From prefabs to modern methods of development: challenges, potentials and lessons learnt

As the construction of traditional new homes continues to face challenges, developers are increasingly turning to modern methods of construction (MMC) to deliver new developments. In this blog, Dr Bilge Serin, Co-investigator at the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence and Lecturer in Global Urbanism at the University of Glasgow, reports on new research seeking to understand the challenges and opportunities of MMC for development.

The UK faces many long-standing housing problems, especially affordability, access to decent housing, and a deficit in the number of homes across the country built in the right place. The climate emergency has brought another challenge to these long-standing problems because we need to reduce the carbon produced during the construction process and lifecycle of buildings.

Many of these issues are not unique to UK housing but are experienced across the globe in different forms and shapes depending on specific challenges of each country. Responding to some of these challenges, in the past few decades we have seen an increasing policy and business interest in modern methods of construction (MMC), coupled with a growth in emerging technologies facilitating contemporary MMC practices. With my colleague Dr Sarah Payne, we conducted an evidence review on this interest to explore the challenges, potential opportunities, and lessons learnt internationally about MMC.

What is MMC?

Many different terms and concepts are used to refer to MMC, and these are sometimes used interchangeably, such as offsite production or prefabricated housing. This sometimes creates confusion, and some of these terms, such as prefabs, can have negative connotations, bearing a long-standing stigma and an association with low-quality construction. However, the term ‘modern methods of construction’ still best represents the varying technical and discursive intentions in academic and policy circles overall.

MMC is not a new phenomenon. In the past, serious quality issues ultimately led to a decrease in the use of this form of construction. The stigma associated with failed past practices has made prefabricated housing unattractive to construction industries and end users. Nonetheless, contemporary MMC that represent industry practice in the early twenty first century have been shown to bring about numerous benefits for the development industry. For example, MMC can offer better building quality and high-quality control, improvements in the speed of construction and a reduction in environmental impacts. However, despite numerous policy and development benefits, the uptake of MMC remains low and slower than it could be.

Going beyond the technical

Many of the studies on MMC are technical and based largely within the domains of engineering and construction management. This narrow technical focus neglects aspects of the wider development process. If MMC is to gain wider housing industry legitimacy, considering the wider development process, in addition to the technical aspects within construction, is equally important. In this respect, MMC business models, regulatory practices relevant to MMC, and consumer preferences regarding MMC-built homes are key factors to consider.

In addition, our study shows that state leadership is crucial in promoting and incentivising MMC as a mainstream form of housing provision. Regulation can be a driver, facilitator, and promoter all at once. However, confusing regulations and slow processes also hinder MMC uptake. Regulation should include provisions for increasing both the quality and quantity of housing supply, rather than simply promoting MMC as a booster for increasing the number of new build houses.

Our review also uncovered a bias towards tradition and business culture inertia within the business models of house builders. However, hybrid strategies and a new paradigm focused on quality have been emerging within the industry. The evidence shows that MMC requires unique processes that are often considered risky due to project complexity and a fragmented supply chain.

Lastly, our review points towards an adverse public impression of MMC. Much needs to be done to address the prevailing perceptual hangover of prefabrication as low quality and substandard. If MMC, and modular housing in particular, is to gain institutional traction and become a mainstream form of housing delivery, consumer perceptions about quality must be addressed. The characteristics of the consumer also play an important role in driving interest, but design concerns exist around the balance between the standardisation of homes and their customisation.

Towards modern methods of development

All in all, the wider adoption of MMC requires a comprehensive look at the whole development process. Ultimately, we argue in our review that a conceptual change from modern methods of construction to modern methods of development is needed. This framing shifts the focus away from construction - which is one aspect of the development process - to a broader institutional perspective. This captures the complexities of housebuilding business strategy (business), regulatory protocols (governance) and end users themselves (occupiers, residents or homeowners).

We suggest that this change in perception – from MMC to MMD - would also help to better address systemic housing supply issues, rather than simply seeing MMC as a quick fix that can boost the construction speed of housing units in the short term.