Risks in Prefabricated Buildings in China: Importance-Performance Analysis Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Methodology
3. Findings: Identification of Potential Risks
3.1. Feasibility Study Stage
3.2. Design Stage
3.3. Manufacturing and Transport Stage
3.4. Construction Stage
3.5. Operational Stage
4. Importance-Performance Analysis: Critical Risks and Corresponding Strategies
- High overall cost (A10)
- Changes to preferable policies (A1)
- Lack of uniqueness or customization in prefabricated building design (B1)
- High capital cost (A9)
- Lack of related standards (A6)
- Shortage of industrial technology management personnel during construction (D3)
- Insufficient training to industrial workers (C18)
- Change to related laws (A4)
- Insufficient coordination between prefabricated construction and other components of construction (D1)
- Lack of appropriate planning of production capacity of prefabricated components (A12)
- Insufficient strength of prefabricated concrete components (C2)
- Insufficient lifting capacity of lifting machinery (D14)
- Insufficient strength when lifting the prefabricated concrete component (C3)
- Insufficient radius of crane operation (D13)
- Violation of design specifications (B3)
- Poor consideration of geological conditions, resulting in failure to put into use (B5)
- The materials and accessories used for component installation have not been tested (D12)
- Insufficient concrete strength after joint pouring (D15)
- Rebar corrosion (D16)
- Impact of climate factors (D17)
- Improper decomposition system (B12)
- Low level of factory management (C4)
- The quality assurance system does not work (C6)
- Deviation in specification of prefabricated components (C16)
- Defects of component system (C17)
- Missing catalogue of building parts and components (D21)
- Poor adaptability of prefabricated building during the operation stage (E7)
- Lack of actual cases to prove the environmental benefits of prefabricated buildings (E9)
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zuo, J.; Read, B.; Pullen, S.; Shi, Q. Carbon-neutral commercial building development. J. Manag. Eng. 2012, 29, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Zuo, J.; Cai, H.; Zillante, G. Construction waste reduction behavior of contractor employees: An extended theory of planned behavior model approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1399–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Tam, V.W.; Zuo, J. Considering life-cycle environmental impacts and society’s willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste management fee: An empirical study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 1004–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, G.; Smith, S.D. Safety hazard identification on construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, D.; Wu, C.; Wu, H. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, J.K.; Shen, G.Q.; Lindhard, S.M.; Brunoe, T.D. Factors affecting schedule delay, cost overrun, and quality level in public construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 32, 04015032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sambasivan, M.; Deepak, T.J.; Salim, A.N.; Ponniah, V. Analysis of delays in Tanzanian construction industry: Transaction cost economics (TCE) and structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 308–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: A Hong Kong case study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 953–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S.; Chiang, Y.H. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Shen, L.; Tang, L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wong, P.S.; Zwar, C.; Gharaie, E. Examining the drivers and states of organizational change for greater use of prefabrication in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, C.; Xie, F.; Hou, L.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. Cost analysis for sustainable off-site construction based on a multiple-case study in China. Habitat Int. 2016, 57, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, R.; Mao, C.; Hou, L.; Wu, C.; Tan, J. A SWOT analysis for promoting off-site construction under the backdrop of China’s new urbanisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, R.M.; Ogden, R.G. Sustainability and process benefits of modular construction. In Proceedings of the 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, UK, 10 May 2010; pp. 10–13. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Pan, W. Influencing parameters of the life cycle cost-energy relationship of buildings. J. Green Build. 2018, 13, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, V.W.; Fung, I.W.; Sing, M.C.; Ogunlana, S.O. Best practice of prefabrication implementation in the Hong Kong public and private sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 216–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, Y.; Li, K.; Pan, W.; Ng, T. Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: Evidence from and gaps in empirical studies. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, D.; Guaralda, M.; Sawang, S. Innovative housing adoption: Modular housing for the Australian growing family. J. Green Build. 2016, 11, 147–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State Council. Guidelines on the Development of Prefabricated Buildings in China; State Council of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2016.
- Martilla, J.A.; James, J.C. Importance-performance analysis. J. Mark. 1977, 41, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ennew, C.T.; Reed, G.V.; Binks, M.R. Importance-performance analysis and the measurement of service quality. Eur. J. Mark. 1993, 27, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boley, B.B.; McGehee, N.G.; Hammett, A.T. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: The resident perspective. Tour. Manag. 2017, 58, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phadermrod, B.; Crowder, R.M.; Wills, G.B. Importance-performance analysis based SWOT analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- To, W.M.; Lam, K.H.; Lai, T.M. Importance-performance ratings for environmental practices among Hong Kong professional-level employees. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Soebarto, V.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L. Discovering the transition pathways toward sustainability for construction enterprises: Importance-performance analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Soebarto, V.; Lu, Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L. Sustainability attitude and performance of construction enterprises: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1440–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekström, D.; Rempling, R.; Plos, M. Integrated project team performance in early design stages–performance indicators influencing effectiveness in bridge design. Archit. Eng. Design Manag. 2019, 15, 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, X.; Chang, R.; Wen, T. Overcoming barriers to off-site construction through engaging stakeholders: A two-mode social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 735–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, L.Z.; Mao, C.; Shen, L.Y.; Li, Z.D. Risk factors affecting practitioners’ attitudes toward the implementation of an industrialized building system: A case study from China. Eng. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2015, 22, 622–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salzer, C.; Wallbaum, H.; Ostermeyer, Y.; Kono, J. Environmental performance of social housing in emerging economies: Life cycle assessment of conventional and alternative construction methods in the Philippines. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1785–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, V.W.; Tam, C.M.; Zeng, S.X.; Ng, W.C. Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 3642–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, W.; Lee, M.W.; Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. The hindrance to using prefabrication in Hong Kong’s building industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. Design issues of using prefabrication in Hong Kong building construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 1025–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.Z.; Zhong, R.Y.; Xue, F.; Xu, G.; Chen, K.; Huang, G.G.; Shen, G.Q. Integrating RFID and BIM technologies for mitigating risks and improving schedule performance of prefabricated house construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 1048–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafa, S.; Kim, K.P.; Tam, V.W.; Rahnamayiezekavat, P. Exploring the status, benefits, barriers and opportunities of using BIM for advancing prefabrication practice. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.; Yuan, H. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes of offshore prefabrication construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 804–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, Y.; Li, X.; Masanet, E.; Zhang, L.; Huang, Z.; Ries, R. Unlocking the green opportunity for prefabricated buildings and construction in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.O.; Chen, X.B.; Kim, T.W. Opportunities and challenges of modular methods in dense urban environment. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.Z.; Hong, J.; Xue, F.; Shen, G.Q.; Xu, X.; Mok, M.K. Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 482–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, R.Y.; Peng, Y.; Xue, F.; Fang, J.; Zou, W.; Luo, H.; Ng, S.T.; Lu, W.; Shen, G.Q.; Huang, G.Q. Prefabricated construction enabled by the Internet-of-Things. Autom. Constr. 2017, 76, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, Y.; Lu, W.; Chen, K.; Huang, G.G.; Anumba, C. Smart construction objects. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2015, 30, 04015070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salama, T.; Salah, A.; Moselhi, O.; Al-Hussein, M. Near optimum selection of module configuration for efficient modular construction. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 316–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fard, M.M.; Terouhid, S.A.; Kibert, C.J.; Hakim, H. Safety concerns related to modular/prefabricated building construction. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 2017, 24, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Z.; Shen, G.Q.; Xue, X. Critical review of the research on the management of prefabricated construction. Habitat Int. 2014, 43, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matoski, A.; Ribeiro, R.S. Evaluation of the acoustic performance of a modular construction system: Case study. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 106, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Shan, M.; Looi, K.Y. Knowledge-based decision support system for prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, X.; Mao, C.; Xie, F.; Liu, G.; Xu, P. Greenhouse gas emission monitoring system for manufacturing prefabricated components. Autom. Constr. 2018, 93, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navaratnam, S.; Ngo, T.; Gunawardena, T.; Henderson, D. Performance Review of Prefabricated Building Systems and Future Research in Australia. Buildings 2019, 9, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1171–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Aibinu, A.A.; Arashpour, M.; Chileshe, N. Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: A Scientometric analysis. Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Interviewees | Organization | Prefabrication Related Experience (Years) |
---|---|---|
A | Contractor | 7 |
B | Contractor | 8 |
C | Contractor | 7 |
D | Design institute | 9 |
E | Design institute | 9 |
F | Modular manufacturer | 8 |
G | Modular manufacturer | 7 |
H | Developer | 6 |
I | Government | 7 |
J | Government | 8 |
Respondents | Distributions |
---|---|
Gender | Male: 117 Female: 37 |
Age | 18–25: 40 26–40: 92 >40: 22 |
Organization | Construction: 45 Design: 59 Modular manufacturer: 14 Developers: 7 Government: 5 Others: 24 |
Prefabrication related experience | 1–5 years: 24 5–10 years: 126 >10 years: 4 |
Importance | Performance | ||
---|---|---|---|
Feasibility study stage (Stage A) | |||
Changes to preferable policies | A1 | 3.85 | 3.66 |
Lack of consultants on prefabrication | A2 | 3.68 | 3.54 |
Lack of funds | A3 | 3.42 | 3.41 |
Change to related laws | A4 | 3.73 | 3.57 |
Changes to the market condition | A5 | 3.7 | 3.5 |
Lack of related standards | A6 | 3.79 | 3.48 |
Low social acceptance | A7 | 3.56 | 3.42 |
Low market acceptance | A8 | 3.6 | 3.58 |
High capital cost | A9 | 3.82 | 3.62 |
High overall cost | A10 | 3.86 | 3.65 |
Lack of appropriate transport and environmental support around the site | A11 | 3.58 | 3.53 |
Lack of appropriate planning of production capacity of prefabricated components | A12 | 3.71 | 3.53 |
Design stage (Stage B) | |||
Lack of uniqueness or customization in prefabricated building design | B1 | 3.84 | 3.56 |
Concerns of designers on the seismic performance of prefabricated buildings | B2 | 3.63 | 3.47 |
Violation of design specifications | B3 | 3.09 | 3.27 |
Design institute lacks deep design capability | B4 | 3.51 | 3.47 |
Poor consideration of geological conditions, resulting in failure to put into use | B5 | 3.16 | 3.28 |
Poor constructability | B6 | 3.34 | 3.42 |
Lack of experience in integration design of prefabricated building | B7 | 3.6 | 3.59 |
Improper material selection | B8 | 3.18 | 3.37 |
The decomposition of building design is not standardized and not modularized | B9 | 3.58 | 3.49 |
Flaws in technical specifications | B10 | 3.56 | 3.48 |
Lack of information technology | B11 | 3.55 | 3.53 |
Improper decomposition system | B12 | 3.45 | 3.5 |
Poor structural design | B13 | 3.5 | 3.52 |
Waterproof and anti-seepage treatment of joints is insufficiently considered in design | B14 | 3.5 | 3.53 |
Manufacturing and transport stage (Stage C) | |||
Deviation in component sizes | C1 | 3.46 | 3.36 |
Insufficient strength of prefabricated concrete components | C2 | 3.03 | 3.23 |
Insufficient strength when lifting the prefabricated concrete component | C3 | 3.18 | 3.26 |
Low level of factory management | C4 | 3.46 | 3.49 |
Shortage of industrial technology management personnel during production and transportation | C5 | 3.51 | 3.57 |
The quality assurance system does not work | C6 | 3.46 | 3.46 |
Lack of professional stacking tools | C7 | 3.33 | 3.34 |
Lack of professional transportation tools | C8 | 3.27 | 3.42 |
Transport distance is too long | C9 | 3.41 | 3.38 |
Lack of logistics network | C10 | 3.41 | 3.4 |
The lack of coordination of construction team during the transportation phase which leads to delays and extra costs | C11 | 3.4 | 3.36 |
Transport vehicles do not meet the requirements | C12 | 3.33 | 3.37 |
Insufficient transport road conditions (including the radius of gyration of the road and the limit of the bearing capacity of the bridge) | C13 | 3.35 | 3.34 |
Improper stacking of components | C14 | 3.36 | 3.38 |
No fixed measures were taken when transporting components | C15 | 3.24 | 3.37 |
Deviation in specification of prefabricated components | C16 | 3.36 | 3.46 |
Defects of component system | C17 | 3.42 | 3.47 |
Insufficient training to industrial workers | C18 | 3.74 | 3.57 |
Construction stage (Stage D) | |||
Insufficient coordination between prefabricated construction and other components of construction | D1 | 3.72 | 3.49 |
Construction company lacks relevant experience | D2 | 3.67 | 3.53 |
Shortage of industrial technology management personnel during construction | D3 | 3.75 | 3.59 |
Shortage of industrial workers during the construction stage | D4 | 3.7 | 3.52 |
Instable mechanical supply market | D5 | 3.57 | 3.45 |
Insufficient professional tools and machinery | D6 | 3.66 | 3.49 |
Insufficient industrial training and education | D7 | 3.71 | 3.56 |
Failure of connection during lifting | D8 | 3.31 | 3.38 |
Hoisting machinery does not work properly | D9 | 3.31 | 3.4 |
Lifting operation error | D10 | 3.27 | 3.39 |
Fall from height | D11 | 3.39 | 3.36 |
The materials and accessories used for component installation have not been tested | D12 | 3.24 | 3.29 |
Insufficient radius of crane operation | D13 | 3.25 | 3.27 |
Insufficient lifting capacity of lifting machinery | D14 | 3.31 | 3.26 |
Insufficient concrete strength after in-situ cast of connection | D15 | 3.36 | 3.3 |
Rebar corrosion | D16 | 3.22 | 3.32 |
Impact of climate factors | D17 | 3.24 | 3.33 |
Lack of quality inspection methods | D18 | 3.56 | 3.56 |
Lack of technologies to test the quality of connections | D19 | 3.6 | 3.53 |
Quality acceptance method and standard are missing | D20 | 3.55 | 3.58 |
No catalogue of building parts and components | D21 | 3.45 | 3.53 |
Operational stage (Stage E) | |||
Property company lacks experience | E1 | 3.44 | 3.42 |
Insufficient parts production and sales system | E2 | 3.42 | 3.41 |
Lack of public awareness and knowledge of prefabrication | E3 | 3.64 | 3.58 |
Failure to maintain properly | E4 | 3.5 | 3.47 |
Poor sound insulation in prefabricated building | E5 | 3.18 | 3.36 |
Poor waterproof performance of prefabricated buildings | E6 | 3.29 | 3.41 |
Poor adaptability of prefabricated building during the operation stage | E7 | 3.47 | 3.45 |
Did not achieve the expected return | E8 | 3.51 | 3.5 |
Lack of actual cases to prove the environmental benefits of prefabricated buildings | E9 | 3.48 | 3.51 |
Lack of actual cases to prove the social benefits of prefabricated buildings | E10 | 3.51 | 3.49 |
Lack of actual cases to prove the economic benefits of prefabricated buildings | E11 | 3.51 | 3.51 |
Difficulties to collect real-time energy consumption and emissions data for prefabricated buildings | E12 | 3.55 | 3.55 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, Z.-L.; Shen, H.-C.; Zuo, J. Risks in Prefabricated Buildings in China: Importance-Performance Analysis Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123450
Wang Z-L, Shen H-C, Zuo J. Risks in Prefabricated Buildings in China: Importance-Performance Analysis Approach. Sustainability. 2019; 11(12):3450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123450
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Zhong-Lei, Hou-Cai Shen, and Jian Zuo. 2019. "Risks in Prefabricated Buildings in China: Importance-Performance Analysis Approach" Sustainability 11, no. 12: 3450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123450