MMC vs Traditional

MMC vs Traditional

1. Value

   • Not a question of lowest cost
   • Need to maintain and increase quality
     • Durability
     • Life-time running costs
     • Sustainability
   • Speed (government requirements)

2. Labour savings

   • Volumetric approach allows a quarter of on-site labour
     • Greater saving available with different cladding
   • Factory based production not the same labour pull as on-site construction
     • Not competing for the same skills

3. Time savings

   • Can half the time on site
   • Time to achieve water-tightness quartered
     • Quality protected as no weather damage
     • Improved working condidtions
   • These saving are only available with the use of process plans tailored to match the method of construction and followed appropriately

4. Relationship with planning authorities

   • Good relationship required to keep off-sire production off the critical path
     • Otherwise on-site savings are replaced with off-site time
       • Nullifies benefits of MMC
   • Manufacture needs to take place at point of outline planning permission
     • During process required regardless of method
   • Discussion before initial planning application, not after submission
     • "Recommendation of approval" before formal approval
       • Allows works to continue

5. Costs

   • Baker Report (2004)
     • "The time savings available do not currently provide a compelling financial reason to switch production"
   • Generally MMC is more expensive
     • Open panels are the exeption
       • Cost competitive with traditional
   • Time benefits bridge a third of the gap
     • Rent quicker
     • Less snagging
       • Higher quality control on factory
     • More off-site construction means less on-site inspection
   • Aim to build homes for £60 000
     • £784 per square meter
       • Achievable by MMC
   • For/Against MMC
     • Favour MMC
       • Poor soil conditions
       • Restricted working space
       • More storeys
       • Rooms in roof
     • Against MMC
       • Late design changes
       • No standard design
       • Late appointment of contractor/supplier
       • Need to suspend operations

6. Capacity

   • Most suppliers could cope with a doubling demand by using spare capacity
   • Increase in demand would cause an increase in price
     • Until more capacity became available
       • Price would then go back down

7. Quality Issues

   • Durability
     • 60 years as standard
     • Degradation same for all methods
     • Off-site manufacture doesn't enhance duarbility
       • Factory production should reduce risk of non-conformities
   • Whole Life Costs
     • The same for all methods
     • May be less components failing early dud to factory production
   • Perfmorance
     • Will meet the standards

8. Risk Management

   • Different risks
     • Not price fluctuations during construction
     • Not delays due to bad weather
     • Unpredictable planning
     • Non-suitable design for MMC
   • Risk higher earlier on
   • Specific risks
     • Late design changes
       • Additional factory work is costly and causes delays
       • Early involvement of supplier is vital
     • Loss of factory production slot
       • Finding a new slot can cause major delays
       • Caused by
         • Underestimating lead in times
         • Drifting start dates
       • Effective communication of key
     • Suppliers failing to deliver on time
       • Construction is stopped, other processes cannot proceed
         • Therefore increase in time and money
       • Effective supply chain managementrequired
         • Ensure orders places in plenty of time