Funding – Godinterest

April 1, 2016July 1, 2022

Has Nigeria Become the World’s Junk Yard of Abandoned and Failed Mega Projects worth Billions?

Dim¹, N. U., Okorocha², K. A., & Okoduwa³ V. O.

The Nigerian construction industry is mostly concerned with the development and provision of projects such as roads, bridges, railways, residential and commercial real estates, and the maintenance necessary for the socio-economic developments contributes immensely to the Nigerian economic growth (Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Butcher and demmers (2003) described projects as an idea which begins and ends by filling a need. However, a project fails when its idea ends without meeting the needs and expectations of its stakeholders.

Nigeria Has Become the World’s Junk – Yard of Abandoned and Failed Projects worth Billions of Naira!

Hanachor (2013), revealed that projects form part of the basis for assessing a country’s development. However, a damming report from the Abandoned Projects Audit Commission which was set up by the Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 revealed that 11,886 federal government projects were abandoned in the past 40 years across Nigerian (Abimbola, 2012). This confirmed the assertion by Osemenan (1987) “that Nigeria has become the world’s junk –yard of abandoned and failed projects worth billions of naira”.

Abandoned projects including building and other civil engineering infrastructure development projects now litter the whole of Nigeria.

Physical projects do not only provide the means of making life more meaningful for members of the community where the projects are located, successful projects also result in empowerment and collective action towards self improvement (Hanachor, 2013).

This Issue of Abandonment Has Been Left Without Adequate Attention for Too Long, and Is Now Having a Multiplier Effect on the Construction Industry in Particular and the Nigeria’s National Economy as a Whole. (Kotngora, 1993)

PROJECT FAILURE

Project Failure might mean a different thing to different stakeholders. A project that seemed successful to one stakeholder may be a total failure to another (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008). Some stakeholders, more especially the project users and some private owners, think of failed projects as a situation where a completed building project collapsed, a situation where by a completed dam project stopped working after few days of completion, or a completed road project that broke down after few months of completion. Other experienced stakeholders, such as engineers and architects conform to the iron triangle by Atkinson (1999) which states that the most strategically important measures of project failure are “time overrun”, “cost overrun”, and “poor quality”.

Turner (1993) noted that a project fails when the project specifications are not delivered within budget and on time; the project fails to achieve its stated business purpose; the project did not meet the pre-stated objectives; the project fails to satisfy the needs of the project team and supporters; and the project fails to satisfy the need of the users and other stakeholders. Lim and Mohamed (1999) cited in Toor and Ogunlana (2009) clarified that there are two possible view points to project failure namely; the macro-level and the micro-level. They further explained that the macro view point reviews if the original objectives and concepts of the project was met. Usually the end users and the project beneficiaries are the ones looking at the project failure from the macro view point, where as the project design team, the consultants, contractors, and suppliers review projects from a micro view point focusing on time of delivery, budget, and poor quality.

In the early 1990s, the failure as well as the success of any project was determined by the project duration, monetary cost, and the performance of the project (Idrus, Sodangi, and Husin, 2011). Belout and Gauvrean (2004), also confirmed that the project management triangle based on schedule, cost, and technical performance is the most useful in determining the failure of a project. Moreover, a project is considered as an achievement of specific objectives, which involves series of activities and tasks which consume resources, are completed within specifications, and have a definite start and end time (Muns and Bjeirmi 1996, cited in Toor and Ogunlana, 2009). Reiss (1993) in his suggestion stated that a project is a human activity that achieves a clear objective against a time scale. Wright (1997) taking the view of clients, suggested that time and budget are the only two important parameters of a project which determines if a project is successful or failed. Nevertheless, many other writers such as Turner, Morris and Hough, wateridge, dewit, McCoy, Pinto and Slevin, saarinen and Ballantine all cited in Atkinson (1999), agreed that cost, time, and quality are all success as well as failure criteria of a project, and are not to be used exclusively.

FACTORS OF PROJECT FAILURE

Cookie-Davies (2002) stated the difference between the success criteria and the failure factors. He stated that failure factors are those which contributed towards the failure of a project while success criteria are the measures by which the failure of a project will be judged. The factors constituting the failure criteria are commonly referred to as the key performance indicators (KPIs).

Time and Cost Overrun

The time factor of project failure cannot be discussed without mentioning cost. This is because the time spent on construction projects has a cost attached to it. Al-Khali and Al-Ghafly, (1999); Aibinu and Jagboro, (2002) confirmed that time overrun in construction projects do not only result in cost overrun and poor quality but also result in greater disputes, abandonment and protracted litigation by the project parties. Therefore, focus on reducing the Time overrun helps to reduce resource spent on heavy litigation processes in the construction industry (Phua and Rowlinson, 2003). Most times, the time overrun of a project does not allow resultant system and benefits of the project to be taking into consideration (Atkinson, 1999). Once a project exceeds the contract time, it does not matter anymore if the project was finally abandoned or completed at the same cost and quality specified on the original contract document, the project has failed. Furthermore, Assaf and Al-Hejji, (2006) noted that time overrun means loss of owner’s revenue due to unavailability of the commercial facilities on time, and contractors may also suffers from higher over heads, material and labour costs.

Poor quality/Technical Performance

The word “Performance” has a different meaning which depends on the context it is being used and it can also be referred to as quality. Performance can be generally defined as effectiveness (doing the right thing), and efficiency (doing it right) (Idrus and Sodangi, 2010). Based on this definition of performance, at the project level, it simply means that a completed project meets fulfilled the stakeholder requirements in the business case.

CAUSES OF PROJECT FAILURE

A lot of research studies have investigated the reasons for project failures, and why projects continue to be described as failing despite improved management. Odeh and Baltaineh, 2002; Arain and Law, 2003; Abdul-Rahman et al., 2006; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; all cited in Toor and Ogunlana, 2008, pointed out the major causes of project failures as Inadequate procurement method; poor funding and availability of resources; descripancies between design and construction; lack of project management practices; and communication lapses

The contract/procurement method

A result obtained from two construction projects which were done by the same contractor but using different procurement methods showed that rework, on the design part which occurs when the activities and materials order are different from those specified on the original contract document, makes it difficult for the project to finish on the expected time (Idrus, Sodangi, and Husin, 2011). This is as a result of non-collaboration and integration between the design team, contractor, and tier suppliers. The rework on the design portion has a huge impact on project failure leading to the time overrun. The traditional method of procurement has inadequate flexibility required to facilitate late changes to the project design once the design phase of the construction project has been concluded.

Nigerian most widely used procurement method is the traditional method of procurement (design-bid-construct) which has been confirmed to be less effective to successfully delivery of a construction project (Dim and Ezeabasili, 2015). And, the world bank country procurement assessment report (2000) cited in Anigbogu and Shwarka, (2011) reported that about 50% of projects in Nigeria are dead even before they commence because they were designed to fail.

The way the construction projects are contracted, in addition to the way the contracts are delivered, contributes to the causes of projects failure. Particularly, among the methods of project contracting is lump-sum or a fixed-price contracting method, in which the contractor agrees to deliver a construction project at a fixed price. The fixed-price contract can be low-bid or not however, once the contract cost has been agreed upon the contract award, it cannot be changed. And, contractors are expected to honor and deliver the contract agreement, failure to do so can result in a breach of contract which can result in the contractor being prosecuted.

Awarding a contract to an unqualified personnel also contributes to project failures. When a contractor places more emphasis on money and the mobilization fee after a construction project has been initiated instead of getting the right workforce and skilled professionals that will execute the project. Instead the workforce chosen will often not be base on competence and required skills rather it will be based on availability. Moreover, poor strategy and planning by contractors who have overloaded with work also contributed to one of the causes of project failure.

Poor funding/Budget Planning

A lot of public projects in the Nigerian construction industry failed as a result inadequate funding, and the difference between the national annual budget and the budget actual released. Most of the Nigerian public projects are signed even before the actual release of the national budget. The difference in budget of the contracted project and the actual budget release can get the contracted company stuck as a result of inflation of prices, scarcity of construction material at the time of the budget release and mobilization to site. Also un-planned scope of work which can be as a result of the contractor working on another contract when he is called back to mobilization to start work. Moreover, poor budget planning is a regular mistake made by some contractors by not undertaking feasibility assessments before starting the design. The construction project should be planned according to the available resources and not according to the unrealistic expectations a client has in mind.

Discrepancies Between the Design and Construction

Limited collaboration between the contractors, engineers, and the architect results in discrepancies between the project designs and construction on site, and further leads to rework. Changes on a project designs, and changing to the scope of work in the middle of construction processes on site can be dangerous, and can lead to time overrun, increase in cost, and most of all can lead to abandonment. Moreover, many cases have been seen where the designs from the architects are not buildable on site, while In some cases, most contractors are unable to adequately specify the scope of work for the construction processes on site. Therefore any default on the design by the architect can be an opportunity for the contractor to make more money which might cause the project duration to exceed the time specified on the contract document.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research starts with a general reasoning or theory which says that the major cases of project failure in the Nigerian construction industry are defined based on time overrun and cost overrun. The findings from the data analysis will help on the decision to accept the theory or not. The research data was collected from the progress report for the month ending of October, 2015 published by the Nigeria of Federal Ministry of works on thirty-nine on-going highway construction projects at the South-South geopolitical zone. The table 1 below shows the information on the data collected which comprises of the project title, contract Number, project description, the contractor that was awarded the projects, the date of project commencement, date of completion and the extended date if any. The scheduled time for each project was specified as follows: project commencement date labeled as “a”, project completion date labeled as “b”, and the extended date labeled as “c”.

Table 1: The analyzed data on the highway project at the South-South zone in Nigeria.

DATA ANALYSIS

The data analysis was done with the use of Microsoft excel. The analysis started by obtaining the number of days between the date of commencement of each project and the date of completion to show the duration of each highway project. And, the number of days between the project completion date and the extension date showed the time-overrun. The project duration and the extended days were obtained with the use of NETWORKDAYS function in Microsoft Excel which calculates the number of working days between two dates excluding weekends and any dates identified as holidays.

The standard deviation between the specified project duration for each highway projects and the extended days was calculated to obtain the extent to which each highway project contract failed on its time of delivery. This was denoted as the degree of failure. The table 1 above showed the projects ranking which was done based on the degree of failure of all the highway projects. The highway projects that were ranked from one to sixteen have low degree of failure and are represented with green color, while the rest are those with high degree of failure and are represented with red color.

FINDINGS

The findings made showed that the successfully completed highway projects have no extended days or time overrun, and the successful on-going highway projects are still on schedule and have no extended days unlike the on-going highway projects that have already failed as a result of the extended dates. Other projects have been abandoned because they have exceeded the delivery date as specified on the contract document, and have no extended date of completion. Thus, no work is going on.

Figure 1: Abundance of failed highway projects at south-south zone, Nigeria.

Figure 2: On-going failed highway projects

Figure 2 above showed that 14% of highway projects are still on-going projects because they have not exceeded the original date of completion as specified on the contract document. However, they are heading towards failure because they have been given an extended date of completion which can be as a result of some critical activities running behind schedule, causing delay on the critical path network of the projects. Moreover, the other 86% completely failed because they have exceeded their completion date specified on the contract document.

Figure 3: Successful on-going highway projects

The figure 3 above showed that 63% of the successful highway projects are still on-going because they have not exceed their completion dates, and they are not yet completed. However, those on-going highway projects might end up as failed projects as a result of poor funding, discrepancy between the design and the construction on site, and conflict between the construction parties or stakeholders.

“Say what you will do, and do what you said” or “Say as you will do it, and do it as you said”

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The idea of knowing what a failed project is, the factors and the causes is very important in project management. Success in project management can neither be achieved nor measured without the knowledge of project failure, its factors, and causes in the Nigerian construction industries. This work has shown that project failure is as a result of exceeded time of delivery, cost overrun, and poor quality. However, the analysis was only done based on exceeded time of project delivery because of the nature of the data collected.

This work suggested a few approaches to help reduce the number of failed projects in the Nigerian construction industry if properly implemented. Firstly, Having good collaboration between the project stakeholders involved in a construction project at the early stage of project conception is most important in order to accomplish the project objectives, and deliver the project on time, within budget, and quality specified on the original contract document (Othman, 2006).

Secondly, Adopting the ISO 9000 technique which is used for quality management will also help in achieving a successful project delivery. This technique states “ say what you will do, and do what you said” or “say as you will do it, and do it as you said”. This technique is not an indication of high quality but it promotes control and consistency which leads to specialization, and improved productivity and quality. Also, adopting the principles of lean construction will help to reduce waste within the construction and stream-line activities in order to improve the on-time delivery of projects.

Thirdly, Learning from the precedent failed projects, how those projects failed, and the reason for their failures. This will help the project manager to plan and mitigate the risks of project failures in the future. And, finally, more seminars and workshops will help to educate and enlighten clients (the federal government representatives), users, contractors, engineers, and architects on what is project failure, the factors that contributes to abundant failed projects, and their causes.

REFERENCE

Abimbola, A. (Novermber 24, 2012). About 12,000 Federal Projects Abandoned across Nigeria. Premium times (November 16, 2015). Retrieved from www. Premium timesng.com/news/108450-about-12000-federal-projects-abandoned-across-nigeria.html.

Al-Khali, M.I and Al-Ghafly, M.A. (1999). Important Causes of Delays in Public Utility Projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction management and Economics, 17, 647-655

Aibinu, A.A and Jagboro, G.O. (2002). The Effects of Construction Delays on Project Delivery in Nigeria Construction Industry. International journal of Project management, 20(8), 593- 599.

Anigbogu, N. and Shwarka, M. (2011). Evaluation of Impact of the Public Procurement Reform Program on Combating Corruption Practices in Public Building Project Delivery in Nigeria. Environtech Journal, 1(2). 43-51.

Assaf, S. and Al-Hajji, S. (2006). Causes of Delays in large Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 349-357.

Atkinson , R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time, and quality, two best guesses and a Phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of project Management, 17(6), 337-342.

Belout, A and Gauvrean, C. (2004). Factors Influencing the Project Success: The impact of human resource management. International Journal of project Management, 22, Pp. 1-11.

Butcher, N. and Demmers, L. (2003). Cost Estiumating Simplified. Retrieved from www.librisdesign.org.

Cookie-Davies, T. (2002). The Real Success Factors on Projects. International Journal of Project management, 20(3), 185-190.

Dim, N.U. and Ezeabasili, A.C.C (2015). Strategic Supply Chain Framework as an Effective Approach to Procurement of Public Construction Projects in Nigeria. International Journal of Management and Susutainability, 4(7), 163-172.

Hanachor, M. E. (2012). Community Development Projects Abandonment in Nigeria: Causes and Effects. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(6), 33-36.

Idrus, A., Sodangi, M., and Husin, M., H. (2011). Prioritizing project performance criteria within client perspective. Research Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(10), 1142-1151.

Idrus, A. and Sodangi, M. (2010). Framework for evaluating quality performance of contractors in Nigeria. International Journal of Civil Environment and Engineering. 10(1), 34-39.

National Bureau of Statistics (January, 2015). Nigerian Construction Sector Summary Report: 2010-2012.

Kotangora, O. O. (1993). Project abandonment, Nigerian Tribune.

Osemenan, I. (1987). Project Abandonment. New Watch Magazine, Vol. 1, pp. 15.

Othman, M.,R. (2006). Forging main and sub-contractor relationship for successful projects. Retrieved from http://rakanl.jkr.gov.my/csfj/editor/files/file/projek/lessonslearned/MAIN&SUB_2.pdf

Phua, F.T.T and Rowlinson, S. (2003). Cultural Differences as an Explanatory Variable for Adversarial Attitude in the Construction Industry: The case of HongKong. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 777-785.

Reiss, B. (1993). Project Management Demystified. London: E and FN Spon Publishers.

Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008).Problems causing Delay in Major Construction Projects in Thailand. Construction management and Economics, 26, 395-408.

Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Critical COMs of Success in Large-Scale Construction Projects: Evidence from Thailand constructuction industry. International Journal of Project management, 26(4), 420-430.

Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2009).Beyound the “Iron Triangle”: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. International Journal of Project management, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005.

Toor, R. and Ogunlana, S. (2009). Construction Innovation: Information, process, management. 9(2), PP. 149-167.

Turner, J. R. (1993). The Handbook of project-Based Management: Improving the process for achieving strategic objective. London, McGraw-Hill.

Wright, J., N. (1997). Time and Budget: The twin imperatives of a project Sponsor. International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 181-186.

March 20, 2016July 1, 2022

Bridge House, Croydon, Is Prefab Really Prefabulous?

Prefabricated homes have been available for years and date back at least a century. The Sears Roebuck index made and offered prefab homes to the public as early as 1908, and Prefab was later explored by famous twentieth-century architects, such as, Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, Marcel Breuer, Frank Lloyd Wright, who saw the method as a likely solution to the dilemma of housing in modern society. Interest in Prefab grew in the first half of the twentieth-century, with the outburst of manufacturing expertise and the creation of the assembly line.

Historically the mention of prefabricated houses invokes memories of housing built to cover in the temporary a deficiency of housing in the UK following the World Wars.

The Government promised ‘homes fit for heroes’, however, negative public attitudes surfaced towards prefabricated housing because of substandard building materials used and poor workmanship.

A staggering 1 million of these homes were built during the 20th century and more than half a century on, many are still standing despite no foundations. A few are listed while others have been demolished.

Today people remember the shabby mobile classrooms as in, bitter cold in winter and like an oven in summer. Therefore, memories have rendered the concept of prefabricated houses an unattractive idea. Talk about the term prefabricated housing to an architect, and their eyes will beam with visions of fascinating contemporary homes. However, talk to the ordinary person on the street and people immediately think that we are going down the same path, a pretty hard image to shake off. The very factors that are presented as positive advantages of prefabricated homes became liabilities in the eyes of homeowners who wanted a durable appreciating asset.

An example can be found by looking at the prefabricated houses on Catford estate built by German and Italian prisoners of war in 1946.

‘They were not built to last and need regular maintenance. They are just large sheds really and taking up a lot of space. They should really be demolished.’ (Drake 2008)

Over the ten years, Lewisham Council has tried to develop the site many times and a review found none of the dwellings met Decent Homes Standard.

So why do more and more developers choose prefabricated construction?

First and foremost – Speed. “It may take a bit longer in terms of design, preparation and planning but site based activities are taking up to 30% less time and allowing homes to reach the market sooner. Other reasons cited include, in order of preference:

Design Quality
Cost
Previous Experience
Funding

Source: Design and Modern Methods of Construction. The Housing Corporation and CABE 2004″

Bridge House (Example)

Croydon Vision 2020 is a regeneration programme by the London Borough of Croydon for the centre of Croydon in South London. The Old Town Masterplan focused on the area between the High Street and Roman Way, one of the oldest areas of Croydon.

Formerly the site of a telephone exchange, Bridge House is a £20 million development that has provided 27 private and 48 affordable apartments, above ground and mezzanine retail spaces.

The block wraps around an existing multi-storey car park and offers the opportunity for cafs and shops to open onto the new square. A mix of green and brown roofs, to support biodiversity, form part of a series of environmental measures and the scheme is to be of modular construction.

The Croydon chose the modular approach principally because of the speed of construction offered. The project began on site in the spring of 2006 and the 75 flats were stated to have been erected in approximately 26 days, vastly outperforming the time taken by traditional construction.

Client: Howard Holdings plc

Architect: AWW

Structures: Walsh Associates

Principal Supplier: MC First

Subscribe to Blog via Email

February 12, 2016July 1, 2022

65% of Mega-projects Fail

There’s a reason why Mega-projects are simply called “Mega-projects.” Extremely large in scale with significant impacts on communities, environment and budgets, mega-projects attract a lot of public attention and often cost more than 1 billion. Because of its grandiose, a successful mega-project requires a lot of planning, responsibility and work. Likewise, the magnificence of such projects also creates a large margin for failure.

Mega-projects Come with Big Expectations. But a Project’s Success Is Often in the Eye of the Beholder

Despite their socio-economic significance mega-projects – delivering airports, railways, power plants, Olympic parks and other long-lived assets – have a reputation for failure. It is thought that over optimism, over complexity, poor execution, and weakness in organizational design and capabilities are the most common root causes of megaproject failure.

Blinded by enthusiasm for the project, individuals and organizations involved with mega-projects often miscalculate the complexity of the project. When a mega-project is pitched, its common for costs and timelines to be underestimated while the benefits of the project are overestimated. According Danish economist Bent Flyvbjerg, its not unusual for project managers who are competing for funding to massage the data until it is deemed affordable. After all, revealing the real costs up front would make a project unappealing, he said. As a result, these projects are destined for failure.

For example, building new railways spanning multiple countries could prove to be disastrous if plans are overly complex and over-optimized. Such a large-scale project involves national and local governments, various environmental and health standards, a wide range of skills and wages, private contractors, suppliers and consumers; therefore, one issue could put an end to the project. Such was the case when two countries spent nearly a decade working out diplomatic considerations while building a hydroelectric dam.

Complications and complexities of mega-projects must be considered thoroughly before launch. One way to review the ins and outs of a project is through reference-class forecasting. This process forces decision makers to look at past cases that might reflect similar outcomes to their proposed mega-project.

Poor execution is also a cause for failure in mega-projects. Due to the overoptimism and overcomplexity of a project, it’s easy for project managers and decision makers to cut corners trying to maintain cost assumptions and protect profit margins. Project execution is then overwhelmed by problems such as incomplete design, unclear scope, and mathematical errors in risk assessment and scheduling.

Researchers at McKinsey studied 48 struggling mega-projects and found that in 73 percent of the cases, poor execution was responsible for cost and time overruns. The other 27 percent ran into issues with politics such as new governments and laws.

Low productivity is another aspect of poor execution. Even though trends show that manufacturing has nearly doubled its productivity in the last 20 years, construction productivity remains flat and in some instances has even declined. However, wages continue to increase with inflation, leading to higher costs for the same results.

According to McKinsey studies, efficiency in delivering infrastructure can reduce total costs by 15 percent. Efficiency gains in areas like approval, engineering, procurement and construction can lead to as much as 25 percent of savings on new projects without compromising quality outcomes. This proves that planning before execution is worth its weight in gold.

We Tend to Exaggerate the Importance of Contracting Approach to Project Success or Failure

Finally, weaknesses in organizational design and capabilities results in failed megaprojects. For example, organizational setups can have multiple layers and in some cases the project director falls four or five levels below the top leadership. This can lead to problems as the top tier of the organizational chain (for example, subcontractors, contractors and construction managers) tend to focus on more work and more money while the lower levels of the chain (for example, owner’s representative and project sponsors) are focused on delivery schedules and budgets.

Likewise, a lack of capabilities proves to be an issue. Because of the large-scaled, complex nature of mega-projects, there is a steep learning curve involved and the skills needed are scarce. All the problems of megaprojects are compounded by the speed at which projects are started. When starting from scratch, mega-projects may create organizations of thousands of people within 12 months. This scale of work is comparable to the significant operational and managerial challenge a new start-up might face.

In the end, it seems that if organizations take the time to thoroughly prepare and plan for their mega-projects, problems like overcomplexity and overoptimism, poor execution, and weaknesses in organizational design and capabilities could be avoided. After all, mega=projects are too large and too expensive to rush into.

October 24, 2015July 1, 2022

9 Suggestions for Overcoming Barriers to Good Design When Using Modern Methods of Construction (Mmc)

The term ‘Modern Methods of Construction’ (MMC) embraces a range of technologies involving various forms of prefabrication and off-site assembly.

MMC is increasingly regarded as a realistic means of improving quality, reducing time spent on-site, improving on-site safety and addressing skills shortages in the construction of UK housing.

The variety of systems now available potentially allows the designer enough choice to sidestep problems deriving from constraints posed by the use of any one method. MMC systems, from closed-panel timber framed systems to bathroom pods are a palette from which designers can make choices. They are not necessarily stand-alone solutions that anticipate all the needs of an individual site and can be mixed and matched as appropriate.

These limitations are not obstacles to achieving the good design in MMC-based schemes, but may hinder the incorporation of more complex and innovative types of MMC from which greater overall benefits may be obtained which are considered under the following headings:

1. COST UNCERTAINTY

There is no doubt that, given products of comparable performance the key issue in purchases of MMC construction systems is the price. At present not enough is known about the potential costs of using volumetric and closed panel systems to enable confident specification at an early date. This inhibits designers from exploring the full potential of MMC systems. This is particularly true of the less repetitive, small, one-off scheme, where a smaller margin of benefits is gained from using MMC. The principal barrier to the uptake of MMC, therefore, seems to be the perception of cost uncertainty with respect to using more complex systems. Without doing substantial project-specific research, consultants and their clients simply do not know with enough degree of certainty how much the volumetric or closed panel systems are likely to cost, and what would be the savings to overall project costs produced by potential speed gains to offset against increased capital expenditure.

This is due to the complexity of assessing the ratio of cost of repetitive elements where pricing is relatively straightforward to the cost of adjusting elements or building in another method for the abnormal condition. Decisions to use innovative systems are likely to be made once designs are well progressed to enable teams to be more certain of costs. This can increase the potential for change or result in design compromise as the designer attempts to incorporate the specific limitations of a particular system in their design.

In an attempt to improve this situation, the MMC consultant and or clients could pull together a directory of MMC expanded to include cost comparison data. The huge range of variables involved inevitably makes this difficult, but a database of current construction cost information would be an invaluable resource.

2. PLANNING PROCESS AND EARLY COMMITMENT TO A SYSTEM

The time it can take to obtain planning permission has obvious implications both for project cost but also, in some circumstances, for architectural design innovation.

Most of the more complex types of MMC have an impact on dimensioning, the choice of external finish and detailing may have some effect on the buildings mass. Therefore, the construction system should be chosen prior to a planning application to avoid abortive work, redesign or amendment, or even resubmission for planning permission.

However, developers whose money is at risk, frequently hold off deciding on the construction technique until the last practicable moment, in order to get any advantage from fluctuations in material or component pricing.

Given the potential for lengthy duration of planning applications, this means that there is little incentive to prepare initial designs for planning with a prior decision to incorporate MMC firmly embedded. In cases where the developer has a financial or business link with the supplier, this is less likely to be the case. As the majority of commercial or residential developments involve some kind of arrangement with a developer, agreement on construction systems is often left to the stage after planning.

3. TIME INVESTMENT

Another very significant factor is the time investment required at the early stages of projects. This is needed to develop the design when the project is still at risk. There is a direct relationship between the scale and complexity of MMC component and the amount of time required to develop a design at an early stage.

The introduction of advanced or complex MMC techniques into the design process is potentially costly to the design team. A significant amount of research is needed to explore alternative systems, to obtain verification of suppliers’ credentials, investigate mortgage and insurance issues, visit previous sites, talk to system suppliers, obtain technical performance guidelines, understand junctions and interfaces, coordinate other consultants, obtain building control input and so on.

For a consultant, the only way of investing in this research is either through timely payment of increased fees by a visionary understanding client or through the anticipation of increased future productivity through repetition when a project is phased, or large enough, or likely to be followed by another similar project.

The potential of learning a system and then being able to repeat lessons learned efficiently is a powerful incentive for both client and consultant. By contrast, HTA’ s project at Basingstoke is an example of a phased project with a three to four-year duration allowed the design team to repeat various elements of the design, and the manufacturer to develop improved solutions to technical and supply problems.

4. INSUFFICIENT COMMUNICATION

Improved dialogue at the outset of the project is vital if design quality is to be maximised. Constraints and opportunities implicit within a particular system are more easily incorporated into design if partners communicate pre-planning. Increased early communication can be fostered through improved long-term partnering relationships.

Clients should also partner with a range of suppliers and architects so that choice and flexibility is not restricted.

5. INEXPERIENCE

Generally, the inexperienced client or design team will have to do more research, with the result that there is likely to be significant design development without a specific system being incorporated.

This is a disincentive to using a more complex system involving a higher proportion of MMC, where early decision making and knowledge of a system’ s capabilities have a decisive influence on the nature of the architecture. However, encouraging the take up of MMC through the use of a dedicated funding mechanism may assist clients in finding time for research into suitable MMC techniques.

6. SUPPLIER’S ROLE

Site capacity studies and early stage pre-planning design studies could be undertaken directly by system suppliers on behalf of clients, cutting out the usual procedure of commissioning design work by independent consultants.

7. ASSUMPTIONS

There are a number of assumptions that are generally held about certain types of MMC that may have been valid at one time but are no longer true today. There is a need for reliable and up to date information comparing system criteria, performance data, timescales, lead in times, capacity, construction time, sequencing issues, limitations, and benefits.

Therefore it would be helpful if a forum for discussion and experience exchange was set up.

8. DEMONSTRATING THE BENEFITS OF MMC

There is still a large amount of skepticism about the need to go very far down the line with MMC. This is reflected in the acceptance of the desirability of maintaining or indeed enhancing the pool of traditional craft skills throughout the UK.

A balanced view is that there is a demonstrable need for the wider use of MMC which is recognized by both industry and government. The best way for clients and the public generally to become more confident and knowledgeable about the quality of design achievable through MMC is to see it demonstrated.

9. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

There is no doubt that spreading the burden of investment through the life of a project helps to ensure a higher standard of specification and hence quality. In the Netherlands, a ‘ Green Financing’ system has been developed by the Dutch government that provides favorable loan finance when certain sustainable standards are reached. In the UK, the Gallions HA has pioneered a study of this, based on a scheme in Thamesmead, ‘ the Ecopark project’.

Eco Park is an eco-friendly business park built on the False Bay coast. This business park is at the cutting-edge of sustainable design and offers a unique working environment in a secure, well-managed facility.

September 23, 2015July 1, 2022

From Outreach Ideas to Action in Three Easy Steps

A good idea is great. A good idea that’s executed perfectly can change the world. But a simple idea alone is useless.

A Good Idea That’s Executed Perfectly Can Change the World

There’s an idea that flops and an idea that becomes the next biggest thing. It’s all about how it’s executed. If it doesn’t come with a plan, or if it appears too difficult to introduce, someone else will do it, leaving you with a has-been idea that can no longer be implemented. This is why every ‘brainwave’ ‘eureka’ moment idea needs to be teamed together with a worthy execution”¦if not, don’t expect much.

Pushing an innovative idea forward into something else remains one of our biggest challenges. Admittedly, it can be a super exhausting process, which is why it’s always a great idea to invite the crowd to not only come up with the wonderful ideas, but to also help develop them as well.

There are a few key stages that need to be followed when it comes to getting your crowd in on the idea decision-making and development game.

1. Create a Unique Team

Almost anyone can research and refine new innovative ideas. However, you can take it a step further and invite the crowd to join in the fun and be a part of your team. This will give your idea more validation. It will also decrease any potential risk, and at the same time it could be a huge timesaver when it comes to marketing and finances.

In short, each and every idea should be unique enough to sway people to join a team that supports the idea.

2. Fine Tune that Idea

They say that behind every great idea catapulted onto the market, there was an equally great plan. Every idea requires some sort of plan. It could be just a basic one that briefly outlines the various possibilities connected to it, or it could be a more complex plan that delves into the intricacies of it.

A good plan should include a business plan. This might seem like a given, but you’d be surprised as to how many people don’t have a good business plan to back up their ideas. Plans should also include target audiences, marketing ideas and much more.

You need to approach every idea in a methodical way. You’ll need a unique set of criteria that pertains to one idea – it’s not a case of one-size fits all. You’ll need to answer any question that arises, and until this is done, you can’t move forward and successfully turn your idea into reality.

Use and involve your crowd. Ask them to research various aspects of the idea, and then have them report back and share their ideas and findings with the rest of the group.

3. Don’t Stand for Mediocre

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of okay ideas. There are even hundreds of great ideas. But, an average or good idea is not enough, which is why it’s absolutely essential to select only the best of the best ideas. It doesn’t matter if it’s only one mind-blowing idea because as the old adage goes, quality is better than quantity.

Quality Is Better than Quantity

The good and even the great ideas might struggle. Such ideas are difficult to get funding for, and it’s more challenging to prototype and deliver them. If you want to make your idea come alive, you need to have defined criteria, which allows for choosing the best idea to follow up on. After the criteria has been established, it’s time to use the crowd again aka Christian community. Ask them to respond accordingly and honestly – does the idea meet all the listed criteria?

If yes, that’s great, you’re moving towards success. If not, it’s back to the drawing board to get it right.

You need to act now and remember this: it’s okay to simply start by putting just one outreach idea into action.

What kinds of challenges do you and your team face when trying to develop your ideas further?