Evaluating the Cost Performance of Modern Methods of Construction

Introduction

Although modern methods of construction (MMC) are welcomed by authorities as opportunities to accelerate economic growth and meet their housing needs, largely due to conjectures that MMC are economically competitive, including allegedly superior time and quality performance, scholars and governments claim a marginally inferior cost performance. However, the published studies lack rigorous substantiation.

Methods

This knowledge gap is partially fulfilled by offering an evaluation of the detailed cost performance of four MMC, namely one timber and one steel frame modular MMC, and one concrete and one steel frame panelized construction system, in a live house construction experiment. Unlike previous studies where the data required adjustments for, inter alia, time and location, the context in this live research experiment is a construction project that was managed by a single contractor on one construction site. The research method includes an investigation of the site conditions and residential building designs, interviews with relevant construction personnel, and analysis of cost records. The sample also includes two identical MMC projects.

Results

The actual cost performance of the four MMC projects was poorer than previously argued in the literature, which was mainly attributable to the higher building superstructure, preliminary, and repair costs. The MMC projects were from 24% to 104% more expensive than the traditional construction method. The cost of the two identical MMC projects varied from 69% to 104%.

Conclusions

Although a consensus exists that MMC are more expensive than traditional construction, this research reveals that they can be significantly more expensive than argued in the literature. The significant variation in the cost of the two identical MMC projects indicates that the factors that impact it go beyond the technology itself. This, combined with the fact that their time and quality performance can also be inferior, is likely to impact their desirability and sustainability.