication in the UK. According to Ford (1992, p. 256) these systems, especially
CLASP, gained worldwide attention due to their innovative designs, and there were
even reports that the Mexican government tried to emulate them (Ford, 1992).
Although the initial idea of using OSP has always been one that holds many
advantages over traditional methods, recent studies reveal a plethora of issues
identified by industry professionals that they feel have hindered the uptake of OSP,
specifically within the UK.
2.4 Barriers affecting the uptake of OSP
Since the revival of UK offsite construction in the 1990’s, there has been an increase
in academic literature aimed towards the potential of OSP within the UK, such as
Blismas et al (2007), Goodier & Gibb (2007), Pan et al (2007) and Nadim and
Goulding (2008). In support of this, there has also been several government led
reviews that sought to identify the advantages towards implementing OSP within the
UK. Most notable publications include Latham (1994), Egan (1998), BRE (2003)
Barker (2003), CABE (2004), Venebles and Courtney (2004) & BURA (2005). In
researching the advantages of offsite production, the majority of research naturally
identifies common barriers that have historically affected the uptake of OSP. There is
comprehensive agreement between most literatures that in order for OSP to be taken
seriously within the UK several barriers must be addressed. This is best summarised
by BURA (2005) who identifies cost, demand, rate of delivery, design
considerations, lenders and insurance as the key barriers that must be overcome. The
most common barrier identified within the literature researched for this study was the
initial costs associated with the use of OSP.

15. A survey of the top 100 house builders in the UK carried out by Pan et al. (2007)
uncovered ‘higher capital costs’ as the single biggest barrier to the use of MMC. This
opinion is echoed in a study carried out by Nadim & Goulding (2008) in which 92
per cent of respondents agreed ‘increased initial costs’ to be the single biggest
inhibitor to the uptake of OSP. Further studies carried out by Goodier & Gibb
(2007), Blismas et al. (2007) and Pan et al. (2007) all identify issues relating to cost
as the key barrier to address. Since these studies, there has been a high response in
literature attempting to address the concerns surrounding the cost barriers associated
with OSP, none more so than Pan and Sidwell (2011, p. 109) who revealed from
their study on 20 medium to high rise residential buildings during a five-year period
from 2004-2008 that the myth of high capital cost could be proved unfounded as
long as there was ‘long-term commitment from organisations’ and ‘continuous
exploration of the offsite technology in collaboration with their supply chains’.
15
With the exclusion of cost related barriers of OSP, studies become more varied in
responses as to what barrier is of greatest influence in the uptake of OSP. A study
carried out by Nadim and Goulding (2008) found that ‘design flexibility’ was the
most important non-cost related inhibitor for the use of OSP, whilst Pan et al.
(2007a) and Pan et al. (2007b) uncovered ‘the difficulty to achieve economies of
scale’. Interestingly, Blismas and Wakefield’s’ (2009) study identified the ‘lack of
industry knowledge’ as being just as influential as ‘initial costs’.
It is clear from recent studies and academic literature researched that there is a
collective agreement of the barriers affecting the uptake of OSP. Whilst it is clear
cost barriers are at the top of most studies regarding the uptake of OSP, what is
difficult to identify is which non-cost related barrier is most influential. One
particular barrier that is continually referenced in the majority of literature that does
not appear to have been independently addressed is the negative, out-dated
perceptions of offsite production through past historical failures.

16. 16
2.5 Historical failings with the use of OSP within the UK
Whilst prefabrication was initially deemed to be a technological development of
great potential and forward thinking, several incidents began to raise questions over
the future of the industry. Due to poor workmanship and erection of most fabricated
buildings in the late 1950s, CLASP eventually fell out of favour within the UK, and
critics subsequently began referring to the system as ‘a collection of loosely
assembled steel parts’ (Cole, 2011). According to Langford and Murray (2003,
p.199) the prefabrication techniques adopted in the 1940s and 1950’s used to house
those returning from World War II were also adopted in the high-rise buildings
during the 1960s. It was with this that in 1968 a gas explosion at a 23-storey
residential tower block, now known as the Ronan Point Disaster, resulted in the
building to partially collapse, killing five people. The responsibility of the collapse
pointed to the use of the Larsen-Nielsen system - a form of offsite production in
which loadbearing, reinforced concrete walls panels are slotted together like a pack
of cards with no structural underpinning. Parkinson-Bailey (2000, p.193) goes on to
suggest that the Ronan Point disaster effectively put an end to high-density housing
using offsite techniques, and in 1968 the Ministry of Housing and Local Government
began to focus on refurbishment schemes rather than demolition and rebuilding.
Beanland (2013) strengthens the point of poor use of OSP by highlighting that
concrete panels were not always cast correctly and the workers did not always screw
the panel’s together right. Beanland (2013) also goes on to suggest that the wholesale
flogging of these offsite systems (including occasional bribery) by construction
contractors, rather than by architects with reputations to preserve, damned many
system-built blocks. Despite the relatively poor track record of OSP within the UK,
the market continued into the 1980s with the development of steel, timber and
concrete framed housing, so much so that by the mid-1980s timber framed grew to
around 30% of the new build market (HSE, 2009). However the success of timber
frame was short lived in part due to a 1983 TV documentary by Granada television
which exposed timber framed housing in the UK, alleging that defects in
workmanship made timber framed homes more vulnerable to fire and rot (Inside
Housing, 2009). Naturally the market plummeted as a result.

17. 17
Whilst Langford and Murray (2003) highlight a revival of prefabrication in the
1990’s, it can be argued that not everyone has moved on from the incidents in the
past, and that prefabrication, or ‘offsite construction’, remains to be perceived as
‘dangerous’ and ‘risky’. A study by CIC (2013) highlights instances of poor use of
offsite production whereby in the late 1960s, construction defects led to buildings
suffering from cold-bridging, damp penetration and mould growth as well as poor
mould growth due to badly designed space heating systems.
2.6 Modern day negative perception toward OSP
The existence of negative perception toward OSP is evident within many recent
academic studies including Blismas et al (2007) Goodier and Gibb, 2007 Pan et al
(2007) and Nadim & Goulding (2008). In addition, Na (2007, p.21) highlights that in
both the United States and the United Kingdom, negative perception from
construction industry practitioners has always been considered a major challenge to
the industry. Within all of these studies the barrier of negative perception is not
deemed to be as influential as issues regarding cost concerns, although it is certainly
a barrier that many see as a hindrance to the industry’s uptake. A review by Edge et
al. (2002, p.5) found that house buyers are so strongly influenced by negative
perceptions of the post-war ‘prefab’ that they will resist any innovations in house
construction that affect what a ‘traditional’ house looks like. Pan et al. (2004,
pp.184) goes on to suggest that through historic failures of offsite practice, the
human perception barrier also exists among architects and other designers. A later
study by Pan et al. (2007) highlights the need that peoples’ perception should be
challenged, and revealed that ‘attitudinal barriers due to historic failure’ rated ‘fairly
significant’ in terms of barriers to the use of offsite MMC. Nadim and Goulding
(2008) reinforce this perception by suggesting within their study that past
experiences of OSP failures may have overshadowed the potential benefits of OSP.
Buildoffsite (2007, p.6) highlight their own in-house work programme that has been
created ‘to promote the use of offsite solutions, to increase understanding amongst
clients and suppliers and to engage with obstacles and outmoded perceptions’. The
study outlines that whilst OSP has existed for a long time, many still regard offsite
construction as something new and potentially risky, and should be best avoided if at
all possible (2007, p.11). Furthermore, Schoenborn (2012, p.8) recognizes that there

18. is a stigma of poor building quality associated with OSP due to a history of cheap
manufactured buildings that has limited the involvement of architects in the modular
construction industry. There is also evidence that suggests even using terminology
such as ‘modular’ and ‘pods’ can also affect client perception regarding OSP.
Schoenborn (2012, p.124) highlights a particular example in which, when a client
realised their building would be constructed using modular methods, ‘everyone on
the board developed a preconceived notion that they were going to get trailers, and
the project got shot down’.
In support of the these studies, UK Government publications regarding the use of
OSP have also highlighted negative perception as one of several key barriers to
overcome within the offsite industry. BURA (2005, p.12) states that ‘In terms of
confidence, a patchy track record dating back to the 1960’s of ‘pre-fab’ and system-built
18
approaches will need to be overcome’ and continues by stating that modelling
MMC as a best practice method of construction could in fact help overcome the
stigma associated with factory-based construction methods.
2.7 Government involvement towards improving the image of
OSP in the UK
The Government is the UKs single biggest construction client (BURA, 2005). The
construction industry itself represents around £140bn of expenditure per year in the
UK with the Government, or public sector, contributing 40% of this (Great Britain,
Cabinet Office, 2011). In recent times, the Government has sought action to improve
the construction industry, and one particular focus has been to increase the use of
offsite construction methods (Nadim & Goulding, 2008). With this, several
independent professionals as well as pan-industry review groups have assisted the
Government in providing a clearer scope with regards to the potential of OSP within
the UK, including Latham (1994), Egan (1998), Barker (2003), CABE (2004) and
BURA (2005).
For 2013 the UK government has set up yet another pan-industry review group to
look further into the offsite sector (Construction Manager, 2012). Hayman (2012)
references a statement by communities’ secretary Eric Pickles, in which the new off-site
construction group would look “in detail at the barriers holding back the growth

19. of this part of the sector and how increased use of such techniques can be
incentivized” (Hayman, 2012). According to Hayman (2012) offsite construction has
long been promoted by the government as a means to streamline the construction
process for new homes and was a major part of the previous Labour government’s
strategy following the 1998 Egan Review. As an example of government
involvement, in 2013 Main Contractor Skanska were successful in securing a
£750,000 government grant to trial mobile workshops, which will be used to
assemble offsite technologies and then be reused from site to site. (Construction
Enquirer, 2013). From research it appears the Government is listening to the positive
advice from these reviews. In 2005, a competition was launched by Design for
Manufacture (DfM) aimed at ‘building upon the recommendations of the Egan and
Latham reports and stimulate fresh thinking within the house building and
construction industries’ (Designed for Manufacture, 2010).
19
2.8 Summary of chapter
From this research, the author identifies that whilst offsite production is an industry
of great potential, there are numerous barriers affecting its uptake within the UK.
Costs, economies of scale and negative perceptions formed from historical failures
are all mentioned in the majority of researched literature as being associated with the
slow uptake of offsite within the UK. Whilst the majority of key barriers have been
researched further from general studies, such as Pan and Sidwells’ 2011
Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK, the barrier of
negative perception seems to have had limited individual attention. From this, the
author has based the focus of this study around addressing negative perceptions with
regards to OSP. The author identifies the historical background of offsite production,
specifically within the UK, and also identifies key historical failures of offsite
production that has formulated a so-called negative perception. Government schemes
and initiatives relating to the uptake of OSP have been critically reviewed with the
intention of formulating an appropriate strategy going forward which aims to address
the issue of negative perception. The next chapter outlines how the study is
engineered with reference to the chosen data collection methods.

20. 20
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction to chapter
This chapter explains the rationale behind the chosen research method and how the
data was collected. As an essential part of the research it is important that the author
understands all possible methods of data collection with the intention of adopting the
most suitable to the research. The author will discuss a range of theoretical
approaches attributed to research methodology before justifying the chosen data
collection method for this study and subsequently how the data was gathered.
From the literature review, the author has identified that negative perception toward
offsite production based from past historical failings still exists within the UK
construction industry. From this, the researcher will attempt to identify a connection
between negative perception of offsite production and level of industry experience.
This theory will be tested through quantitative research, which will now be discussed
in more detail.
3.2 Statement of aim
The aim of this study is to determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past
failings have a direct impact toward the uptake of the OSP industry.
3.3 Objectives
1. To assess the historical failures that has influenced the negative
perceptions of offsite construction
2. To find out whether negative perception of offsite construction still exists
3. To assess the governments performance in improving the image of offsite
construction
4. To determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past failings has
a direct impact toward the uptake of OSP.

21. Inductive; generation of
theory
21
3.4 Relating theory to research
For many years now, social ‘scientists’ have engaged in research without any links to
theory whereas social ‘theorists’ have theorized without research (O’Leary, 2010).
As put by O’Leary (2010, p.74), “this tendency to dichotomize, however, is
diminishing and we are beginning to recognize the value of exploring quite tangible
issues relating to theory”. Bryman (2012, p.20) expands on this by identifying two
standout issues regarding the link between theory and research. Firstly, it is
important to understand the form of theory that one is talking about, and secondly,
deciding whether the data will be collected either to test or to build theories.
Quantitative Qualitative
Principal orientation to the
role in relation to research
Deductive; testing of
theory
Epistemological orientation Natural science model,
in particular positivism
Interpretivism
Ontological orientation Objectivism Constructionism
Figure 3.1: Fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative research
strategies (Bryman, 2008)
Two popular theories aimed toward the philosophical understanding of social
behaviour are positivism and interpretivism. In reference to Bryman (2008, p.28)
positivism is “an epistemological position that advocates the application of the
methods of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and beyond”. In
contrast, Fellows and Liu (2008, p.69) identifies interpretivism as act of
interpretation that “implies the existence of a conceptual schema or model on the part
of in interpreter such that what is being observed and interpreted is assumed to
conform logically to the facts and explanations inherent in the model”. Through the
paradigms of both positivism and interpretivism come different methodological
approaches, namely deductive (positivism) and inductive (interpretivism) theory.

22. One of the most common views regarding the nature of the relationships between
theory and social research is deductive theory (Bryman, 2012). Sometimes called the
hypothetico-deductive method, deductive reasoning will, in an experimental
research, require the researcher to initially outline a hypothesis based on a theory,
and then introduce empirical methods to see whether it is confirmed (Davies, 2007).
Oppositely, when theory is the outcome of research it is known as inductive theory
(Bryman, 2012). In other words, inductive theory starts not with a predetermined
truth or belief but instead with an observation (Leedy and Ormrod, 2010).
Quantitative research is a strategy that focuses on looking and measuring variables
by using commonly accepted measures of the physical world (Leedy and Ormrod,
2010). The purpose of using quantitative is to establish or validate possible
relationships and developing generalizations that may contribute to existing theories
(Leedy and Ormrod, 2010). Qualitative research is, as best described by Bryman
(2012, p. 380), “a research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than
quantification in the collection and analysis of data”. A qualitative research will use
collected data and create theoretical ideas in comparison to experimental research
that begins with a theoretical position and amasses data to test its validity (Davies,
2007).
22
3.5 Research approach & rationale
Due to the lack of similar research on the study aim, it was necessary to obtain both
qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data was achieved through a literature
review. This method of collecting qualitative data is supported within Davies (2007,
p.151), whereby qualitative data can be obtained through “interviewing and
observation to the use of artefacts, documents and records from the past”. This
particular way of data collection is deductive in its nature, as it required the
researcher to evaluate relevant primary and secondary sources of information
including reports, journals, government publications, textbooks and magazines. The
researcher also used a second method of data collection through a quantitative
approach. Formulated from the initial literature review, the quantitative approach of
the study is aimed toward UK construction professionals to identify a connection
between negative perception toward offsite production and level of industry
experience. This method of data collection is inductive in its nature and, as

23. 23
highlighted by Bryman (2012), the process of induction involves drawings
generalizable inferences out of observation.
After careful consideration, it was decided by the researcher that a survey would be
distributed as the primary data collection. This was heavily influenced by the 2006
study of Goodier and Gibb that sought to understand the future opportunities for
offsite in the UK. One particular issue this study suffered was the lack of available
information, and as a result a qualitative literature review was undertaken before
formulating and distributing an industry-specific survey. The results from the
literature review were influential toward the structure and content of the subsequent
questionnaire that was aimed purely toward UK industry professionals. From the
questionnaire responses within Goodier and Gibb, a steering committee was then
formed to delve further into the study issues, however with regards to this particular
study, time and resource limitations prevented the researcher from looking at this
source of data collection.
3.7 Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was broken down into four key sections and in total consisted
fifteen questions. Section one of the survey sought to identify industry experience,
professional background and geographical information. Section two aimed to
identify the interviewee’s knowledge and experience with the use of offsite
production. The third section sought to uncover general perceptions toward offsite
production before concluding the survey with the fourth and final section that
focused on the future of offsite production. In total there were thirteen closed
questions and two open questions. The focus on asking closed questions was to limit
the scope of answers in order to define the research. As highlighted by O’Leary
(2010, p.191), closed questions incorporate predetermined responses that are simple
to code and statistically analyse. Two open questions were included in the survey to
offer additional qualitative data to the study. With an open question, a respondent
can answer without guidelines or limitation. Bryman (2012, p.247) suggests the use
of open questions can be used to tap into the respondent’s knowledge and are useful
at exploring areas in which the researcher has limited knowledge. For the purpose of
this study, open questions were asked by the researcher to uncover any specific

24. 24
event/events regarding poor use of offsite production that they felt could have
influenced people’s perception toward the industry in a negative way.
3.8 Research Sampling
All targets respondents of the study were from a construction related background
with experience in the UK. The method of sampling was non-random as the
researcher identified a selected group of individuals before conducting the
questionnaire. The survey was produced through an internet-based survey provider
and was conducted through the period of February 15 2013 until Friday 1 March
2013. In total, four key categories of industry professionals were targeted:
Contractors, Consultants, Designers and Modular Suppliers/Manufacturers. Whilst
the perceptions of these four categories of professionals were of most importance to
the study, it would have been inappropriate to restrict the study to just these
categories, and as such the study expanded to Engineers, Technologists, Developers,
Quantity Surveyors and any other relevant construction profession within the UK. As
the initial literature review suggests, there is still somewhat a lack of understanding
regarding offsite production and, together with the intention of understanding the
industry’s perception toward offsite production, the researcher deemed it
unnecessary and ineffective to limit the data collection to just one particular
profession. It was also decided by the researcher that Client perception would not be
part of the study as it is unlikely that they would have enough understanding of the
offsite production industry for it to be worthwhile approaching.
The survey was distributed to a national Architectural practice, a Main Contractor
and a Consultancy company, all of which the researcher has past experiences with.
The researcher targeted particular individuals within these companies with varied
experience within the construction industry. This type of sampling is identified
within O’Leary (2010) as ‘hand-picked’ sampling, which involves selecting a sample
with a particular purpose in mind.
As the researcher did not personally know of any Modular suppliers, a hand picked
sample could not be used to reach these professionals. Instead the survey was posted
onto several offsite/modular-related groups within the professional network LinkedIn

25. in order to attract the attention of group members with, but not limited to, a modular
background.
25
3.9 Pilot study
Prior to the survey being conducted, it was important to undertake a pilot study. By
doing this, the researcher was able to identify any issues or concerns regarding the
questions within the survey. To carry this out, the researcher invited construction-related
university peers to complete the survey. The results were that the majority of
questions made sense although there were instances where the wording of some
questions proved challenging to understand and answer. After careful consideration
to the issues, the researcher identified the error and restructured the question with
successful results. This was an important step for the researcher to understand the
importance of how a survey should be structured, worded, and grouped effectively.
3.10 Method of analysis
The data for this research was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS). One of the reasons the researcher has chosen to use SPSS is to formulate a
set of frequency tables. The frequency table will identify each variable within a given
question and how often a particular variable within a question was chosen out of all
completed surveys within the study. Descriptive statistics such as standard deviation
will also be shown that will aim to identify how much variance there is from the
mean of the frequencies, which will also be shown. The majority of answers will also
be shown in the form of tables and charts to give a visual representation of the
results.
In order to assess the relationships between two questions, or variables, a bivariate
analysis has been executed. Also known as the inferential statistical analysis method,
a bivariate analysis is a statistical significance test that aims to test the difference
between proportions (Naoum, 2008). Naoum addresses five key stages that must be
considered before carrying out a bivariate analysis, as shown in fig.2.

26. Step 1: Formulate your research hypothesis
Step 2: State the null hypothesis
Step 3: Decide which test to use
Step 4: Calculate and obtain the test statistics
Step 5: Decide whether the result is significant
Figure 3.1: 5 steps to consider before carrying out Bivariate Analysis (Naoum, 2008)
As the study focuses on testing the association between two sets of data, the bivariate
analysis method chosen for the study was the non-parametric, Pearson chi-squared
test (Naoum, 2008). The chi-squared test will predict the number of subjects in each
group that will fall into certain categories (Naoum, 2008). This will be used to test
the researchers null hypothesis, and the result will provide a solid foundation toward
the conclusion of the study. It is important to understand that a chi-squared test can
only be used for ordinal and nominal data.
Null Hypothesis
The respondents were grouped in terms of their perception toward offsite production
and tested against whether or not they would consider using offsite production.
26
Therefore, the hypothesis of the study is as stated below.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between professionals with
negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite
production.
Alternative Hypothesis - There is significant difference between professionals with
negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite
production.

27. 27
Formula of Pearson chi-squared test (χ²)
χ² = Σ (Observed frequencies – Expected frequencies – 0.05) ²
Expected frequencies
χ² = Σ (O-E) ²
E
P value (probability) = <0.05 (reject null hypothesis)
P value (probability) = >0.05 (accept null hypothesis)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.986a 4 .738
Likelihood Ratio 2.035 4 .729
Linear-by-Linear Association .022 1 .883
N of Valid Cases 32
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) = P value
Df = Degrees of freedom (No. of variables – 1) = (n-1)
Figure 3.2: Chi-squared formula (Farrell, 2011)
3.11 Summary of chapter
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
The researcher has identified that the study’s epistemological orientation takes the
form of positivism and by looking to test a predetermined theory is deductive in its
nature. Due to the lack of available research, a qualitative approach in the form of a
literature review has been undertaken by the researcher to formulate the quantitative
method of data collection that has been identified as a questionnaire. This chapter has
also covered that SPSS was the chosen method to analyse the survey data and that
due to the majority of key data being nominal, the Pearson chi-squared test was
identified as the most suitable method going forward. The next chapter will identify
the results of the quantitative data as well as an analysis of key data that will be used
to then conclude the study.

28. 28
Chapter 4: Analysis of results
4.1 Scope of chapter
This chapter provides a range of visual representations of the results from the study
along with descriptive analysis. The level of respondents’ industry experience has
been chosen as a key variable within the study and will be compared against
numerous factors. The chapter will then identify the results from an inferential
statistical analysis that has been used to prove or disprove the null hypothesis.
4.2 Descriptive analysis of results
A total of 33 respondents were involved in the study. Due to 1 incomplete survey the
final number of respondents used by the researcher was 32. The questionnaire
consisted of 15 questions and was split into 4 sections.
Section One: General information and background
The first question was asked to gauge an understanding of the age of respondents
within the survey, choosing one option from the six categories shown below.
Question 1: How old are you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Under 18 1 3.1 3.1 3.1
18-29 8 25.0 25.0 28.1
30-39 8 25.0 25.0 53.1
40-49 8 25.0 25.0 78.1
50-59 5 15.6 15.6 93.8
60+ 2 6.3 6.3 100.0
Total 32 100.0 100.0
Table 4.1: Frequency results of respondents’ age
As the researcher carried out a selective study, the results of respondent’s age were
relatively similar to that of what the researcher predicted. The results confirmed to
the researcher that the study is comprised of respondents from all age groups, giving
a broad scope to the study.

29. Question 2: What is your current profession?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Table 4.2: Frequency results of respondents' profession
Question 2 aimed to identify the professional background of respondents. As the
researcher specifically targeted only construction related professionals with
experience in the UK, this question would confirm that the study includes just that.
Responses from non-construction related professionals were omitted from the study
for the purpose of validity. Table 4.2 highlights that the study was predominantly
comprised of Consultants (28%) followed by Main Contractors (25%), Designers
(15.6%), Offsite Manufacturers (12.5%), Technicians (6.3%) and Developers (3.1%).
The study benefitted from industry professionals from many background however it
may have been more advantageous if there were a higher number of offsite
manufacturers as it could be argued they are the most knowledgeable professionals
on the topic of offsite production, more specifically, the history of the offsite
industry.
Question 3: Including any previous positions, how much experience do you have
working within the UK construction industry?
29
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Under 5 years 2 6.3 6.3 6.3
5-10 years 10 31.3 31.3 37.5
11-19 years 8 25.0 25.0 62.5
20-29 years 7 21.9 21.9 84.4
30+ years 5 15.6 15.6 100.0
Total 32 100.0 100.0
Table 4.3: Frequency results of respondents' experience
Percent
Valid
Architect/Designer 5 15.6 15.6 15.6
Main Contractor 8 25.0 25.0 40.6
Subcontractor 3 9.4 9.4 50.0
Consultant 9 28.1 28.1 78.1
Offsite manufacturer 4 12.5 12.5 90.6
Developer 1 3.1 3.1 93.8
Technician 2 6.3 6.3 100.0
Total 32 100.0 100.0

30. 30
Table 4.3 reveals the majority of respondents (31.3%) have between 5-10 years
industry experience followed closely by 11-19 years (25%), 20-29 years (21.9%),
30+ years (15.6%) and less than 5 years (6.3%). This result gave a better
understanding to whether or not professionals with more experience knew more
about past failings than inexperienced professionals.
6"
5"
4"
3"
2"
1"
0"
Industry experience against awareness of past failings"
Yes" No"
Count"
Aware of any past failings?"
Figure 4.1: Industry experience against knowledge of past failings
Under 5 years"
5-10 years"
11-19 years"
20-29 years"
30+ years"
As shown in Figure 4.1, there is no apparent link between ones level of experience
against their knowledge regarding past failings of offsite production. What is of most
surprise to the researcher is that there were more professionals with over 30 years
experience who were not aware of past failings off offsite production than those who
were aware of past failings considering many of the past failures that have been
identified of offsite production occurred not far from 30 years ago.

31. 31
Question 4: What is your locality within the UK?
21%
17%
Figure 4.2: Response to Question 4
62%
North
South
Midlands
Figure 4.1 shows that 62% of respondents were based in the North of England. A
further 21% were based in the South and the remaining 17% based in the Midlands.
This was predictable as the companies that were ‘hand-picked’ by the researcher
were mainly based in the North of the England however the unbalance of locations
does not affect the objective of the study. As the major UK offsite production
companies are based in the North of England, as shown in table 4.4, it can be argued
that professionals from the North may be more aware of offsite production, which in
turn would benefit this study considering the large number of respondents from the
North.
Offsite Suppliers Locality within the UK
Yorkon North (Yorkshire)
Britspace North (Yorkshire)
Waco North (Yorkshire)
Portakabin North (York)
Table 4.4: Locality of offsite suppliers within the UK

32. 32
N Mean Median Mode Std.
deviation
Question 1: How old are you? 32 3.44 3.00 2a 1.294
Question 2: What is your current
32 3.53 3.50 4 2.048
profession?
Question 3: Including any previous
positions, how much experience do
you have working within the UK
construction industry?
32 3.09 3.00 2 1.201
Question 4: What is your locality
within the UK?
32 1.59 1.00 1 .798
Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for Section One
Section Two: Knowledge and experience of OSP
Section two of the survey included questions aimed at gaining a basic understanding
of the respondent’s knowledge of OSP and whether they have experience working on
projects that included OSP techniques. The research identified that the majority of
respondents associate the term ‘offsite production’ as being ‘factory made’ (20%)
followed closely by ‘modular construction’ (18%) and ‘Standardisation’ (17%). The
results then become more varied and as shown, ‘containers’ (3%), ‘bathroom pods’
and ‘panellised construction’ are the terms that respondents found most unrelated to
‘offsite production’. This is surprising as, according to Goodier and Gibb (2007),
bathroom pod construction is one of the most common forms of offsite production
and is used widely around the UK mainly on new build residential and
accommodation projects.

33. 33
Question 5: Which of the following terms would you best
associate with 'offsite production'? (Please select more than
one if applicable)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Other (please specify)
Not aware of the term
Standardisation
Containers
Temporary buildings
Bathroom pods
Pre-assembled construction
Factory made
Panellised construction
Modular construction
Volumetric construction
Figure 4.3: Response to Question 5
Additionally, the results also contradict that of reality, as non-volumetric pre-assembled
construction account for £1.3bn of the UK offsite market whilst modular
construction only accounts for £640m and volumetric £290m (Goodier and Gibb,
2005). From the results, compared to other studies as well as up-to-date offsite
valuations, it appears the respondents may be confused as to the differences between
these terms, or more so, unaware that these terms differ in any way from one another
altogether.
Question 6: Have you ever been involved in a project that included
any 'offsite production' techniques mentioned in Q5?
Figure 4.4: Response to Question 6
59%
41%
Yes
No

34. The study benefitted from an almost equal amount of respondents who have both
worked with offsite techniques and those who have not. It was particularly
interesting to find out that the majority of professionals involved in the study have
experience using offsite techniques as the researcher assumed from past studies that
offsite production has not yet reached the economies of scale to the extent of what
the results indicate, especially in the study of Nadim and Goulding (2007), where is
was revealed that the offsite construction industry is responsible for only 2% of the
total UK construction market.
Several studies including that of Blismas et al (2007) outline the difficulty the UK
offsite construction market has had reaching economies of scale large enough to be
considered a serious construction method. The results reveal a somewhat different
scenario. It appears that offsite construction has moved on since these initial studies,
and regardless of how well these offsite experiences went, it could be said that
professionals have at least taken a chance with using offsite construction, which is
contrary to what the researcher initially presumed. Further questions in the study
were asked to gauge an understanding of how well these experiences with offsite
production went and whether professionals believe it to be a serious method of
construction.
34
Question 7: Would you consider using offsite production? If
you have used offsite production previously, would you
consider using it again?
41%
31%
9%
13%
6%
Absolutely
Possibly
Not sure
Unlikely
Definitly not
Figure 4.5: Response to Question 7

35. 35
Over 70% of the respondents identified that they would generally consider using
offsite production on future projects. Out of the 32 respondents only 2 (6%)
identified that they would definitely not consider using offsite production, with a
further 4 (13%) respondents unlikely to use offsite production and 3 (9%)
respondants not sure if they would.
Question 7 (excludings respondents who have never used
offsite production)
53%
16%
21%
5%
5%
Absolutely
Possibly
Not sure
Unlikely
Definitly not
Figure 4.6: Response to Question 7 (excluding respondents who have not used offsite
production)
The way in which question 7 was put together by the researcher meant that the
question included responses from both sets of individuals who have and who have
not used offsite production. As the researcher was interested in viewing only the
responses from professionals who have used offsite techniques before, question 7
was revised to show just that, as shown in figure 4.5. The results reveal that 74% of
respondents who have previously used offsite production would consider using it
again. This result is significantly different to the results witin the study of Pan et al.
(2008), where only 24% of respondents were satisfied with their experience using
offsite production, with 60% of respondents having a neutral opion toward using
offsite production again.

36. 36
N Mean Median Mode Std.
deviation
Question 5: Which of the
following terms would you best
associate with 'offsite
production'? (Please select more
than one if applicable)
32 3.44 3.00 2a 1.294
Question 6: Have you ever been
involved in a project that
included any 'offsite production'
techniques mentioned in Q5?
32 1.41 1.00 1 .499
Question 7: Would you consider
using offsite production? If you
have used offsite production
previously, would you consider
using it again?
32 2.12 2.00 1 1.246
Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for Section Two

37. Question 8: Some studies suggest that there is stigma associated with
the use of offsite production. Which 3 factors would you say are most
responsible for this?
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
37
Section Three: Perception of OSP
Section three of the survey included questions relating to the respondents’ perception
of offsite production.
I do not think there is a stigma
Difficuly managing change
Lack of information regarding offsite
Reduced quality
Building lifespan
Obtaining financial support
Reluctance to change
Lack of skills
Longer lead-in times
Aesthetics
Past failings
Increased risk
Design limitations
Higher initial costs
Figure 4.7: Response to Question 8
Question 8 revealed that ‘past failings’ was the single biggest factor that respondents
felt was responsible for the so-called stigma that is associated with offsite
production. The results from this question offer clarity to the study topic, as from the
outset the researcher has aimed to identify that past failings of offsite production is a
critical factor that affects the uptake of the industry and that it is factor that needs to
be studied independently in order to gauge its impact on the offsite industry.
Despite this, the results differ to that of several earlier studies that asked similar
questions, none more so than that of Pan et al. (2007) that revealed only 11% of
respondents viewed ‘attitudinal barriers due to historic failures’ as a barrier against
the use of offsite production. This was one of the lowest factors chosen in this
particular question within the study, falling way below that of ‘higher capital costs’
(68%), ‘design limitations’ (29%) and ‘difficulty to achieve economies of scale’
(43%).

38. Question 9: Are you aware of any past failings/poor use
of offsite production within the UK? (if No, skip to
Question 9 was paramount to the study as it aimed to uncover how many respondents
were actually aware of any past failings or poor use of offsite production within the
UK. Just over half of respondents (17) were aware of past failings of offsite
production. This result was expected by the researcher as in the previous question
(Q8) there were 17 responses of ‘past failings’ when asked what factors are
responsible for the stigma associated with offsite production.
The following 4 questions (Q10-13) focus on only those respondents who are aware
of past failings of offsite production. This was done so the researcher to delve further
into what specific events these were, whether the respondents initial perceptions of
offsite production was in any way affected by these events, and whether their
perception has remained since these events or changed due to learning about the
newer methods of offsite production.
38
53%
47%
Question 14)
Yes
No
Figure 4.8: Response to Question 9

39. 39
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Question 10: If so, can you please specify any particular event/
occurrence?
Ronan Point 1960s High rise CLASP Collapse and
Figure 4.9: Response to Question 10
fire issues
Aesthetics of
most offsite
buildings
Poor quality
from the past
Question 10 was left open to provide answers that were not limited by the study. This
was done so that the researcher could identify any past failings that had not been
previously understood or alternatively to assess the level of knowledge on past
failings that had previously been identified. Six separate past events were uncovered
from the 17 respondents who were aware of past failing with the use of offsite
production within the UK. The most common event was failures of high-rise
structures built in the 1960’s (35%) followed by projects built by the Consortium of
Local Authorities Special Programme, or CLASP (18%) and collapse and fire issues
(18%). Respondents also identified the Ronan Point collapse as a key failing as well
as poor aesthetic results from using offsite production (12%). 1 respondent (6%)
highlighted poor workmanship from past projects as a key failure.
From the results shown the researcher believes that the majority, if not all of the
failings, occurred between the 1960s and 1970s. This ties in to the researchers’
findings from past studies that are highlighted within the literature review none more
so than the study of CIC (2013), which highlights instances of poor use of offsite
production whereby in the late 1960s, construction defects led to buildings suffering
from cold-bridging, damp penetration and mould growth as well as poor mould
growth due to badly designed space heating systems.

40. 40
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Question 11: To what extent did the event/events affect your
perception toward offsite production?
Very much Somewhat Not much Not at all
Figure 4.10: Response to Question 11
From the named events highlighted in Question 10, it is apparent that the majority of
respondents’ perceptions were affected as a direct result. When asked how their
perception toward offsite production was affected as a result of these events, 6
respondents (35%) were very much affected, 8 respondents (47%) were somewhat
affected, however only 3 respondents (18%) weren’t affected much. What is
interesting is that there were no respondents who were not affected at all by the
events. This meant that every respondent within the study who were aware of past
failings of offsite production were in some way affected by the events.
This was interesting to the researcher as the whole purpose of the research was to
uncover and understand the level of negative perception that exists. The next
question (Q12) reveals whether or not these perceptions have remained, and if so, it
will prove pivotal in understanding that a lot more must be done to make UK
construction professionals aware that the offsite production industry has moved on
from the past.

41. 41
Question 12: Do you still have this negative perception toward
29%
offsite production?
Figure 4.11: Response to Question 12
71%
Yes
No
From the 17 responses, 71% (12) still feel the same toward offsite production as they
did when they discovered a past, negative event. As the researcher believes the
majority of negative events occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, it is surprising to find
that 71% of respondents have not moved. This result aids the researchers assumption
that not enough is being done to educate professionals on newer, safer methods of
offsite production, and that the reasons for their negative perception toward offsite
have potentially been removed due to these newer methods. The researcher believes
that if more professionals understood and learnt of the newer offsite techniques
available, the results of Question 12 would be very different.
Question 13 is a direct follow on from Question 12.
Question 13: If No, what would you attribute this change to?
It was important to the study that the researcher also focused on the 29% (5) of
respondents who at one time held a negative perception towards offsite and, for
whatever reason, does not hold the same perception now. Unsurprising to the
researcher, all 5 respondents believed that from learning about newer modern offsite
techniques, their initial negative perception towards offsite production has been
overturned. From this, the researcher believes that if the industry were holistically

42. educated on newer methods of offsite production, all previous negative perceptions
toward offsite would be overturned, giving the industry a much better opportunity of
succeeding and reaching the higher economies of scale that it so desperately needs.
42
Section 4: The future of offsite production within the UK
Questions 14 and 15 bring all 32 respondents back into the study.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Question 14: Do you think enough is being done to improve the
awareness of potential benefits when using offsite production?
Yes No Not sure I do not see any
Figure 4.12: Response to Question 14
benefits
When asked whether they feel enough is being done to improve the image of offsite
production, 47% (15) of those believed not enough is being done. 22% (7) of
respondent’s felt there was enough being done and the same amount were not sure.
Interestingly, 10% (3) of respondents did not see any benefits in using offsite
production. From the researchers own knowledge of offsite production it is difficult
to suggest that a professional who has a basic understanding of offsite production
cannot highlight a single benefit to using offsite production. On this basis, the
researcher believes that professionals who do not see any benefits of using offsite
production may not have an understanding of what offsite production can offer. This
again highlights the lack of education the industry has toward understanding offsite
production as a genuine method of construction.

43. 43
Question 15: Looking to the future, do you think the use of
offsite production will increase or decrease in the UK?
9%
9%
17%
Figure 4.13: Response to Question 15
65%
Increase
Decrease
Stay the same
Not sure
When asked on the future of offsite production within the UK, 65% (21) of
respondents believe that the offsite production industry will increase, 17% were not
sure and 9% believed that offsite production would either decrease or stay at the
same level. This result is similar to that of a question asked in the 2008 study of
Nadim and Goulding that, when being asked whether offsite production would be the
future of the UK construction industry, 73% of respondents said “yes”, 15%
answered “no” and 12% were not sure. It appears that there is a holistic agreement
amongst UK construction professionals that offsite production will most certainly be
an integral part of the construction industry. This suggests to the researcher that, to a
certain extent, negative perceptions toward offsite production will not affect the
uptake of offsite production.

44. 44
4.3 Inferential statistical testing (Chi-squared test)
The descriptive analysis reveals that the majority of industry professionals believe
‘past failings’ to be the most influential factor toward the so-called stigma that is
associated with offsite production. The analysis also reveals that negative
perceptions toward offsite production due to past failings exist in today’s
construction industry however it does not appear to have had a direct impact on
people’s decision to adopt offsite production.
To prove/disprove this assumption a chi-squared test has been carried out. The two
questions that will be compared to one another in the chi-squared test are Question 7
and Question 12.
Question 7: Would you consider using offsite production?
And;
Question 12: Do you still have this negative perception toward offsite production?
These two questions have been compared against one another to reveal whether
professionals with negative perceptions toward offsite production from past failures
would consider using offsite production, which will ultimately reveal whether or not
negative perceptions from past failings have an impact on the uptake of offsite
production.
It must be noted that only 17 of the 32 respondents were involved in this cross
tabulation as it only included respondents who were aware of past failures of offsite
production.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between professionals with
negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite
production.

45. Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference between professionals with
negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite
production.
Do you have a negative
perception toward offsite
production (from past
failings)?
45
Would professionals with negative perceptions (from past failings) consider
using offsite production?
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.864a 3 .031
Likelihood Ratio 10.667 3 .014
Linear-by-Linear Association .062 1 .803
N of Valid Cases 15
Table 4.7: Chi-squared test results
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Would professionals with negative perceptions
consider using offsite production?
Absolutely Possibly Unlikley Definitely not
Would you consider using offsite production?
Figure 4.14: Negative perceptions/consider using offsite production
Yes
No
As the value of 0.031 is below that of the alpha value of 0.05 the null hypothesis has
been rejected. This means that there is an association between professionals’
perception and whether they would consider using offsite production.

46. Comments on findings (from inferential testing)
The finding from the inferential test is somewhat different to what the researcher
initially expected. Information sourced through the literature review gave indication
that professionals with negative perceptions of offsite production due to past failings
would most likely not consider using offsite production. However the inferential test
reveals that in fact professionals with negative perceptions would actually consider
using offsite production. The study has revealed that whilst many professionals still
negative perceive offsite production based on past failings, it has not affected them to
the point where they would not consider adopting offsite production in the future.
Therefore, it can be argued that past failings do not have a direct impact on the
uptake of the offsite production industry.
46

47. 47
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The study initially set out to understand the extent past failings of offsite production
have had toward the modern day perceptions of UK construction industry
professionals. The literature review revealed that the offsite production industry was
at one stage well known for producing defective buildings. From this, it is
understandable as to why many professionals negatively perceived offsite
production. However, it has also been revealed that the offsite production industry
has greatly improved since these past events, and as a result negative perceptions
based from past failings should have by now been somewhat overturned through the
understanding that the modern day offsite production is now one that can offer many
benefits with far less failings unlike the past. From the literature review, it was
revealed that there needed to be a deeper understanding of professionals with
negative perceptions toward offsite production and whether or not they would
actually consider using offsite production. If professionals with negative perceptions
toward offsite production would generally not consider using offsite production, it
could be argued that past failings have had a direct impact on the uptake of the
offsite production industry.
The initial results revealed ‘past failings’ to be the most common factor amongst
industry professionals that attributes to the so-called stigma that is associated with
modern day offsite production. Prior to this study, cost related issues had always
been of most concern regarding the use of offsite production, however the results
from this study confirms that ‘past failing’ have proved more of an issue. The most
concerning aspect revealed from the study is that many professionals have not moved
on since these past failings, despite great improvements made within the offsite
production industry in recent times. Out of the 32 respondents, only 5 professionals
who negatively perceived offsite as a result of past failings have actually moved on
from this and realised the potential of offsite, all as a result of being re-educated on
modern methods of offsite production.
Although there appears to be a lack of professionals who realise the benefits
associated with the newer methods of offsite production, the study surprisingly
revealed that professionals who negatively perceive offsite production would in fact

48. still consider using offsite production. This went against the researchers initial theory
that professionals with negative perceptions would not consider adopting offsite
production. The result show that whilst past failings of offsite production have
certainly affected many industry professionals, they have in fact not affected
peoples’ decision-making, thus past failings are not responsible for the slow uptake
of offsite production. Further research must be carried out to identify the barriers that
are actually affecting the uptake of the offsite production industry.
48
Personal recommendations
The UK construction industry is constantly looking for more modern approaches to
building than that of traditional methods. Cost, time and quality benefits have been
associated with offsite production however due to past failings of offsite, that mostly
occurred around the post-war era, a stigma has been associated with the industry ever
since and as a result there are a number of professionals that have a negative, out-dated
perception toward offsite production. There is evidence to suggest that
professionals’ perceptions can be changed for the better if they are educated on
modern day offsite production techniques. In recent years the UK government has
realized the potential of offsite production and has aimed to capitalize on a
weakening construction industry by identifying offsite production as the possible
solution, but it appears to be falling on deaf ears considering the limited amount of
projects that are adopting offsite methods. The researcher believes that more should
be done by the government to raise awareness of the benefits modern day offsite
production methods can offer on projects. By doing this the construction industry
will prevail by constructing building quicker, safer and to a higher standard and as
many UK construction professionals are still forming their perceptions of offsite
production from past failings, re-educating these professionals may overturn their
perceptions for the better.
Study limitations
It can be argued that the lack of survey participants affected the true outcome of the
study. The survey included questions similar to that within Nadim and Goulding
(2008) however the end results varied greatly. One possibility of this is that the study
of Nadim and Goulding included 78 responses, more than double than that of this

49. study. One of the key reasons for the lack of participants was the limited timescale of
the study. With considerations to the completion of other important aspects of the
study such as the literature review, the survey itself was only in circulation for a
period of 3 weeks, which is no doubt the reason for the small survey group. One
other limitation that may have affected the outcome of the study is the limited
knowledge on the topic of ‘past failings of offsite production’. Although the study
included 32 respondents, only half of those were aware of ‘past failings’. The study
may have benefitted more had the industry knowledge of ‘past failings’ been more
widespread.
49

50. 50
References
Beanland, C. (2013) ‘the age of instant architecture: Can a block of flats built in 48
hours really be safe? The Independent, 6 Feb [Online]. Available at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/the-age-of-instant-architecture-
can-a-block-of-flats-built-in-48-hours-really-be-safe-8483928.html
(Accessed: 8 February 2013).
Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R. (2009) ‘Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite
manufacture in Australia’, Construction Innovation; Information, Process,
Management, 9 (1), pp. 72-83, [Online] DOI: 10.1108/14714170910931552
(Accessed 23 November 2012).
Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A. (2007) ‘Benefit evaluation for off-site
production in construction’, Construction Management and Economics, 24 (2), pp.
121-130, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/01446190500184444 (Accessed: 23 November
2012).
Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buildoffsite. (2007) Offsite Construction Industry Survey 2006. London: Buildoffsite
Burwood, S. and Jess, P. (2005) ‘Modern methods of construction: Evolution or
revolution?’ London: BURA.
CIC. (2013) Offsite Housing Review. London: CIC
Cook, B. (2005) ‘an assessment of the potential contribution of prefabrication to
improve the quality of housing: a Scottish perspective’, Construction Information
Quarterly, 7 (2), pp. 50-55.
Cook, M. (2007) The Design Quality Manual – Improving building performance.
London: Blackwell Publishing.

51. 51
Davies, M.B. (2007) doing a successful research project: using quantitative or
qualitative methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction, London: HMSO.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2007) Research methods for construction. London:
Blackwell.
Farrell, P (2011) Writing a built environment dissertation: practical guidance and
examples, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibb, A. (1999) off-site fabrication. Scotland: Whittles Publishing.
Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2005) ‘the value of the UK market for offsite,
Loughborough University: Loughborough.
Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2007) ‘Future opportunities for offsite in the UK’,
Construction Management and Economics, 25 (6), pp. 585-595, [Online] DOI:
10.1080/01446190601071821 (Accessed 23 November 2012).
Great Britain. Cabinet Office (2011) Government Construction Strategy. London:
The Stationary Office
Hayman, A. (2012) ‘Government looks to boost off-site construction’, Journal of
Building, issue 12, September [Online]. Available at:
http://www.building.co.uk/news/contractors/government-looks-to-boost-off-site-construction/
5042351.article (Accessed: 13 December 2012).
HCA. (2010) ‘Design for Manufacture Lessons Learnt 2’. London: HCA.
Herbert, G. (1978) Pioneers of Prefabrication: The British Contribution in the
Nineteenth Century. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Herbert, G. (1984) The Dream of the Factory-Made House. Massachusetts: The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

52. 52
Hillebrandt, P. (1944) ‘Placing and Management of Building Contracts: The Simon
Committee Report’, in Langford, D. & Murray, M. Construction Reports 1944-98.
Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Kelly, B. (1951) The Prefabrication of Houses. New York: John Wiley.
Nadim, N. and Goulding, J.S. (2008) ‘Offsite production in the UK: the way
forward? A UK construction industry perspective’, Construction Innovation, 10 (2),
pp. 181-202. [Online] DOI 10.1108/14714171011037183 (Accessed: 27 September
2012).
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2010) Practical research: planning and design.
London: Pearson Education International.
O’Leary, Z. (2010) The essential guide to doing your research project. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Pan, W. and Sidwell, R. (2011) ‘Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite
construction in the UK’, Construction Management and Economics, 29 (11), pp.
1081-1099, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2011.637938 (Accessed 23 November
2012).
Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2007a) ‘Perspectives of UK housebuilders
on the use of offsite modern methods of construction’, Construction Management
and Economics, 25 (2), pp. 183-194, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/01446190600827058
(Accessed 23 November 2012).
Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2007b), ‘Leading UK housebuilders’
utilization of offsite construction methods’, Building Research & Information, 36
(1), pp. 56-57, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/09612310701204013 (Accessed on 25
September 2012).
Prior, G. (2013) ‘Skanksa wins cash for “flying factories” trail, Construction
Enquirer, 11 Feb [Online]. Available at:

53. 53
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2013/02/11/skanska-wins-cash-for-flying-factory-
trial (Accessed: 11 February 2013).
Schoenborn, J. M. (2012). A Case Study Approach to Identifying the Constraints and
Barriers to Design Innovation for Modular Construction (Doctoral dissertation,
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY).
White, R.B. (1965) Prefabrication: A history of its development in Great Britain.
London: HMSO.