ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Let’s show some impatience and crack on with offsite delivery

The time has come to stop “piloting” offsite manufacturing, writes Tom Jarman

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Modular homes at Hinkley Point (picture: Caledonian Modular)
Modular homes at Hinkley Point (picture: Caledonian Modular)
Sharelines

Let’s show some impatience and crack on with offsite delivery, writes Tom Jarman #ukhousing

“While we patiently pilot, the world is moving on” Tom Jarman calls for the sector to show some impatience and crack on with off-site delivery #ukhousing

Last week Inside Housing two reports that focussed on offsite manufactured (OSM) housing.

Both contained insights into the relationship between developing social landlords and this construction method that for many remains a source of mystery and promise. I want to try to draw these strands together and issue a challenge to social landlord clients.

The first report featured the accommodation being built for workers at Hinckley Point, a £50m development to house 1,500 people, with units built in the UK.

Straight away this captures the gap between what can be delivered with a visible pipeline and clear client requirement, and standard practice in our sector, where only 13% of the housing we build is delivered using offsite manufacturing.

“A lot more of the pipeline could be visible”

And yes, I know the barriers – trickier, smaller sites, where it is harder to make the finances stack – but we collectively and consistently commission the best part of 35,000 homes a year, some 20% of all newbuild. A lot more of that pipeline could be visible.

But when it is visible, what can be seen?

One comment in the article was that our forward planning is not very good; “you have to have a design brief very early… And not many clients know what they want until after they’ve got it”. Crikey.

Is this really how we are seen externally? Because if it is, that’s quite a concerning statement about our clienting.

The second report was the summary of the annual LHC survey, now in it’s second year. This highlighted that on a cost basis only 36% of respondents had found OSM ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ compared to traditional methods. And that is completely unsurprising for two reasons;

Firstly, off-site manufacturing is not a cost proposition. A point that Rob Charlton, CEO of Space Group, consistently makes is “start with why”. It might be performance, long term value, programme efficiency or the nature of the site. But it isn’t cost.

“Off-site manufacturing is not a cost proposition”

Secondly, we aren’t judging off-site manufacturing against traditional construction, we are judging it against traditional construction procured to minimum regulatory standards at lowest capital cost.

This is a completely artificial way to compare construction types and understand value, and waiting for the relative cost curve to cross in favour of OSM does not suggest a proactive, robust, and questioning client culture.

It is always the case that there is a higher barrier to entry for ‘new’. It’s not fair, but it is what it is. We are asking off-site manufacturing to prove itself in a way that we don’t question our business as usual.

And is right that OSM should prove itself, but we need to give it a level playing field. Our BAU doesn’t give optimum outcomes, and we need to call out familiarity for what it is. And with this in mind, here are my challenges.

So, firstly, piloting. Debansu Das, housing veteran, commented in the article that OSM requires “a different attitude”. Early engagement is one example. Understanding Lean and DFMA is another.

“It is always the case that there is a higher barrier to entry for ‘new’”

So is being clear and consistent about your ambition and added value. But please can we stop piloting?

We need to share information better, learn from each other, have a consistent post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation structure – but I am genuinely confused about what another pilot will tell an organisation beyond what is already known and out there.

At it’s worst, it is a substitute for the change in our clienting culture that is needed to successfully deploy OSM.

Secondly, we need to be much more outcome focussed.

One comment in the Hinckley article from Zurich insurance was that “developers and owners need to consider how the use of MMC will affect costs during the lifespan of the building”.

“Please can we stop piloting?”

In fact, we need to do this for all of our housing procurement because this answers a much more fundamental strategic question; what performance, quality, resilience and value do we want from the housing we procure.? I’m not too fussed in all honesty about the construction type as long as it delivers. But we need to open up the space for OSM to compete.

One comment made in response to the LHC survey was the intention to “progress patiently”, which seems to capture our approach as a sector.

But there is desperate need out there and while we patiently pilot, the world is moving on.

By now we should be talking Smart Construction – industrialised production, digital modelling and asset information, and whole life costing.

But we aren’t, and the gap between where we are and where we could doesn’t seem to be closing. With each year, we lose the opportunity to deliver on our values over and over again. We can shift up a gear, so let’s show some impatience to do so.

Tom Jarman, director, Low Carbon Journey

A timelapse video showing offsite homes being built in hours at Housing 2018

Tech Leaders 2018

We unveil Tech Leaders 2018 - a list of the tech innovators digitally transforming their organisations:

Sponsored by Hitachi Solutions

Click here to read the full list

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.