Circular Industrialized Construction: A Perspective Through Design for Manufacturing, Assembly, and Disassembly

Abstract

Improving resource efficiency by reducing waste and process inefficiencies across the building life cycle is essential for advancing sustainability in the built environment. Circular and industrialized construction offer complementary strategies to meet this challenge. While Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) enhances constructability, standardization, and productivity in early project phases, Design for Disassembly (DfD) facilitates material recovery and adaptability at end-of-life. Despite their synergies, their integrated application remains underexplored. This study proposes a unified framework—Design for Manufacturing, Assembly, and Disassembly (DfMAD)—to align value creation and value retention strategies across the life cycle. A systematic literature review of 102 articles, following PRISMA guidelines, combined bibliometric and thematic analysis to identify key principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers of DfMA and DfD. Cross-mapping these findings revealed conceptual overlaps and distinctions and informed the synthesis of core DfMAD attributes. The resulting framework offers a life cycle-oriented approach that supports product-based delivery, traceability, and circular design strategies. By promoting shared logic across disciplines and project phases, DfMAD provides a foundation for operationalizing circularity in industrialized construction, contributing both theoretical and practical guidance for advancing resource-efficient, adaptable, and disassemblable building systems.

1. Introduction

Migrating toward more industrialized and circular construction practices is essential to address the sector’s historically low productivity and high levels of waste, in a context where projects demand considerable economic investment and rely on increasingly scarce resources [1]. The construction sector is a major contributor to environmental degradation, particularly through intensive resource consumption and pollutant emissions [2]. It accounts for approximately 40% of global resource depletion and 25% of worldwide waste generation [3], with buildings responsible for 34% of global energy demand and 37% of energy and process-related CO₂ emissions as of 2022 [2].

These challenges can be addressed by incorporating manufacturing principles and technologies—such as off-site construction, Building Information Modeling (BIM), and automation—into the construction value chain, thereby enhancing efficiency and sustainability in housing delivery [4,5]. A design methodology rooted in the manufacturing sector and built on Design for Manufacturing (DfM) and Design for Assembly (DfA) principles is critical to meet stakeholder expectations in industrialized construction [6]. Emphasizing design simplification, ease of fabrication and assembly, cost-effectiveness, and quality [7], while applying strategies such as minimization, standardization, and modularization [8], it enables significant performance and sustainability gains [6].

Applying DfMA principles delivers benefits such as reduced construction time and costs, increased delivery certainty, enhanced quality and productivity, process standardization, and the integration of advanced technologies. It also reduces on-site labor, waste, carbon emissions, noise, and safety risks, while supporting regulatory compliance, life cycle performance, client satisfaction, and workforce availability [6,9,10,11].

Implementing smart design strategies that prioritize value creation and retention across the building life cycle—emphasizing resource efficiency—is essential for the effective adoption of industrialized construction [12]. This approach becomes increasingly critical amid rising labor costs and declining material availability [13], especially in a sector historically marked by low productivity [14].

Currently, approximately 35% of global construction and demolition waste (CDW) ends up in landfills without treatment [15], and only 8.6% of material flows are considered circular [16], despite the fact that 57% of the material value is technically recoverable [17]. This highlights the urgent need to reduce CDW by rethinking how materials are used and circulated across the building life cycle. Transitioning from demolition to deconstruction and applying circular economy principles fosters material circularity and value retention [1,18]. Industrialization plays a critical role in enabling this transition.

To optimize material use, components should not be treated as waste at their end-of-life (EoL), but rather as repositories of valuable secondary resources. Reuse should be prioritized over recycling, following the waste hierarchy and R-frameworks [19,20]. This aligns with efforts to promote a sustainable socio-economic metabolism in the built environment [21]. Consequently, buildings designed for disassembly (DfD)—which anticipate material recovery and reuse—are increasingly essential [22,23,24]. Indeed, disassembly is frequently cited as a core indicator of circularity [25].

Although limited, emerging research has begun to explore links between circular and industrialized construction through the concept of disassembly, which refers to the systematic separation of building components at their EoL, enabling the implementation of value retention strategies aligned with CE principles [1,26].

Despite their benefits, both circular and industrialized construction face shared barriers, often addressed in isolation. Common challenges include high upfront costs, limited technological readiness, and difficulty measuring long-term gains [10,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. These raise questions about the intersections and distinctions between the principles, benefits, enablers, and barriers of DfMA and DfD—especially when aiming to integrate them through a unified Design for Manufacture, Assembly, and Disassembly (DfMAD) framework.

Originally developed in the manufacturing sector to streamline production and reduce waste, the DfMAD approach has received limited attention in construction [7]. While studies have examined DfMA and DfD separately—including their applications, barriers, and benefits—there is little research addressing them in combination. Moreover, the lack of a holistic understanding of DfMA’s impact across the entire building life cycle is emphasized [7], a gap that the DfMAD framework could address.

Research conceptualizing circular economy in the construction industry has been conducted, but some gaps in knowledge still exist [1,7,35,36,37]. Although circular construction is widely discussed, the concept remains fragmented and inconsistently defined across the literature [1]. Thus, conceptualizing the DfMAD framework provides a valuable opportunity to connect circular and industrialized construction, helping to close critical knowledge gaps [7,36,37].

This study comprises a systematic literature review to explore DfMA and DfD patterns, identifying their principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers. It aims to define the DfMAD framework and articulate its role in bridging industrialized and circular construction practices. Through thematic content analysis, this study derives attributes essential to the DfMAD approach and addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the key principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers of DfMA and DfD approaches?

RQ2: What patterns, commonalities, and distinctions can be identified between the DfMA and DfD approaches?

RQ3: How can the DfMAD approach be framed and defined by synthesizing the convergences and incorporating the distinctive features of DfMA and DfD?

Addressing these questions will result in a clearly defined DfMAD framework for the built environment, promoting a shared understanding that enhances communication, reduces ambiguity, and supports the development of integrated theories, frameworks, and practical strategies in both circular and industrialized construction.

The DfMAD approach should integrate value creation (including lean thinking and process innovation) and value retention (such as material circularity and disassembly) strategies, alongside features such as standardized processes, design as a product, and Construction 4.0 technologies [1,4,7,22,38,39,40,41]. This framework can support industrialized construction stakeholders in moving beyond the assembly stage toward more circular project outcomes. It also informs policy development, enabling decision-makers to implement DfMAD principles effectively and support the shift away from the traditional linear “take-make-use-dispose” model. Embedding circular principles into the design of industrialized buildings is fundamental to ensuring long-term sustainability and material efficiency.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 defines key terms and reviews prior literature. Section 3 outlines the methodology. Section 4 presents and discusses findings. Section 5 concludes with the study’s main contributions.

2. Conceptual Review and Previous Work

2.1. Circular and Industrialized Construction

Industrialized construction encompasses modern methods aimed at enhancing sustainability, efficiency, and predictability in building processes [4]. It includes off-site construction technologies and select on-site innovations, such as 3D concrete printing [5]. Lessing and Brege (2018) [42] identify nine foundational areas for industrialized construction: the planning and control of processes, developed technical systems, prefabrication, long-term relationships, logistics, the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), the re-use of experience and measurements, customer and market focus, and continuous improvements. This model integrates automation, robotics, mechanization, standardization, and prefabrication within a manufacturing-oriented construction framework for mass customization [43,44]. Additionally, it incorporates digitalization and optimization tools, typically BIM-based, to address the challenges encountered in construction projects [4,45]. As a result, building components are produced in controlled environments and assembled on-site, reducing labor demands and resources [46,47]. Despite the significant advantages of off-site construction techniques and the considerable interest from researchers and stakeholders in this unconventional method of building, their adoption remains low [48].

Industrialized construction terminology vary globally, such as Modern Methods of Construction (MMC—UK, Spain), Off-site Manufacturing (OSM—Australia), Industrialized Building System (IBS—Malaysia, Thailand), Off-site Construction (OSC—China), Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC—Singapore), Industrialized Housing (Netherlands), Modular Construction (Canada), and Prefabricated Housing (Japan, Philippines), among many others [5]. According to Sánchez-Garrido et al. (2023) [5], MMC can serve as an umbrella term, encompassing both industrialized and innovative non-industrialized methods.

OSC levels range from basic prefabricated elements to complex volumetric systems [49,50]. In housing, volumetric forms are typically achieved using concrete, metal, and wood panels, where high-performance connections are critical for structural integrity and deconstruction capacity that promotes circularity [22,23].

Standardization is a core principle of industrialized construction, enabling improved process control and supporting technological integration, including robotics, ICT, and automation [44]. Beyond facilitating prefabrication, standardization underpins continuous improvement by enabling the systematic collection of production data to enhance efficiency and reduce complexity through standardized product and process strategies [44,51]. Indeed, Industrialized building firms are characterized by their reliance on product platforms and repeatable processes across production and supply chains, which are continuously refined [42]. The roots of standardization lie in lean principles, which support efficiency, waste minimization, and mass customization in industrialized construction [5,44].

Accordingly, standardization, prefabrication, and system building—framing an integrated product-process model—are recognized as the three defining attributes of industrialized buildings [52]. A key distinction from conventional construction lies in how infrastructure is designed and built, where prefabrication and OSC are positioned as central for the industrialized construction [44,53]. OSC, therefore, is frequently a hallmark of projects aligned with industrialized approaches [46].

The current construction ecosystem is complex, project-based, and fragmented—a condition that industrialized construction aims to improve [38]. A defining feature of industrialized construction is vertical integration, which, together with industrial-grade supply chains and strategic partnerships, reduces interface friction and accelerates innovation [38,44]. The Construction 4.0 framework addresses inefficiencies stemming from fragmentation across the project life cycle and team roles [54]. The holistic integration of business components—such as operational platforms, market positioning, and offerings—distinguishes industrialized from traditional practices [42]. This integration spans processes, products, supply chains, and strategic partnerships, enhancing coordination, efficiency, and value creation [44]. According to Costa et al. (2023) [55], three interrelated components frame this integration, namely influencers, organizational strategy, and design principles, with the latter being closely aligned with the DfMA approach.

While industrialized construction focuses on innovation, digital technologies (Construction 4.0), and management models (Lean Construction) to optimize efficiency and reduce waste, circular construction emphasizes sustainable practices that extend material lifespans and retain value [1,44]. Rooted in circular economy principles, it offers an alternative to the linear “take-make-use-dispose” model, adopting strategies to narrow (optimize resource use), slow (extend building lifespan), and close (enable reuse/recycling) material loops [56].

Circular construction prioritizes reversible design to mitigate obsolescence, reduce raw material extraction, and enhance adaptability [1]. Reversible strategies—where components are added or removed without damage—support flexibility and environmental performance by minimizing construction and demolition waste (CDW) and promoting material reuse [57,58]. Conversely, industrialized construction targets cost-efficiency, shorter schedules, controlled site operations, and improved sustainability through reduced waste, resource consumption, and on-site risks [59].

Circular economy goals in construction also align with Lean Construction principles, as both seek to reduce life cycle waste and maximize resource efficiency [37,60,61]. Pursuing resource efficiency in industrialized construction spans the entire building life cycle, especially during the design, manufacturing, logistics, occupancy, and end-of-life phases. However, most strategies are formulated and executed early in the life cycle, impacting value creation [12]. The product- and manufacturing-led approach facilitates the design and production of high-value building components, ensuring maximum value delivery at the point of use and promoting value retention through durable products and flexible design solutions that extend usability and adaptability beyond EoL [12]. This illustrates a clear link between industrialized construction and circular practices.

Industrialized construction transcends mere prefabrication by shifting from project-based to product-based delivery, wherein buildings are seen as products developed through evolving technical and process platforms [62]. Product platforms foster mass customization, digital integration, scalability, and supply chain collaboration [63,64].

To advance circular industrialized construction, innovative strategies must be embedded within product platforms to respond to resource scarcity and climate imperatives. Resource efficiency is a key enabler of circularity [12]. DfD enhances flexibility and enables product-as-a-service models, where manufacturers retain responsibility for end-of-life management, promoting reuse and extended life cycle sustainability. Within this framework, assembly and disassembly are central strategies supporting circular construction [56].

Although adopting a circular industrialized construction approach offers substantial benefits, its implementation remains challenging due to the barriers that DfMA and DfD strategies must overcome, as explored in this study. Most buildings still rely on linear processes, and circularity is often limited to material recycling [1,48]. Meanwhile, circular practices remain largely focused on the use of recycled materials and the recyclability of construction components at the end of a building’s life cycle [65,66], reflecting resistance to systemic change.

Advocating for a circular industrialized construction approach through the integration of DfD and DfMA can promote a more circular construction paradigm. However, despite extensive research on both design-oriented approaches, investigations into their synergies remain limited [7].

2.2. Overview of DfMA, DfD, and DfMAD Concepts

2.2.1. Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA)

DfMA, originally developed in the manufacturing sector, has been increasingly adopted in construction. Initially applied to factory-made, mass-produced components, it now encompasses mass customization, enabling tailored solutions for complex, high-cost products such as buildings [67]. DfMA integrates two key design considerations to improve construction efficiency: (a) Design for Manufacturing (DfM), which focuses on optimizing components for factory production, and (b) Design for Assembly (DfA), which ensures efficient on-site integration [67,68]. The approach prioritizes functionality, manufacturability, and assemblability to achieve optimal outcomes [69]. Although often regarded as a design methodology, some scholars categorize DfMA as a digital technology [70].

DfM ensures clean, controlled, and efficient off-site production, while DfA links component design to on-site assembly, improving construction quality and resource use [67]. DfMA serves as a comprehensive framework, incorporating principles from Lean Construction, concurrent engineering, buildability, target value design, OSC, modularization, standardization, BIM-based digital fabrication, and generative design [7,68,71,72]. Therefore, its core focus lies in value generation, efficiency, continuous improvement, and waste minimization—guided by established design principles, which this study examines through a systematic literature review.

While not a new concept, DfMA’s adoption in construction is relatively recent. Existing research primarily evaluates its efficiency impacts and integration with emerging technologies [7]. Studies range from theoretical analyses to practical case applications [7]. Montazeri et al. (2024) [71] identified six thematic areas, where Innovation and Technology Trends, Application Areas, Benefits, and Challenges were the most frequent themes addressed. They emphasize the importance of advancing the practical implementation of DfMA and staying abreast of its technological developments.

DfMA and OSC are closely related [73], particularly when viewed through the lens of industrialized construction [59]. According to Hyun et al. (2022) [74], the DfMA approach is strongly tied to OSC and prefabrication by focusing on integrating manufacturing and assembly considerations into the design. It leverages digital tools like robotic fabrication and parametric modeling to improve efficiency, reduce errors, and adapt designs to OSC needs [73]. By addressing logistics, lifting, assembly, and joint design early on, DfMA improves constructability in prefabricated systems such as precast concrete and modular units [74].

OSC itself varies in scope based on the level of prefabrication and product complexity, from basic factory-made elements (e.g., windows, doors) to complete modular units [59]. Figure 1 illustrates this spectrum, from simple components and panels to advanced prefabricated prefinished volumetric units (PPVU), which require minimal on-site work [75]. Each of these levels can be further subcategorized according to its complexity. For example, panels can range from basic structural elements to more refined and functional ones that incorporate complex accessories [76]. These levels reflect a continuum of industrialization in construction and the increasing relevance of DfMA in delivering scalable, efficient, and high-quality building systems.

Prefabricated buildings primarily utilize timber, steel (including light steel frame systems and repurposed containers), and concrete. Components may include 2D panels, 3D volumetric units, hybrid systems (2D + 3D), or complete modular homes, all manufactured off-site and delivered for on-site installation [77].

Implementing DfMA-oriented design requires a multidisciplinary team to ensure seamless coordination across architectural, engineering, manufacturing, and construction disciplines, particularly for complex OSC projects [73]. Collaborative design efforts involving architects, engineers, manufacturers, contractors, and project managers facilitate the integration of key DfMA principles [72,73,74], which will be addressed further on. This early-stage collaboration, aligned with concurrent engineering, streamlines the transition from design to assembly, supports Lean Construction practices, and maximizes project value by reducing waste and inefficiencies [78]. BIM technologies further support DfMA implementation by enhancing integration and enabling data-driven design optimization [7].

Figure 2 illustrates a typical DfMA workflow for OSC or modular construction, outlining the DfM and DfA stages and highlighting the critical role of interdisciplinary collaboration in achieving integrated, performance-driven outcomes.

2.2.2. Design for Disassembly (DfD)

Although there is no universally accepted definition of DfD, it is generally described as an early-stage design strategy aimed at minimizing resource consumption and waste by enabling non-destructive disassembly at a building’s end-of-life, thereby aligning with circular economy principles [80]. Despite its potential, fewer than 1% of existing buildings are designed for deconstruction, underscoring its limited uptake in practice [24]. Originating in the manufacturing sector—gaining prominence in the early 1990s after the introduction of Design for Assembly—DfD has seen limited application within the construction industry [81].

Research on DfD reveals diverse interpretations, with its application in housing primarily limited to small-scale buildings using wood or steel, which offer higher circularity potential. Frame or modular prefabrication systems and reversible connections (e.g., bolts) are critical enablers of effective disassembly in these cases [7,24,81,82,83,84].

In circular economy studies, ten value retention options (VROs)—the “10Rs”—including reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, and recycling, are used to guide material retention strategies [85,86]. Their application requires the consideration of the building’s physical layers, as conceptualized in Stewart Brand’s 6S framework, namely Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan, and Stuff, each with distinct lifespans [23,87,88]. Integrating this with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s ReSOLVE framework helps translate circular economy principles into design actions [87]. According to Akinade et al. (2015) [89], the theory of building layers is vital for maintaining building subsystems as independently as possible. This strategy ensures that components on the upper layers can be modified or replaced without impacting the lower layers. Consequently, this approach facilitates the technical feasibility of building deconstruction, as the interfaces between layers serve as points of deconstruction.

DfD is aligned with architectural strategies emphasizing reversibility, changeability, deployability and adaptability [80,90]. Charef et al. (2022) [90] highlight that the concept of “design for” specific architecture/purpose is new and not widely adopted in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) industry. Among them, Design for Circularity (DfC) stands out by promoting systemic thinking and life cycle value retention through integration with a value chain model [91]. While each “design for” framework varies, most aim to enable reuse and recycling while minimizing end-of-life waste [1,90].

In this study, deconstruction and disassembly will be used interchangeably. However, some authors highlight distinctions between these concepts. Akinade et al. (2015) [89] define deconstruction as “the whole or partial disassembly of buildings to facilitate component reuse and material recycling to eliminate demolition through the recovery of reusable materials”. O’Grady et al. (2021) [84] differentiate deconstruction as “the removal of a building’s structural elements and the relocation of part or the whole building”, distinguishing it from disassembly, which does not involve removing structural components for “potential rebuilding”. Instead, disassembly refers to “the disconnection of individual parts that make up the fabric of the building, including wall cladding, non-structural wall panels, flooring, kitchens, and internal finishes” [84]. Despite these differences, both contrast with conventional demolition, which results in material loss. Intermediate approaches like destructive disassembly or selective demolition fall short of circular economy goals [80,84,92]. Thus, effective DfD requires systems designed to enable component recovery easily while minimizing damage. Congruently with this, DfD is defined by ISO 20887 [93] as an “approach to the design of a product or constructed asset that facilitates disassembly at the end of its useful life, in such a way that enables components and parts to be reused, recycled, recovered for energy or, in some other way, diverted from the waste stream”. The ISO International Organization for Standardization (2020), in ISO 20887:2020, provides principles, requirements and guidance for sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works, specifically designs for disassembly and adaptability.

To operationalize DfD, several levels of technical decomposition have been proposed, from the whole building to subsystems, components, and materials [57,89,94]. However, no standard taxonomy exists. As noted by Durmisevic (2018) [57], terms like system, subsystem, and component are relative; a subsystem at one level can be considered a component at another. Durmisevic (2018) [57] classifies reversible building design into three levels: building, systems (arrangement of components), and components (arrangement of elements and materials). This decomposition supports layer-specific disassembly planning. Figure 3 illustrates this framework based on Durmisevic (2018) [57] and the layered building model.

2.2.3. Design for Manufacturing, Assembly, and Disassembly (DfMAD)

The DfMAD approach has been applied in the manufacturing sector to address inefficiencies, reduce waste, and enhance sustainability through the integration of design and production processes [40]. It emphasizes efficiency in both assembly and disassembly, aligning with Industry 4.0 standards by leveraging advanced decision-support tools and integrated technologies to optimize sustainable production systems [40]. Although DfMA and DfD have been widely discussed in the built environment, Roxas et al. (2023) [7] note a gap in research addressing their integration. Montazeri et al. (2024) [71] further highlight the limited understanding of DfMA’s impact across the full project life cycle, underscoring the need to explore their joint application. The DfMAD framework offers a pathway for this integration, extending DfMA beyond prefabrication and assembly to support sustainability throughout the building life cycle.

In the academic literature, references to DfMAD in the built environment remain scarce. While Roxas et al. (2023) [7] analyze DfMA and DfD independently, they do not provide a unified DfMAD conceptualization—although a subsequent study presents a process flowchart supporting their integration [96]. Similarly, Ossio et al. (2023) [1] acknowledge the relevance of DfMAD in circular strategies and reversible design but do not define the concept. Related frameworks include Design for Circular Manufacturing and Assembly (DfCMA), which links modularity and circularity [91], and Design for Excellence (DfX), where DfMA forms part of a broader set of objectives such as manufacturability, assemblability, productivity, sustainability, maintainability, and circularity [97]. In line with this, Rankohi et al. (2023) [98], based on the RIBA Plan of Work 2020, propose a DfMA framework that incorporates disassembly and reuse of modular components at end-of-life, seeking alignment between DfMA and DfD.

In contrast, gray literature offers more extensive discussions of DfMAD, particularly in manufacturing. The RightSizer report by Assael Architecture explicitly proposes DfMAD to the built environment as an evolution of DfMA, positioning it as a strategy for transitioning from linear to circular construction models. While initial implementation may incur higher costs due to limited adoption, the report argues that broader industry uptake could reduce costs over time—mirroring trends in sectors such as photovoltaics, HVAC, automotive, and computing [41].

In this context, DfMAD represents the next step in evolving DfMA, integrating disassembly oriented design to support both value creation and value retention [99]. It aims to enable building systems that can be efficiently deconstructed at end-of-life, allowing for the recovery, reuse, or recycling of components—minimizing construction waste, lowering carbon emissions, and extending material lifespans in support of circular and sustainable building practices [99,100].

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a multi-stage research design based on a mixed-methods review [101] to critically examine existing knowledge on DfD and DfMA, with the aim of conceptualizing the DfMAD approach and addressing the research questions. The first research question (RQ1) was explored through a systematic literature review, which identified key principles and factors influencing the implementation of DfD and DfMA, including their benefits, barriers, and enablers. Based on the literature review, mapping techniques and content analysis were applied to address RQ2 and RQ3, leading to the development of a conceptual framework and the definition of DfMAD based on convergences, while integrating distinctive elements between DfMA and DfD approaches.

Accordingly, the methodology followed a three-stage process: (1) the identification and evaluation of high-quality studies [102]; (2) the synthesis of findings through content analysis and mapping techniques; and (3) the derivation of core attributes to conceptualize the DfMAD approach. The following subsections detail each phase.

3.1. Stage 1—Data Collection

Data collection followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol to examine DfD and DfMA approaches. PRISMA provides structured guidelines for systematically identifying, selecting, and analyzing the literature on a given topic, ensuring transparency and rigor in responding to research questions [103,104]. This protocol has been effectively applied to explore the opportunities, challenges, and drivers of innovation in the construction sector [10,105].

The Web of Science database was selected due to its extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in engineering and technology and its recognized scientific robustness [106]. The review considered publications from January 2011 to May 2024, screening journal articles and reviews in English relevant to the AECO sector.

Table 1. DfMA and DfD in the built environment chain queries.

Id	Topic	Keyword String
A	DfMA—Barriers	(“Design for Manufacturing and Assembly” OR “DfMA” OR “Industrialized Construction” OR “Industrialized building system*” OR “IBS” OR “Off-site Construction” OR “OSC”) AND (“Barrier*” OR “hindrance*” OR “challenge*” OR “constraint*” OR “obstacle*”)
B	DfMA—Enablers	(“Design for Manufacturing and Assembly” OR “DfMA” OR “Industrialized Construction” OR “Industrialized building system*” OR “IBS” OR “Off-site Construction” OR “OSC”) AND (“enabler*” OR “facilitator*” OR “promoter*” OR “driver*” OR “opportunities”)
C	DfD—Barriers	(“Design for disassembly” OR “Design for deconstruction” OR “Circular design” OR “Reversible design” OR “DfD” OR “Circular Construction”) AND (“Barrier*” OR “hindrance*” OR “challenge*” OR “constraint*” OR “obstacle*”)
D	DfD—Enablers	(“Design for disassembly” OR “Design for deconstruction” OR “Circular design” OR “Reversible design” OR “DfD” OR “Circular Construction”) AND (“enabler*” OR “facilitator*” OR “promoter*” OR “driver*” OR “opportunities”)
E	DfD/DfMA—Principles/Benefits	(“Design for disassembly” OR “Design for deconstruction” OR “Circular design” OR “Reversible design” OR “DfD” OR “Circular Construction” OR “Design for Manufacturing and Assembly” OR “DfMA” OR “Industrialized Construction” OR “Industrialized building system*” OR “IBS” OR “Off-site Construction” OR “OSC”) AND (“principle*” OR “benefit*” OR “advantage*”) AND (“construction industry” OR “building” OR “construction” OR “build environment”)

Note: The asterisk (*) acts as a wildcard in Boolean searches, retrieving word variants with the same root (e.g., barrier* finds “barrier,” “barriers,” etc.).

summarizes the search strategy, detailing six research topics (A–E), and the keyword combinations used, including Boolean operators applied across “All Fields”.

The article selection process, aligned with PRISMA guidelines [104], followed a structured sequence. Initially, publications with restricted access were excluded, followed by the removal of duplicate entries and non-English articles. Records without author attribution were also excluded from the analysis. Subsequently, title and abstract screening was conducted based on predefined inclusion criteria. These criteria required that articles be peer-reviewed and published between 2011 and 2024. Furthermore, eligible studies had to address either industrialized construction or DfMA in the built environment—specifically focusing on related principles, benefits, barriers, or enablers—or circular construction and DfD approaches, also considering the same thematic dimensions.

In accordance with the inclusion criteria, articles were excluded if they met any of the following three criteria:

(a)

Non-peer-reviewed, unpublished, or outside the AECO field.

(b)

Lacking discussion on benefits, barriers, or enablers related to DfD or DfMA.

(c)

Not addressing DfD or DfMA principles.

3.2. Stage 2—Mapping and Content Analysis

The literature was analyzed using thematic clustering of the DfMA and DfD approaches, guided by domain visualization techniques. For this purpose, VOSviewer version 1.6.18—a widely adopted tool in bibliometric research—was employed [107,108]. Its use has also extended to studies within the construction sector [5,109]. The science mapping method, a well-established bibliometric technique, enables the identification of dynamic knowledge structures that may be overlooked in traditional manual reviews [45]. Compared to alternative tools such as Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, and Gephi, VOSviewer offers a more user-friendly interface and effective visualization capabilities [48,108]. Accordingly, it was used to construct keyword co-occurrence networks and to map the thematic structure of the literature on DfMA and DfD.

Building on these clusters, a content analysis was conducted to identify patterns, commonalities, and distinctions between the two approaches. Content analysis is a robust method for synthesizing relevant data, employing well-defined content categories that are non-mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and explicitly established [110]. Among the various content analysis methods, a conventional approach was adopted [111], in which data were systematically analyzed based on clustering and four content categories: (1) principles and the factors influencing implementation; (2) benefits; (3) barriers; and (4) enablers.

For content categories, the results were compiled into a table summarizing the key principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers associated with each design-oriented approach, along with their corresponding citation frequencies in the reviewed literature. These frequencies served to identify the most prominently emphasized elements within DfMA and DfD.

To examine the conceptual alignment between DfMA and DfD elements, cross-mapping matrices were developed. These matrices enabled visual comparison and classification of pairwise relationships into three categories: (i) equivalent, indicating shared functional intent; (ii) included, where one element encompasses the scope of another; and (iii) distinct, denoting a lack of meaningful conceptual overlap. Classifications were based on intent, applicability, and system-level relevance rather than lexical similarity. Each relationship was labeled as “e” (equivalent), “i” (included), or “d” (distinct), facilitating the synthesis of unified DfMAD elements.

Based on these relationships, consolidated DfMAD principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers were formulated by integrating conceptually aligned elements while retaining distinctive contributions. Each item was articulated as a clear, standalone statement, incorporating shared logic and broader systemic framing where appropriate.

3.3. Stage 3—DfMAD Definition

In qualitative research, concepts are developed through the categorization of data into themes, which serve as the foundation for conceptual construction [112]. This approach was applied in Stage 2, whose results served as the basis for formulating a unified set of DfMAD principles derived from their respective cross-mapping analysis.

Building on these principles and recurring patterns identified in the literature for both design-oriented approaches, a set of DfMAD attributes was defined to distinguish it from DfMA and DfD when treated as separate strategies. These attributes—understood as core characteristics, operational dimensions, or normative features—provide the conceptual foundation for defining DfMAD within the context of industrialized and circular construction. According to Morse (2004) [112], a concept’s attributes function as the framework for its definition by outlining its boundaries, characteristics, and theoretical positioning. Once these attributes are clearly established, they enable the development of a definition that accurately and comprehensively synthesizes the concept. This attribute-based method has been previously applied to define circular construction [1] and is similarly adopted in this study to define DfMAD.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Data Collection

Based on the query strings outlined in Table 1, Figure 4 shows that 2699 articles were initially identified for screening. After applying the exclusion criteria, 102 articles were selected for full-text review—44 addressing DfMA and 58 related to DfD. Of these, 44% focus on principles and benefits (17 DfMA and 29 DfD), 36% on barriers (19 each), and 20% on enablers (8 DfMA and 10 DfD), the least explored category. Due to its length, the complete list of reviewed articles is provided in

Table A1. List of articles retrieved through the SLR for subsequent content analysis.

Citation	Authors, Year	Article Title	Times Cited	Source Title	Document Type	ID	Category	Content Category
[129]	Jung & Yu, 2022	Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) Checklists for Off-Site Construction (OSC) Projects	3	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[71]	Montazeri et al., 2024	Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) in Construction: A Holistic Review of Current Trends and Future Directions	-	BUILDINGS	Review	A	DfMA	Barriers
[74]	Hyun et al., 2022.	Integrated Off-Site Construction Design Process including DfMA Considerations	6	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[98]	Rankohi et al., 2023	Developing a Construction-Oriented DfMA Deployment Framework	2	BUILDINGS	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[6]	Abd Razak et al., 2022	DfMA for a Better Industrialised Building System	11	BUILDINGS	Review	A	DfMA	Barriers
[132]	Y. Li et al., 2023	Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) of Standardized Modular Wood Components	-	TECHNOLOGY-ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[115]	Nguyen et al., 2024	BIM-based preassembly analysis for design for manufacturing and assembly of prefabricated bridges	2	AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[116]	C. Roxas, 2023	Application of design for manufacturing and assembly on temporary shelters in the Philippines	1	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMATE	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[97]	Wuni et al., 2023	Exploring the challenges of implementing design for excellence in industrialized construction projects in China	11	BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[117]	Qi & Costin, 2023	BIM and Ontology-Based DfMA Framework for Prefabricated Component	8	BUILDINGS	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[75]	Gbadamosi et al., 2020	Big data for Design Options Repository: Towards a DFMA approach for offsite construction	42	AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[8]	Tan et al., 2020	Digital-enabled Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) in offsite construction: A modularity perspective for the product and process integration	8	ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[127]	Liu et al., 2023	Prefabricated and Prefinished Volumetric Construction: Assessing Implementation Status, Perceived Benefits, and Critical Risk Factors in the Singapore Built Environment Sector	1	JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[118]	Langston & Zhang, 2021	DfMA: Towards an Integrated Strategy for a More Productive and Sustainable Construction Industry in Australia	22	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[199]	Laovisutthichai & Lu, 2023	Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) in architectural design meetings: from a case study to knowledge-to-action framework	3	SMART AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[72]	Gao et al., 2020.	Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: a review	84	BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION	Review	A	DfMA	Barriers
[130]	Orlowski et al., 2018	Design and Development of Weatherproof Seals for Prefabricated Construction: A Methodological Approach	17	BUILDINGS	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[155]	Costa et al., 2023	A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework of Construction Industrialization	8	JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT	Review	A	DfMA	Barriers
[189]	Sun et al., 2020	Constraints Hindering the Development of High-Rise Modular Buildings	-	APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL	Article	A	DfMA	Barriers
[200]	Abrishami & Martín-Durán, 2021	BIM and DfMA: A Paradigm of New Opportunities	16	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	B	DfMA	Enablers
[11]	Wasim et al., 2022.	Design for manufacturing and assembly for sustainable, quick and cost-effective prefabricated construction—a review	43	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT	Review	B	DfMA	Enablers
[201]	Lu et al., 2021	Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) in construction: the old and the new	58	ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT	Article	B	DfMA	Enablers
[202]	Bao et al., 2022	Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) enablers for offsite interior design and construction	28	BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION	Article	B	DfMA	Enablers
[124]	Tan et al., 2024	MIVES multi-criteria framework to sustainability index of design for manufacture and assembly	-	JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT	Article	B	DfMA	Enablers
[12]	Kedir & Hall, 2021.	Resource efficiency in industrialized housing construction—A systematic review of current performance and future opportunities	52	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Review	B	DfMA	Enablers
[121]	Ginigaddara et al., 2024	Industry 4.0 driven emerging skills of offsite construction: a multi-case study-based analysis	1	CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION-ENGLAND	Article	B	DfMA	Enablers
[122]	Potseluyko et al., 2022	Game-like interactive environment using BIM-based virtual reality for the timber frame self-build housing sector	11	AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION	Article	B	DfMA	Enablers
[24]	Kanters, 2018a	Design for Deconstruction in the Design Process: State of the Art	51	BUILDINGS	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[165]	O. Akinade et al., 2020	Design for deconstruction using a circular economy approach: barriers and strategies for improvement	70	PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[7]	C.L.C. Roxas et al., 2023	Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) and Design for Deconstruction (DfD) in the Construction Industry: Challenges, Trends and Developments	16	BUILDINGS	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[137]	Derikvand & Fink, 2023	Design for Deconstruction: Benefits, Challenges, and Outlook for Timber-Concrete Composite Floors	2	BUILDINGS	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[166]	Pittri, Godawatte, et al., 2024	Examining the barriers to implementing design for deconstruction in the construction industry of a developing country	-	CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION-ENGLAND	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[136]	Anastasiades et al., 2023	Stakeholder perceptions on implementing design for disassembly and standardisation for heterogeneous construction components	2	WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[157]	Ding et al., 2018	Experimental and numerical studies on design for deconstruction concrete connections: An overview	21	ADVANCES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[173]	Incelli et al., 2023	Circularity Indicators as a Design Tool for Design and Construction Strategies in Architecture	2	BUILDINGS	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[1]	Ossio et al., 2023	Circular economy in the built environment: A systematic literature review and definition of the circular construction concept	7	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[179]	Banihashemi et al., 2024	Circular economy in construction: The digital transformation perspective	1	CLEANER ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[148]	Selvaraj & Chan, 2024	Recommendations for Implementing Circular Economy in Construction: Direct Reuse of Steel Structures	1	JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[154]	Seeberg et al., 2024	Systematic Mapping of Circular Economy in Structural Engineering	-	BUILDINGS	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[181]	AlJaber et al., 2023	Life Cycle Cost in Circular Economy of Buildings by Applying Building Information Modeling (BIM): A State of the Art	4	BUILDINGS	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[203]	Viscuso, 2021	Coding the circularity. Design for the disassembly and reuse of building components	1	TECHNE-JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENT	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[172]	Bourke & Kyle, 2019	Service life planning and durability in the context of circular economy assessments—initial aspects for review	9	CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[174]	Azcárate-Aguerre et al., 2023	Facades-as-a-Service: Systemic managerial, financial, and governance innovation to enable a circular economy for buildings. Lessons learnt from a full-scale pilot project in the Netherlands	2	FRONTIERS IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[167]	Lehmann, 2011	Optimizing Urban Material Flows and Waste Streams in Urban Development through Principles of Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption	70	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[114]	Ghisellini et al., 2018	Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review	305	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Review	C	DfD	Barriers
[144]	Andersen et al., 2022	Environmental benefits of applying selective demolition to buildings: A case study of the reuse of fa?ade steel cladding	7	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	Article	C	DfD	Barriers
[170]	Pittri, Agyekum, et al., 2024	Drivers for design for deconstruction (DfD) implementation among design professionals	2	SMART AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[175]	Hartwell et al., 2021	Circular economy of facades: Real-world challenges and opportunities	29	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[168]	Cruz Rios et al., 2021	Barriers and Enablers to Circular Building Design in the US: An Empirical Study	35	JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[90]	Charef et al., 2022	The transition to the circular economy of the construction industry: Insights into sustainable approaches to improve the understanding	21	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[169]	Charef et al., 2021	Barriers to Implementing the Circular Economy in the Construction Industry: A Critical Review	40	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[180]	Aziminezhad & Taherkhani, 2023	BIM for deconstruction: A review and bibliometric analysis	10	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	Review	D	DfD	Enablers
[176]	Guerra & Leite, 2021	Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United States stakeholders’ awareness, major challenges, and enablers	106	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[183]	Q. Chen et al., 2022	Revamping construction supply chain processes with circular economy strategies: A systematic literature review	36	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Review	D	DfD	Enablers
[162]	Lehmann, 2013	Low carbon construction systems using prefabricated engineered solid wood panels for urban infill to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions	99	SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY	Article	D	DfD	Enablers
[161]	Tirelli & Besana, 2023	Moving toward Net Zero Carbon Buildings to Face Global Warming: A Narrative Review	11	BUILDINGS	Review	D	DfD	Enablers
[141]	Roberts et al., 2023	Understanding the global warming potential of circular design strategies: Life cycle assessment of a design-for-disassembly building	8	SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[152]	Lima et al., 2023	Integration of BIM and design for deconstruction to improve circular economy of buildings	3	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[145]	S. Kim & Kim, 2023	A design support tool based on building information modeling for design for deconstruction: A graph-based deconstructability assessment approach	4	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[80].	Pristerà et al., 2024.	Taxonomy of design for deconstruction options to enable circular economy in buildings	-	RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY	Review	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[193]	Lisco & Aulin, 2024	Taxonomy supporting design strategies for reuse of building parts in timber-based construction	-	CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION-ENGLAND	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[164]	Jayawardana et al., 2023	Evaluating the Circular Economy Potential of Modular Construction in Developing Economies-A Life Cycle Assessment	-	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[142]	Densley Tingley & Davison, 2012	Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction	114	BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[178]	Marzouk & Elmaraghy, 2021	Design for Deconstruction Using Integrated Lean Principles and BIM Approach	18	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[184]	Akanbi et al., 2019	Disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D-DAS) for construction in a circular economy	107	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[149]	Crowther, 2018	Re-Valuing Construction Materials and Components Through Design for Disassembly	12	UNMAKING WASTE IN PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION: TOWARDS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[89]	O.O. Akinade et al., 2015	Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS)	150	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[139]	Errante & De Capua, 2021	Design for Disassembly and the rehabilitation of public housing stock. A case study	1	TECHNE-JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[146]	Eckelman et al., 2018	Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of novel design-for-deconstruction structural systems in steel buildings	62	BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[156]	Xia et al., 2020	Life cycle assessment of concrete structures with reuse and recycling strategies: A novel framework and case study	91	WASTE MANAGEMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[159]	Ottenhaus et al., 2023	Design for adaptability, disassembly and reuse—A review of reversible timber connection systems	4	CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS	Review	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[140]	Nie et al., 2024	Exploring UAE’s transition towards circular economy through construction and demolition waste management in the pre-construction stage-A case study approach	2	SMART AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[18]	Allam & Nik-Bakht, 2023	From demolition to deconstruction of the built environment: A synthesis of the literature	11	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[84]	O’Grady et al., 2021.	Design for disassembly, deconstruction and resilience: A circular economy index for the built environment	43	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[171]	Kręt-Grześkowiak & Baborska-Narożny, 2023	Guidelines for disassembly and adaptation in architectural design compared to circular economy goals-A literature review	4	SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION	Review	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[138]	Incelli & Cardellicchio, 2021	Designing a steel connection with a high degree of disassembly: a practice-based experience	2	TECHNE-JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[151]	Jaillon & Poon, 2014	Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: A review and case studies in Hong Kong	199	AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION	Review	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[150]	Aye & Hes, 2012	Green building rating system scores for building reuse	15	JOURNAL OF GREEN BUILDING	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[153]	Timm et al., 2023	Towards Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Circular Economy Strategies and Ecodesign in the Built Environment	1	BUILDINGS	Review	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[177]	Arrigoni et al., 2018	Life cycle environmental benefits of a forward-thinking design phase for buildings: the case study of a temporary pavilion built for an international exhibition	19	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[188]	Abu-Ghaida et al., 2024	Accounting for product recovery potential in building life cycle assessments: a disassembly network-based approach	-	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[147]	Vandervaeren et al., 2022	More than the sum of its parts: Considering interdependencies in the life cycle material flow and environmental assessment of demountable buildings	22	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[160]	Marino et al., 2021	The circular design for a school in conditioned Quercus cerris hardwood glulam	-	VITRUVIO-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[143]	Buyle et al., 2019a	Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: Consequential LCA and LCC for internal wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context	72	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[163]	Bryans et al., 2023	Flatpack Architecture: Investigating Circularity Through Temporary, Demountable Buildings	-	TECHNOLOGY-ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN	Article	E	DfD	Principles/Benefits
[204]	Wuni et al., 2021	Benefit Evaluation of Design for Excellence in Industrialized Construction Projects	6	JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[205]	Hosseini et al., 2022	Significant factors of implementing open building systems in malaysia	-	ARCHIVES FOR TECHNICAL SCIENCES	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[126]	Martínez et al., 2013	Flexible field factory for construction industry	32	ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[120]	Cao et al., 2022	Ontology-based manufacturability analysis automation for industrialized construction	9	AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[119]	Vakaj et al., 2023	An ontology-based cost estimation for offsite construction	3	JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTION	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[79]	Wasim et al., 2020	An approach for sustainable, cost-effective and optimised material design for the prefabricated non-structural components of residential buildings	37	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[125]	Gbadamosi et al., 2019	Offsite construction: Developing a BIM-Based optimizer for assembly	82	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[134]	Wasim & Oliveira, 2022	Efficient design of a prefabricated steel structure integrating design for manufacture and assembly concepts	5	AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[206]	M. Li et al., 2021	DfMA-oriented design optimization for steel reinforcement using BIM and hybrid metaheuristic algorithms	14	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[135]	Vaz-Serra et al., 2021	Design for manufacture and assembly: A case study for a prefabricated bathroom wet wall panel	11	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[207]	Dong et al., 2023	DFMA-oriented modular and parametric design and secondary splitting of vertical PC components	4	SCIENTIFIC REPORTS	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[131]	Ros García & Sanglier Contreras, 2017	Life-Cycle Assessment of Prototype Unit of Emergency Housing. The search for the zero	6	INFORMES DE LA CONSTRUCCION	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[113]	Yuan et al., 2018	Design for Manufacture and Assembly-oriented parametric design of prefabricated buildings	158	AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[128]	K. Chen & Lu, 2018	Design for Manufacture and Assembly Oriented Design Approach to a Curtain Wall System: A Case Study of a Commercial Building in Wuhan, China	35	SUSTAINABILITY	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[133]	Rojas Wettling et al., 2023	IDM for the Conceptual Evaluation Process of Industrialized Timber Projects	1	ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[123]	I. Kim et al., 2024	Client-centered detached modular housing: natural language processing-enabled design recommender system	-	JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits
[70]	Ling et al., 2023	Impact of Digital Technology Adoption on the Comparative Advantage of Architectural, Engineering, and Construction Firms in Singapore	2	JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT	Article	E	DfMA	Principles/Benefits

of Appendix A. Of these, 80 are research articles and 22 are review papers. The most cited DfMA publication is Yuan et al. (2018) [113], which focuses on parametric design for DfMA-oriented prefabricated buildings. In contrast, the most cited DfD-related study is Ghisellini et al. (2018) [114], a review of the environmental and economic implications of circular economy practices in the construction and demolition sector.

4.2. Mapping and Content Analysis

4.2.1. Science Mapping Results

Figure 5 shows the keyword co-occurrence clustering map for the DfMA and DfD approaches. In this visualization, colors indicate clusters of closely related terms, while the size of the labels and circles reflects each keyword’s weight. The proximity of circles and the presence of connecting lines indicate strong relationships between keywords [107]. Keyword duplication issues, such as the similarity between “end-of-life” and “EoL”, were addressed to enhance accuracy.

According to Figure 5, three main clusters were identified for the DfMA approach: (1) the green cluster—BIM-centered technologies; (2) the blue cluster—industrialized and Lean Construction practices; and (3) the red cluster—off-site practices. Similarly, the DfD mapping revealed four principal clusters: (1) the green cluster—value retention options benefits, (2) the blue cluster—building systems and life cycle benefits, (3) the red cluster—circular economy practices, and (4) the yellow cluster—BIM-based technologies.

The following subsections present primary patterns from the reviewed literature corresponding to each of these DfMA and DfD clusters.

4.2.2. Identified Patterns in DfMA Clusters

BIM-Centered Technologies

Numerous studies emphasize BIM’s critical role in supporting DfMA implementation by enabling seamless information exchange among project stakeholders and optimizing design processes [7,71,72,75,113,115,116,117,118].

While DfMA is not inherently digital, Abd Razak et al. (2022) [6] note that integrating BIM can streamline design activities and reduce transition time from design to manufacturing and assembly phases, thereby improving overall DfMA efficiency. Yuan et al. (2018) [113] and Langston & Zhang (2021) [118].further highlight BIM’s potential when combined with Lean Construction practices, reinforcing digitalization’s role in advancing DfMA.

Gao et al. (2020) [72] observe that many DfMA processes rely on computer-aided tools. In this context, ontologies—structured representations of domain knowledge—have been used to semantically enhance BIM models, enabling automated manufacturability assessments and informed decision-making [117,119,120]. For instance, Qi and Costin (2023) [117] demonstrated the application of a BIM-ontology-based framework to optimize prefabricated component design in a hotel project. Similarly, Vakaj et al. (2023) [119] introduced the Offsite Housing Ontology, integrating product, process, and cost data to support optimization and decision-making in DfMA-driven modular construction.

Within the broader context of Construction 4.0, BIM-centered technologies—such as AI, cloud computing, IoT, blockchain, robotics, reality capture, big data analytics, VR/AR, and additive manufacturing—are pivotal to increasing automation and productivity in construction [98,121]. For example, Potseluyko et al. (2022) [122] developed a BIM-based virtual reality environment aligned with DfMA and OSC principles, allowing users to explore and customize house configurations in real time. Gbadamosi et al. (2020) [75] proposed a Big Data Design Options Repository system that integrates BIM, DfMA, and big data to inform decision-making and connect clients with manufacturers and suppliers by providing real-time cost and lead-time data for prefabricated components. Similarly, Kim et al. (2024) [123] introduced an AI-BIM recommender system for modular housing that uses Word2Vec and transfer learning to interpret client preferences and generate tailored design options, reducing design changes and enhancing efficiency. Tan et al. (2024) [124] also proposed a BIM-integrated framework to evaluate sustainable DfMA alternatives, supporting decision-making in modular and prefabricated construction.

Industrialized and Lean Construction Practices

DfMA is widely recognized as a key enabler of industrialized construction [6,7,70,71,72,98], and as has been previously established, when combined with Construction 4.0 technologies—such as BIM and big data—DfMA supports design optimization and informed decision-making [7,75,117]. Costa et al. (2023) [55] emphasize the synergy between DfMA and industrialized construction through modularization, standardization, and automation, all aimed at improving efficiency and reducing material waste. Their review identifies DfMA as a core strategy that integrates lean production and digital tools to optimize supply chains and project delivery. In this context, Wuni et al. (2023) [97] argue that the Design for Excellence (DfX) framework enables excellence in industrialized construction. This approach integrates DfMA, buildability, Lean Construction, value engineering, and life cycle costing. DfX applies structured rules and performance metrics to support proactive, value-driven design in industrialized projects.

Gbadamosi et al. (2019) [125] demonstrate that applying their Composite Optimized Assembly (COA) score method within a BIM-based framework enhances design optimization, reduces construction inefficiencies, and supports off-site modular approaches by integrating DfMA and Lean Construction principles. The COA score is derived from four key assessment factors: ease of assembly, ease of handling, speed of assembly, and waste generation.

Rankohi et al. (2023) [98] describe DfMA as inherently aligned with lean principles, focusing on value maximization, waste reduction, and streamlined workflows throughout the project life cycle. Their study highlights DfMA’s contribution to supply chain integration, just-in-time delivery, automation, and overall efficiency across phases.

In a similar vein, Martínez et al. (2013) [126] introduced a container-based Flexible Field Factory, a reconfigurable, on-site manufacturing unit that integrates physical and digital systems. This mobile production setup, grounded in DfMA and lean principles, achieved a 37% cost reduction compared to conventional construction methods.

Off-Site Practices

OSC is recognized as a core DfMA strategy, enhancing resource efficiency through controlled prefabrication and concurrent on-site assembly, which improves quality, reduces waste, and shortens construction schedules [7,71,72,74,127,128]. In response, several frameworks integrating OSC and DfMA have been proposed. For example, Hyun et al. (2022) [74] validated an integrated OSC-DfMA design process in a Korean public housing project, converting 60% of the structure from cast-in-place to precast concrete. Modularization improved design efficiency, minimized errors, and enhanced standardization by optimizing repetition and constructability. Similarly, Jung and Yu (2022) [129] developed an OSC-DfMA checklist to evaluate design plans based on optimal objectives, workflows, and DfMA principles.

Orlowski et al. (2018) [130] demonstrated that shifting sealing processes off-site for modular curtain walls enhances precision, reduces labor costs, and improves building performance. This aligns with modularity principles, as Tan et al. (2023) [73] highlighted, where product modularity—using standardized, interchangeable components to configure products—streamlines OSC, optimizing DfMA by enabling efficient manufacturing and assembly.

Given these benefits, DfMA is also relevant in post-disaster housing contexts. Roxas (2023) [116] applied DfMA to prefabricated shelters using cold-formed steel frames and screw pile foundations, reducing construction time and cost while enabling relocation and reuse. Ros García and Sanglier (2017) [131] integrated DfMA and life cycle assessment (LCA) in modular emergency housing, emphasizing material recyclability and environmental impact reduction and underscoring DfMA’s contribution to sustainable and resilient construction.

DfMA-oriented designs often incorporate standardized, innovative systems and joint solutions tailored to industrialized construction. Examples include modular timber components with predrilled connection points to avoid damage and support reuse [132]. While concrete remains common in DfMA prefabrication [113,115], there is increasing interest in lightweight systems—especially timber and cold-formed steel—within industrialized construction [116,133,134,135].

4.2.3. Identified Patterns in DfD Clusters

Value Retention Options (VROs) Benefits

Several authors have examined how disassembly, primarily through the reuse of components or material recycling, supports value retention in the built environment [7,136,137,138,139]. By enabling efficient recovery, reuse, or recycling of components, DfD reduces landfill dependency and extends material lifespans [140]. For instance, Roberts et al. (2023) [141] designed a DfD-compliant building capable of reusing 65% of its substructure and superstructure by mass. Similarly, in the INA Casa redevelopment, Errante and De Capua (2021) [139] applied DfD principles—using steel frames and bio-XLAM panels—to reduce demolition waste and preserve material value.

Value retention has been assessed using LCA methods, which often prioritize reuse over recycling for the better preservation of functional and embodied value [1,142,143]. Andersen et al. (2022) [144], comparing selective and traditional demolition for façade steel cladding, found that reuse reduced global warming impact by 44%, though transport distances affected outcomes. Similarly, Buyle et al. (2019) [143] showed that the direct reuse of internal wall elements yields the lowest environmental impact, with up to 50% reduction when combined with improved recycling.

Kim and Kim (2023) [145] demonstrated that reusable designs using prefabricated components and mechanical connections can lower CO₂ emissions by 40.1% and costs by 1.3% compared to conventional alternatives. Densley Tingley and Davison (2012) [142] also showed that reusing steel beams over two 50-year life cycles halves embodied carbon. Eckelman et al. (2018) [146] evaluated a precast DfD flooring system, revealing reductions by 60–70% on average in fossil fuel use, global warming potential (GWP), and other impacts across three reuse cycles. Vandervaeren et al. (2022) [147] integrated Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and LCA to assess detachable pavilion designs, finding that they minimize material use and environmental impacts. They also noted that relying solely on standard LCA may underestimate impacts; non-detachable designs resulted in up to 147% more material use and 162% higher impacts than standard-based estimates.

For effective VROs application, pure and single-material solutions are generally preferred, as traditional hybrid assemblies often hinder recovery due to permanent bonding [23]. Nonetheless, well-designed composite systems—such as timber-concrete hybrids—can support disassembly and reuse when aligned with DfD principles [137]. Recently, Hernández et al. (2025) [99] linked VROs effectiveness to disassembly potential through their Disassembly Ease Index, capturing key factors and variables related to DfD.

Building Systems and Life Cycle Benefits

DfD-oriented design is increasingly recognized as a strategy for achieving sustainability, particularly by reducing waste, energy consumption, and carbon emissions through the reuse and recycling of building materials [138,140,142,148,149,150,151]. Although buildings are typically designed to last 70–100 years, they are often demolished after only 15 [149]. Additionally, building layers have varying lifespans, highlighting the relevance of DfD in reducing demolition waste and enabling circular economy principles [95,140,152,153].

Steel and timber play a pivotal role in enabling closed-loop strategies [24,154]. While concrete can be recycled, its environmental benefits depend on transport and processing demands [155]. Xia et al. (2020) [156] found that DfD strategies offer 1.8–2.8 times greater environmental benefits, measured in GWP and abiotic depletion potential, compared to recycled aggregate concrete. To support DfD, structurally viable connections have been developed for precast concrete [157,158]. However, concrete elements remain challenging due to their weight, brittleness, and use of cast-in-place connections that restrict reusability. Ding et al. (2018) [156] suggest that precast pre-stressed concrete connections are suitable for DfD since they require minimal cast-in-place concrete and utilize additional tendons to provide structural stability and reusability. Similarly, post-tensioned connector systems with energy dissipators are being adapted for timber and hybrid structures—such as timber-concrete composites—particularly in seismic regions to enable low-damage, reversible construction [159,160].

DfD supports carbon reduction strategies essential to achieving Net-Zero-Carbon Buildings (NZCBs) and nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (nZEBs) [160,161]. Timber and other bio-based materials contribute to carbon sequestration, enhancing NZCB goals by storing biogenic carbon throughout their life cycle [161]. Cross-laminated timber (CLT), for example, offers DfD advantages through prefabrication, reduced construction time, cost savings, and lightweight performance, while also achieving a negative CO₂ balance [162]. Timber products like glulam, CLT, Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), and Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL) are increasingly integrated into circular design via reversible connections, though steel remains critical for demountable joints—typically bolts, brackets, or proprietary systems made from galvanized or stainless steel [138,159].

Prefabricated steel systems also support DfD by streamlining assembly and disassembly strategies [154]. While steel’s recyclability is theoretically infinite [24], challenges persist, including high energy demands of recycling, uncertainties in mechanical properties after multiple recycling cycles, and the need for disassembly friendly designs [148].

The environmental benefits of DfD are primarily assessed through LCA, followed by economic benefits evaluated using Life Cycle Costing (LCC), while social dimensions receive comparatively less attention. Case studies reveal socio-economic and environmental gains from circular strategies. [1,59,142,143,149,154,156,160,161,163]. For instance, Roberts et al. (2023) [141] found that a DfD-based project achieved 26% lower embodied carbon than UK benchmarks. Bryans et al. (2023) [164] showed that a modular DfD design using steel, glulam, and SIPs increased initial costs and embodied carbon by 6%, but reduced life cycle costs by 23% and embodied carbon by 30–46% after one or two relocations. Similarly, Buyle et al. (2019) [143] demonstrated that demountable wall assemblies, despite 31–69% higher upfront costs, achieved 10–17% lower LCC under optimal reuse scenarios.

Furthermore, Marino et al. (2021) [160], by implementing DfD in a timber-based nZEB school, not only achieved a low non-renewable energy usage of 5.4 kWh/m²·year but also proposed a local timber supply chain, fostering job creation, social equity, and regional resilience through its disassemblable design.

Circular Economy (CE) Practices

Several authors agree that DfD supports CE practices [1,18,80,90,99,114,152,154,159,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171].

The CE paradigm necessitates material reuse across multiple building life cycles. However, evaluating material performance under circular models is complex, requiring the consideration of physical degradation and realistic reuse potential [172]. Effective disassembly and reuse depend on minimizing damage during disassembly, underscoring the importance of appropriate connection design at early building project stages [99].

The application of circularity indicators in housing case studies shows that connection systems critically influence circularity. Trade-offs are observed between disassembly at modular and component scales [99,173]. Several tools have been developed to assess deconstructability, including the Deconstructability Assessment Score (DAS) [89], the Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF) [94], the 3DR Index (Design, Disassembly, Deconstruction, and Resilience) [84], the DfD design-support tool [145] (DAS-based), and the Disassembly Ease Index (DEI) [99], all reinforcing the link between DfD and CE.

DfD principles align with CE business models such as Product–Service Systems (PSSs), where manufacturers retain product ownership and recover components post-use, delivering value through service rather than ownership [153]. Azcárate-Aguerre et al. (2023) [174] highlight façades-as-a-service as a key example, shifting from product sales to leasing, which requires modular, adaptable, and demountable designs. This is particularly relevant as façades contribute 10–30% of total embodied carbon in buildings and have a shorter service life (25–50 years) than structural elements, making them crucial for reuse and high-value recycling [175].

Integrating DfD-enabled modular systems into PSS models can extend material lifespans, reduce embodied carbon, and lower life cycle costs [174]. Nonetheless, limited stakeholder awareness, underdeveloped markets for secondary materials, and regulatory barriers remain significant challenges [1,175,176]. In cases lacking planned reuse, disassembly decisions may prioritize cost savings over component recovery [177].

Similarly to DfMA, DfD bridges Lean Construction and CE strategies. Marzouk and Elmaraghy (2021) [178] show that integrating DfD with Lean and BIM methods facilitates early-stage planning, reduces waste, and enables selective dismantling. Similarly, Ossio et al. (2023) [1] highlight that DfD and lean principles advance CE by promoting reversible design, material efficiency, and reuse through enhanced process management and digital integration.

BIM-Based Technology

BIM is widely recognized as a key enabler for DfD implementation, supporting both efficiency and sustainability [67,99,171,178,179]. Despite its adoption across various stages of the building life cycle [180], broader industry implementation remains limited due to the lack of practical frameworks and policy support [181,182].

A BIM-based material bank that integrates LCA from design through construction can support structural components reuse [154]. Integrating LCA databases with BIM improves decision-making by providing construction professionals with enhanced insights into material sustainability and circularity [179,183]. Akinade et al. (2020) [165] emphasize that BIM adoption in DfD addresses key barriers by improving stakeholder collaboration, visualizing deconstruction workflows, identifying recoverable components, and optimizing disassembly strategies. However, they also note that existing DfD tools lack BIM compatibility, limiting their scalability and impact.

Therefore, BIM-integrated frameworks are critical for enabling structured material recovery, reducing construction and demolition waste, and advancing circular economy principles in construction. Several tools support this integration, including the BIM-based Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS) [89], the Disassembly and Deconstruction Analytics System (D-DAS) [184], and the BIM-based design-support tool (graph-based) [145]. Additionally, a BIM-based material passport has been proposed to automate the assessment of recovery and deconstructability parameters, while supporting the documentation and exchange of building information for future reuse and decision-making [185].

Sanchez et al. (2022) [186] highlight BIM’s role in modular and adaptable buildings, where feature modeling enhances configurability. Seeberg et al. (2024) [154] and Akinade et al. (2020) [165] further emphasize BIM’s importance in optimizing deconstruction workflows. Given the complexity of building systems, disassembly processes must consider constraints related to connectors, adjacent components, and spatial obstructions. In response, BIM-based models have been developed to automate disassembly sequencing and evaluate design alternatives for improved efficiency [186,187].

Similarly to DfMA, DfD benefits from the integration of digital technologies such as BIM, digital twins, material passports, RFID, and blockchain. These tools enhance material traceability, life cycle monitoring, and design optimization. When combined with LCA databases, BIM facilitates sustainable material selection and improves circularity assessments in DfD-oriented projects [179,183]. Abu-Ghaida et al. (2024) [188] applied their BIM-based Disassembly Network-Based LCA Framework and demonstrated that ignoring interdependencies among building components can underestimate embodied carbon by approximately 28% due to overlooked secondary replacements.

4.2.4. Commonalities, Distinctions, and Research Gaps

Shared Focus in Early-Stage Design

Both DfMA and DfD emphasize the importance of early-stage design in maximizing their benefits. The Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) model—aligned with lean principles—and BIM-based technologies offer critical support during this phase. Early design efforts typically focus on superstructure components, which are conceived either for assembly under DfMA or for disassembly under DfD principles, often incorporating various MMC. However, few approaches address OSC for substructure elements. Addressing this gap is challenging, as foundations are highly influenced by structural demands (e.g., load transfer), external loads (e.g., wind or seismic forces), and geotechnical conditions (e.g., clay vs. rock behavior). Nonetheless, opportunities exist to implement prefabricated foundation systems, provided that standardized solutions accommodate diverse ground conditions and building typologies.

Common Practices in Prefabrication and OSC

Both design-oriented strategies employ prefabricated components and compatible connection systems to facilitate efficient on-site assembly and potential future disassembly, thereby improving building adaptability and reversibility. Most reviewed cases emphasize the structural, envelope (skin), or space plan layers, while limited focus is placed on the services layer (e.g., HVAC, plumbing, electrical), highlighting a research gap. Prefabrication is largely associated with timber, steel, and concrete—used independently or in hybrid configurations such as timber–concrete composites. This indicates limited exploration of alternative materials, particularly for non-structural prefabricated components. Furthermore, the literature predominantly addresses component-based systems (e.g., volumetric modules, wall panels, façades), with little innovation in other prefabricated solutions or product platforms that address the trade-offs between size, weight, and constructability in OSC.

Shared Challenges and Enablers for Implementation

Both DfMA and DfD face significant implementation challenges that hinder widespread adoption. Lean practices and BIM-based technologies are recognized as critical enablers for addressing these challenges. However, current BIM applications are largely confined to structural modeling, simulation, or conceptual planning stages, with limited integration into real-world construction projects. Similarly, empirical studies examining the combined use of lean principles with DfMA and DfD in practice remain limited. As such, more applied research is needed to demonstrate successful implementations and overcome resistance to change. Future investigations should prioritize real-world case studies that address key stakeholder-related barriers, including fragmented supply chains and insufficient industry expertise [136,189]. Anastasiades et al. (2023) [136] outline specific stakeholder-related action points that can inform future research agendas. Moreover, further studies on human factors are essential—particularly those focused on reducing resistance to innovation, fostering collaboration across the building life cycle, promoting stakeholder accountability, and evaluating social impacts using Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) methods.

Shared Pathways Toward Construction 5.0

Both DfMA and DfD emphasize the integration of Construction 4.0 technologies, with BIM as a central tool for information management, efficiency enhancement, and stakeholder coordination. While Construction 4.0 has been recognized for its potential to mitigate inefficiencies stemming from the construction sector’s inherent fragmentation—within project teams, across project phases, and among different projects [54]—further research is needed. In particular, greater attention is required on human-technology interaction, including the integration of digital twins, AI-driven decision-making, and collaborative robots (co-bots) within frameworks that prioritize both human-centered design and environmental responsibility. Advancing these technologies is key to enabling the transition toward Construction 5.0 [190] and fostering effective human–robot collaboration in industrialized construction environments [191,192].

Life Cycle Scope Divergence: Manufacturing vs. End-of-Life

DfMA emphasizes manufacturing efficiency to reduce costs during production and construction. In contrast, DfD focuses on value retention at the end-of-life stage, particularly through reuse and recycling. As such, while DfMA facilitates assembly, it does not inherently prioritize disassembly. Tan et al. (2024) [124] note that most DfMA-related studies concentrate on the manufacturing and assembly phases, often neglecting operational and end-of-life considerations. In response, extended DfMA frameworks incorporating use, maintenance, and end-of-life phases have been proposed [67,98,124], underscoring the lack of consensus on DfMA’s life cycle scope. To address these gaps, the DfMAD approach offers greater conceptual clarity. Future empirical studies should assess DfMAD-oriented designs using sustainability assessment methods such as LCA, LCC, and S-LCA to evaluate benefits and implementation challenges.

Distinct Environmental Contributions

While both DfMA and DfD contribute to environmental performance by reducing material waste and energy use, DfD extends these benefits beyond a single life cycle by enabling component reuse and supporting closed-loop strategies that preserve embodied energy and carbon. This reveals a limitation in conventional LCA, which often fails to capture such circularity benefits. As such, DfMAD-oriented designs may yield greater environmental advantages than DfMA alone, underscoring the need for comparative LCA studies.

DfD-oriented designs are typically evaluated based on materials, connection systems, and key building layers—primarily structure, skin, and space plan. For instance, Lisco and Aulin (2024) [193] limit their disassembly taxonomy in timber construction to these layers. However, this approach overlooks the integrated behavior and interactions across all layers, which are critical for efficient assembly, disassembly, and damage prevention in line with circular economy principles, revealing a research gap.

Concrete systems—whether monolithic or hybrid (e.g., timber–concrete or steel–concrete composites)—present significant reuse challenges. DfMA-oriented precast elements using chemical bonding have limited disassembly potential compared to dry connections, highlighting the need to improve the adaptability and circularity of precast concrete. Research should shift from recycling to assessing the feasibility and performance of reusable concrete components. More broadly, future studies must examine connection systems under repeated assembly–disassembly cycles, considering loading conditions, tolerances, damage mitigation, and code compliance.

Diverging Business Models

The DfMA approach supports industrialized construction models through standardization, mass customization, scalability, and flexibility—typically enabled by product platform strategies [64]. In contrast, DfD facilitates the adoption of Product–Service System (PSS) models, shifting the focus from product delivery to service provision, i.e., servitization [194,195]. While well established in manufacturing, this shift remains emergent in construction and requires further investigation, particularly regarding the enabling role of digital technologies such as digital twins, BIM-based material passports, and blockchain-enabled smart contracts in enhancing traceability, automation, and stakeholder coordination across the building life cycle [196,197]. These technologies not only improve efficiency and transparency but also foster trust, which is essential for implementing PSS models. Although PSS in construction is still nascent, it offers substantial value-generation potential, warranting further exploration [194,198].

4.2.5. Cross-Mapping Analysis

Based on the literature review, the content categories—principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers—were identified for both DfMA and DfD approaches. This information is compiled in

Table A2. Principles (P), benefits (B), barriers (O), and enablers (E) identified through the SLR for DfMA and DfD, including their frequency of mentions.

Coding	Descriptor	Mentions	Frequency
DfMA/P-1	Optimize cost through standardization and design simplification	[79,116,124,126,128,129,134,135,201]	9
DfMA/P-2	Simplify assembly by minimizing component count and complexity	[79,113,116,124,125,128,129,133,135,199,201,207]	12
DfMA/P-3	Promote modularization and prefabrication for efficient manufacture and assembly	[113,116,124,128,129,135,199,201,206,207]	10
DfMA/P-4	Optimize component geometry, material selection, and tolerances for manufacturability and assembly	[113,116,119,124,128,129,135,199,201]	9
DfMA/P-5	Integrate assembly logic and fabrication constraints from early design to secure quality and safety	[79,113,115,116,119,124,125,128,129,133,135,199,201]	13
DfMA/P-6	Simplify and standardize connection systems for fast, reliable, and error-resistant assembly	[115,116,124,125,129,134,201]	7
DfMA/P-7	Integrate workflow planning, site logistics, and digital technologies for efficient design	[125,128,134,135,199]	5
DfMA/P-8	Promote multifunctionality and automation in component design	[124]	1
DfMA/P-9	Minimize environmental impact through material efficiency and waste reduction	[125,128,129]	3
DfMA/P-10	Foster multidisciplinary collaboration for integrated design and delivery	[79,135,199]	3
DfD/P-1	Simplify and standardize elements and connections to facilitate disassembly	[7,24,80,89,149,152,159,166,171]	9
DfD/P-2	Select non-hazardous, reusable, and easily separable materials	[7,24,80,89,145,149,152,153,159,166,171,184,193,198]	14
DfD/P-3	Design with modular and prefabricated elements to support reversibility	[7,24,89,140,145,149,152,153,159,166,171,173]	12
DfD/P-4	Integrate compatible technologies and digital tools to support disassembly	[145,152,159,171]	4
DfD/P-5	Enable layered accessibility and parallel disassembly	[7,24,147,149,152,159,166,171,173,177]	10
DfD/P-6	Ensure transparent, structured, and life cycle-oriented information management	[7,24,145,149,152,166,171,193,198]	9
DfD/P-7	Maximize reuse and recycling through circular and non-destructive design	[80,89,140,145,152,153,159,171,177,184,188,193]	12
DfD/P-8	Design for flexibility and lifespan-based layered replacement to minimize damage	[7,24,145,149,152,171]	6
DfD/P-9	Use reversible, mechanical, and accessible connections	[7,24,80,89,145,149,152,153,159,166,171,198]	12
DfD/P-10	Enable safe handling, movement, and access for effective disassembly	[7,24,152]	3
DfD/P-11	Foster collaborative design, circular services, and secondary market integration	[7,145,171,184]	4
DfD/P-12	Promote structural adaptability and component interchangeability	[7,152,173]	3
DfMA/B-1	Enhances quality across design, assembly, and operational performance dimensions	[6,11,79,113,116,118,124,125,128,135,201]	11
DfMA/B-2	Reduces project timelines through streamlined manufacturing and assembly processes	[6,7,11,79,113,115,116,118,124,134,135,201,207]	13
DfMA/B-3	Lowers total project costs by optimizing resources and minimizing rework	[6,7,11,79,113,116,118,124,128,131,134,135,201,206,207]	15
DfMA/B-4	Improves construction productivity, process efficiency, and execution control	[6,11,79,113,119,124,125,126,128,134,201,207]	12
DfMA/B-5	Reduces on-site labor demands while enhancing safety, coordination, and teamwork	[6,11,113,115,118,124,125,128,134,201]	10
DfMA/B-6	Mitigates environmental impacts through reduced waste, emissions, and resource consumption	[6,11,79,113,118,119,124,128,134,135,201]	11
DfMA/B-7	Expands construction system capacity and supports integration with other strategies	[6,7,11,79,115,116,118,128,134,206,207]	11
DfMA/B-8	Increases construction reliability through precision, repeatability, and design standardization	[6,7]	2
DfMA/B-9	Facilitates spacious, adaptable interior layouts through modular and flexible design	[6,11]	2
DfD/B-1	Reduces emissions, embodied carbon, and material use in construction processes	[80,90,136,141,142,146,151,164,177,179,188]	11
DfD/B-2	Enables reuse, recycling, and low maintenance of building components	[25,80,87,142,146,164,177,188]	8
DfD/B-3	Lowers labor demand and improves safety and productivity	[136,151]	2
DfD/B-4	Enhances project coordination, constructability, and system performance	[90,142,146,151,163,164]	6
DfD/B-5	Shortens schedules through streamlined and predictable assembly and disassembly processes	[90,151]	2
DfD/B-6	Reduces project costs via material recovery, streamlined assembly, and less demolition waste	[80,136,146,151,163,177]	6
DfD/B-7	Supports adaptable design strategies, policy development, and technology integration	[90,136,143,146,177]	5
DfMA/O-1	Limited awareness of DfMA principles and operational requirements	[6,72,73,74,98,119,121,122,129,189,199,201]	12
DfMA/O-2	Resistance to shifting from conventional to DfMA construction practices	[6,12,98,115,118,129,199,204]	8
DfMA/O-3	Higher initial design costs and uncertain long-term returns hinder DfMA implementation	[6,55,73,97,98,118,122,129]	8
DfMA/O-4	Lack of coordination, fragmented workflows, or non-integrated design processes	[6,11,73,75,97,116,117,121,122,127,129,130,199,200,202]	15
DfMA/O-5	Logistics issues in manufacturing, transport, or assembly from planning and coordination failures	[6,11,72,75,116,127]	6
DfMA/O-6	Contractual and supply chain misalignments disrupting stakeholder collaboration	[6,12,55,97,98,115,118,122,199,200,202]	11
DfMA/O-7	Lack of proven demonstrations or performance data to validate DfMA effectiveness	[6,12,119,122,124,127,189,201,204]	9
DfMA/O-8	Difficulty integrating DfMA in undocumented, complex, or atypical project conditions, compounded by limited technological availability.	[6,71,74,75,97,98,115,117,118,132,189,199,200,201,202,204]	16
DfMA/O-9	Absence of enabling standards, codes, or policy frameworks to support DfMA	[6,71,73,97,98,118,119,124,189,201,202]	11
DfD/O-1	Market and economic challenges hinder DfD adoption due to limited financial incentives	[1,114,136,146,154,161,165,166,167,168,169,176,179,181,203]	15
DfD/O-2	Fragmented collaboration and supply chain coordination obstruct effective DfD integration	[1,7,136,154,167,173,175,181,183]	9
DfD/O-3	Design and technical limitations compromise the constructability of DfD solutions	[1,90,136,137,146,157,161,162,166,168,172,175,176,181,203]	15
DfD/O-4	Inefficient organizational structures weaken the operational execution of DfD	[1,7,114,136,161,165,167,174,179,181,183]	11
DfD/O-5	Stakeholder resistance and low awareness impede the adoption of DfD practices	[1,114,137,154,161,167,168,169,170,174,175,181]	12
DfD/O-6	Lack of policies and regulatory frameworks fails to support DfD-oriented construction processes	[1,136,146,154,161,162,165,166,167,168,169,174,176,181,203]	15
DfD/O-7	Deficient knowledge and expertise prevent the effective implementation of DfD principles	[1,7,24,114,146,154,157,161,165,166,168,169,173,175,176,180,181,183]	18
DfD/O-8	Limited access to digital tools and technologies restricts the application of DfD	[1,24,146,154,161,165,179,180,181]	9
DfMA/E-1	Operational, technical, and practical knowledge support the effective implementation of DfMA	[6,71,72,75,124,129,130,132,189,199,202]	11
DfMA/E-2	Organizational structures that integrate DfMA practices enable effective project delivery	[6,55,121,129,199,202]	6
DfMA/E-3	Government support through incentives, regulations, and standards enables DfMA adoption	[6,7,189]	3
DfMA/E-4	Stakeholder involvement and awareness of DfMA benefits enable effective implementation	[6,11,72,121,199,202]	6
DfMA/E-5	Innovative technologies and methodologies enable the integration of DfMA in construction.	[6,72,73,75,115,118,122,124,129,132,200,202]	12
DfMA/E-6	Site conditions and location logistics considered in design enable effective DfMA implementation	[6,11,116]	3
DfMA/E-7	Organizational improvement needs drive DfMA adoption to boost efficiency and cut costs	[11,116,121,200,204]	5
DfD/E-1	Implementation of techniques, methodologies, and software to support DfD adoption	[1,24,168,170,179,181]	6
DfD/E-2	Education and clear information guide professionals toward correct DfD implementation	[1,7,24,165,168,170,176]	7
DfD/E-3	Stakeholder awareness increases interest and commitment to adopting DfD practice	[136,170,173,176]	4
DfD/E-4	Supportive policies and incentives provide legal and institutional backing for DfD	[1,24,114,170,176]	5
DfD/E-5	Economic incentives and funding improve the financial viability of DfD implementation	[1,170,179]	3
DfD/E-6	Technological innovations in digital tools, equipment, and materials streamline DfD adoption	[1,168,179]	3
DfD/E-7	Managerial innovations such as new models and procedures enhance DfD integration	[1,165,168,174,176,179]	6
DfD/E-8	Collaborative partnerships facilitate coordinated efforts to apply DfD	[1,168,170]	3
DfD/E-9	Accessible case databases offer practical references to guide DfD adoption	[173,176,181]	3
DfD/E-10	Adaptable processes support DfD by fitting site conditions, methods, and workflows	[7,136,172,173]	4

(Appendix A), where each element is listed along with the number of times it was cited across the reviewed studies. These frequencies highlight the most emphasized elements within each content category. To enhance analytical clarity, each element in Table A2 was assigned a unique code. The coding system, designed to streamline the presentation of results, used the following format: design-oriented approach/content category—item number. The categories are abbreviated as follows: “P” for principles, “B” for benefits, “O” for obstacles/barriers, and “E” for enablers (e.g., “DfMA/P-1” refers to Principle 1 for the DfMA approach). Figure 6 presents a consolidated summary of the information within Table A2 through cross-mappings, using color-coded representations to indicate frequencies and overlaps between elements. These mappings were developed based on the criteria outlined in Section 3.2 of the Materials and Methods Section.

According to Figure 6, the most frequently cited principles for each approach are as follows: DfMA/P-5, DfMA/P-2, DfMA/P-3, DfD/P-2, DfD/P-3, DfD/P-7, and DfD/P-9 (the last three are tied). The DfMA approach emphasizes simplification, the reduction in component typologies, and the early integration of standardized connection systems to enhance assembly efficiency, quality, and reliability. In contrast, the DfD approach underscores the selection of circular materials and the design of modular, prefabricated components with reversible connections to facilitate disassembly and value retention. These principles collectively converge on the core themes of modularization, simplification, efficiency, and component reversibility—establishing the conceptual foundation of the DfMAD approach. As a distinction, DfD/P-5 stands out, highlighting DfMA’s lack of explicit emphasis on viewing buildings as layered systems for accessibility and parallel disassembly. Based on Figure 6,

Table 2. Consolidated DfMAD principles based on DfMA and DfD research.

DfMAD Principles	Reasoning
1. Standardize and simplify components and connections to optimize assembly and facilitate disassembly.	This unifies DfMA’s focus on assembly simplification (DfMA/P-1, P-2, P-6) with DfD’s emphasis on disassembly enabling standardization (DfD/P-1, P-9).
2. Promote modularization and prefabrication to enhance manufacturability, assembly efficiency, and future reversibility.	Integrates DfMA’s drive for prefabrication (DfMA/P-3) with DfD’s use of modularity for adaptability and reuse (DfD/P-3, P-12).
3. Select materials and design components based on performance, safety, reusability, and environmental criteria.	Combines DfMA’s concern with material selection and quality (DfMA/P-4, P-5) with DfD’s prioritization of separable, non-hazardous, and reusable materials (DfD/P-2).
4. Design connection systems that are robust for assembly and reversible for disassembly, enabling reliable life cycle performance.	Draws on both DfMA/P-6 and DfD/P-9 to bridge assembly reliability and disassembly access.
5. Integrate workflow planning, logistics, and digital tools to optimize constructability and disassembly pathways.	Unifies DfMA/P-7 and DfD/P-4 by focusing on technological and information management support.
6. Support adaptability and durability through flexible, layered, and multifunctional component design.	Brings together DfMA/P-8 and DfD/P-8 by addressing the need for layered replacement and multifunctional use.
7. Minimize environmental impact by enabling material efficiency, reuse, and circular design practices.	Synthesizes DfMA/P-9 with DfD/P-2 and P-7 to embed environmental and circular logic.
8. Enable safe handling, assembly, disassembly, and accessibility throughout the building life cycle.	Incorporates DfMA/P-5 and DfD/P-10 by integrating life cycle safety and access considerations.
9. Foster multidisciplinary collaboration to align manufacturing, construction, and end-of-life strategies.	Merges DfMA/P-10 and DfD/P-11 by emphasizing collaboration across life stages and sectors.
10. Ensure structural adaptability and component interchangeability to extend building life and enable transformation.	Captures DfD’s unique contribution to adaptability (DfD/P-12), expanding on DfMA’s modular focus.

consolidates the DfMAD principles by integrating conceptually aligned overlaps and incorporating distinctive features from both approaches.

The most frequently cited benefits are as follows: DfMA/B-3, DfMA/B-2, DfMA/B-4, DfD/B-1, DfD/B-2, DfD/B-4, and DfD/B-6 (the last two are tied). DfMA-related benefits emphasize cost and time reduction, resource optimization, and improved productivity and quality through streamlined manufacturing and assembly. DfD-related benefits focus on environmental and economic value, particularly through embodied carbon reduction, material recovery, and waste minimization, while also enhancing constructability and coordination. Together, these benefits reflect a shared emphasis on performance optimization, life cycle efficiency, and environmental sustainability. No distinctive benefits were identified between the design-oriented approaches in the reviewed literature. Based on Figure 6,

Table 3. Consolidated DfMAD benefits based on DfMA and DfD studies.

DfMAD Benefits	Reasoning
1. Enhance project quality and system performance by promoting coordination, constructability, and consistent execution across design, assembly, and disassembly phases.	Unifies DfMA/B-1 and DfD/B-4 through shared emphasis on performance, quality, and process integration.
2. Shorten project timelines by streamlining manufacturing, assembly, and disassembly processes through predictable and efficient workflows.	Integrates DfMA/B-2 with DfD/B-5 by aligning scheduling benefits from both ends of the building life cycle.
3. Reduce total project costs by optimizing material use, minimizing rework, and enabling material recovery and reuse.	Consolidates DfMA/B-3 and DfD/B-6, linking cost efficiency with circular resource strategies.
4. Improve construction productivity and reliability through precision, repeatability, and integrated system performance.	Combines DfMA/B-4 with DfD/B-4 and B-8 to highlight efficiency and standardized execution.
5. Lower on-site labor demands and enhance occupational safety through rationalized assembly and disassembly operations.	Merges DfMA/B-5 with DfD/B-3, focusing on labor efficiency and safety benefits.
6. Reduce environmental impacts by minimizing waste, emissions, and embodied carbon while enabling reuse and recycling of components.	Unifies DfMA/B-6 with DfD/B-1 and B-2 to frame environmental performance within both upstream and downstream interventions.
7. Expand system capacity and long-term adaptability by supporting design strategies that enable component reuse, reconfiguration, and policy integration.	Bridges DfMA/B-7 with DfD/B-2 and B-7, emphasizing systemic integration and strategic flexibility.
8. Support resilient and adaptable designs by incorporating modular layouts and flexible configurations for future transformation and circular value retention.	Integrates DfMA/B-9 with DfD/B-7, framing adaptability as a multi-scalar benefit.

consolidates the DfMAD benefits by integrating conceptually aligned overlaps from both approaches.

The most frequently cited barriers/obstacles are as follows: DfMA/O-8, DfMA/O-4, DfMA/O-1, DfD/O-7, DfD/O-3, DfD/O-6, and DfD/O-1 (the last three are tied). DfMA-related obstacles center on the challenges of integrating this approach into fragmented and non-standardized construction processes, along with limited stakeholder awareness. DfD-related barriers highlight insufficient technical expertise, design constraints, and the lack of financial incentives and regulatory support. These barriers converge on critical issues related to awareness, organizational fragmentation, incentive structures, and systemic knowledge gaps that a DfMAD framework must overcome for effective implementation. No distinctive barriers were identified between the design-oriented approaches in the reviewed literature. Based on Figure 6,

Table 4. Consolidated DfMAD barriers based on DfMA and DfD literature.

DfMAD Barriers	Reasoning
1. Limited stakeholder awareness and technical knowledge hinder the adoption and effective implementation of DfMAD principles.	Consolidates DfMA/O-1 and DfD/O-5 (equivalent) and DfD/O-7 (included), recognizing that low awareness and insufficient expertise are foundational challenges.
2. Resistance to shifting from conventional construction methods impedes the cultural and organizational transition required for DfMAD integration.	Unifies DfMA/O-2 and DfD/O-5, highlighting behavioral and institutional inertia as a shared barrier.
3. Economic uncertainty and high initial investment costs undermine confidence in DfMAD’s long-term value and return on investment.	Integrates DfMA/O-3 and DfD/O-1, both emphasizing financial hesitancy and lack of immediate economic incentives.
4. Fragmented collaboration, poor coordination, and non-integrated workflows limit the systemic implementation of DfMAD strategies.	Combines DfMA/O-4 with DfD/O-2 (equivalent) and DfD/O-4 (included), addressing structural inefficiencies in multi-stakeholder processes.
5. Logistical challenges across manufacturing, transportation, and on-site processes create executional barriers to streamlined DfMAD deployment.	Reflects the inclusion of DfMA/O-5 within DfD/O-2, underlining execution risks related to planning and coordination.
6. Contractual misalignments and fragmented supply chains disrupt stakeholder collaboration and hinder integrated delivery models.	Synthesizes DfMA/O-6 and DfD/O-2 (equivalent), acknowledging procurement and partnership inefficiencies.
7. Lack of performance evidence and demonstrative case studies reduces stakeholder confidence in the viability of DfMAD.	Unifies DfMA/O-7 and DfD/O-7, emphasizing the barrier posed by the absence of validation data.
8. Design and technical limitations restrict the applicability of DfMAD in complex, undocumented, or atypical project scenarios.	Combines DfMA/O-8, DfMA/O-8 and DfD/O-3, both addressing constructability and feasibility in challenging contexts.
9. Insufficient regulatory frameworks and absence of enabling standards undermine institutional support for DfMAD practices.	Integrates DfMA/O-9 and DfD/O-6, pointing to policy-level gaps that constrain innovation uptake.

consolidates the principal DfMAD barriers by integrating conceptually aligned overlaps from both approaches.

The most frequently cited enablers are as follows: DfMA/E-5, DfMA/E-1, DfMA/E-2, and DfMA/E-4 (the last two are tied) and DfD/E-2, DfD/E-1, and DfD/E-7 (the last two are tied). For DfMA, key enablers include technological and methodological innovation, domain-specific knowledge, and organizational structures that promote stakeholder engagement and process integration. In DfD, professional education, advanced managerial practices, and the adoption of innovative methodologies and digital tools are emphasized. These enablers collectively converge on three foundational dimensions: technological innovation, knowledge dissemination, and organizational alignment, essential for enabling DfMAD adoption. No distinctive enablers were identified between the design-oriented approaches in the reviewed literature. Based on Figure 6,

Table 5. Consolidated DfMAD enablers based on DfMA and DfD research.

DfMAD Enablers	Reasoning
1. Robust theoretical knowledge, technical skills, and access to practical methodologies enable the effective implementation of DfMAD.	Synthesizes DfMA/E-1 with DfD/E-1 (equivalent) and DfD/E-2 (included), capturing the importance of both know-how and procedural support.
2. Integrated organizational structures and innovative management models facilitate cross-disciplinary coordination and system-wide DfMAD integration.	Unifies DfMA/E-2 with DfD/E-7 (equivalent) and DfD/E-8 (included), recognizing the organizational backbone required for life cycle-oriented design.
3. Supportive policies, incentives, and regulatory frameworks promote institutional alignment and economic feasibility of DfMAD.	Consolidates DfMA/E-3 with DfD/E-4 (equivalent) and DfD/E-5 (included), reflecting both political and financial enablers.
4. Stakeholder awareness and engagement are essential to foster cultural acceptance and widespread commitment to DfMAD practices.	Combines DfMA/E-4 and DfD/E-3 as equivalent enablers that focus on inclusive involvement and knowledge dissemination.
5. Technological innovation—including digital tools, equipment, and construction methodologies—supports scalable and streamlined DfMAD implementation.	Integrates DfMA/E-5 with DfD/E-6 (equivalent) and DfD/E-1 (included), emphasizing the role of innovation across all phases.
6. Context-sensitive design processes that account for site conditions and adaptable workflows improve the applicability and resilience of DfMAD strategies.	Unifies DfMA/E-6 with DfD/E-10 as equivalent enablers of flexible, responsive implementation.
7. Organizational improvement initiatives, including efficiency-driven reforms and updated procedures, help integrate DfMAD into routine practice.	Synthesizes DfMA/E-7 with DfD/E-7 (included), focusing on internal transformations that unlock broader adoption.

consolidates the principal DfMAD enablers by integrating conceptually aligned overlaps from both approaches.

Overall, the convergences identified in Figure 6 establish a coherent value proposition for DfMAD, primarily integrating economic and environmental dimensions across the design, manufacturing, assembly, and disassembly stages. However, the results reveal limited content related to the building use phase and social dimension.

4.3. DfMAD Conceptualization

Based on the preceding results (Section 4.2), a set of unified and synthesized attributes is proposed to support the definition of the DfMAD-oriented approach. These attributes are as follows:

• Standardized and simplified design through platform-based construction: Simplify components, reduce part count, and standardize geometries, materials, and connection systems to enable platform-based construction. This approach enhances manufacturability, streamlines on-site assembly, and facilitates future disassembly across diverse building configurations.
• Modularization and prefabrication for reversibility: Employ modular systems and prefabricated assemblies that support efficient off-site production, rapid on-site assembly, and reversible construction.
• Optimized connections and component interfaces: Use accessible, mechanical, and demountable connection systems that are standardized and error-tolerant for both assembly and non-destructive disassembly.
• Life cycle-based layering and flexibility: Structure building systems in layers based on functional lifespan to support replacement, reuse, and long-term adaptability.
• Digital and technological integration for life cycle control: Leverage Construction 5.0 technologies—including BIM, digital twins, AI-driven simulations, robotics, and IoT—as a unified infrastructure for managing design, production, logistics, and end-of-life scenarios. BIM acts as the central data backbone, linking design intent with fabrication and operational intelligence.
• Material efficiency and circularity: Prioritize pure, reusable, low-impact, durable, low-maintenance, and separable materials to reduce embodied carbon, enable reuse, and support material circularity through end-of-life recovery.
• Collaborative, human-centered design and circular services: Engage multidisciplinary stakeholders—designers, contractors, manufacturers, clients, and platform providers—to co-develop solutions that support service-based models, adaptive reuse, and secondary material markets, ensuring both technological and social sustainability.
• Value-driven design optimization for industrialized construction performance: Apply lean production principles, value engineering, life cycle assessment, and continuous process improvement to enhance construction quality, reduce uncertainty, and deliver measurable value as cost-effectiveness.

As a synthesis, Figure 7 illustrates the DfMAD conceptualization, based on principles that lead to the previously listed attributes, which in turn generate efficient and sustainable benefits.

Drawing on the previously defined core attributes, the following definition for the DfMAD approach is proposed:

DfMAD is a life cycle-oriented design approach that integrates principles of industrialized construction, circularity, and digitalization to enable the efficient manufacturing, streamlined assembly, and non-destructive disassembly of building systems. It is grounded in standardized and simplified design supported by platform-based construction, modularization, and optimized connections to ensure constructability, reversibility, and scalability across diverse building typologies. DfMAD structures buildings in functional layers based on component lifespans, allowing for selective replacement, reuse, and long-term adaptability. It leverages technologies—including BIM, digital twins, robotics, and AI—to enable real-time coordination, process automation, and life cycle management. Emphasizing material efficiency, it promotes the use of reusable, low-impact, and separable materials to reduce environmental burdens and maximize circular value retention. Rooted in a collaborative and human-centered design process, DfMAD facilitates service-based construction models, secondary material markets, and adaptive reuse. It incorporates lean production, value engineering, and life cycle assessment to reduce costs, ensure safety, optimize quality, reduce uncertainty, and deliver measurable value throughout the design, manufacturing, assembly, and disassembly stages.

Consequently, the content of Figure 2 has been further developed and presented as Figure 8 to incorporate the earlier DfMAD conceptualization. Accordingly, Figure 8 illustrates the proposed DfMAD-oriented framework for circular industrialized construction.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 present the DfMAD framework, which establishes the basis for a companion study aimed at validating its applicability in real-world construction contexts. A proposed validation strategy involves the design and construction of a full-scale (1:1) prototype module or small building that explicitly integrates the DfMAD principles and attributes. This prototype would be implemented within a living lab environment or a university–industry collaborative setting, allowing for controlled yet realistic testing. Validation will combine qualitative insights from stakeholder interviews with quantitative performance metrics, including technical efficiency (e.g., assembly and disassembly time, error rate, interface compatibility), environmental impact (e.g., embodied carbon, material recovery rates, and waste reduction), economic viability (e.g., comparative life cycle costs relative to conventional construction), and user acceptability (e.g., perceived usability, value, and acceptability).

4.4. Research Limitations

This study is limited by its reliance on secondary data from the existing literature, potentially overlooking emerging practices not yet documented. Only English-language scientific publications were considered, excluding gray literature and studies in other languages. Although the use of conceptual content analysis and classification criteria followed a systematic and transparent procedure, the process inherently involved interpretive judgment. Additionally, while the selected criteria are analytically sound, they may not fully reflect context-specific factors across diverse construction systems or regional settings. The content categories—principles, benefits, barriers, and enablers—were synthesized at a conceptual level; their practical application would require further breakdown and case-specific detailing. Despite these limitations, the proposed DfMAD framework offers a robust foundation to support informed decision-making and foster circularity in industrialized construction.

5. Conclusions

This study presents a conceptual framework for DfMAD as a strategic approach to bridging the paradigms of industrialized and circular construction. Based on a systematic literature review and thematic content analysis, the research critically examined the DfMA and DfD approaches, identifying their complementarities and divergences across the building life cycle. The study consolidates ten guiding principles, eight primary benefits, nine converging implementation barriers, and seven key enabling factors into an integrated framework that synthesizes the operational efficiency of DfMA with the end-of-life flexibility and material recovery potential inherent to DfD.

The findings demonstrate that DfMAD combines the value creation mechanisms of industrialized construction—rooted in standardization, prefabrication, simplification, and digitalization—with the value retention logic of circular design, particularly through adaptability, reversibility, and material reuse. The application of mapping techniques reveals significant conceptual overlaps that facilitate integration, while also highlighting critical distinctions between the DfMA and DfD approaches. Notably, DfMA tends to underemphasize disassembly and end-of-life considerations, whereas DfD remains insufficiently incorporated in early-stage design workflows. A distinctive contribution of the DfMAD framework is its emphasis on the DfD principle of stratifying buildings into layers, enabling selective accessibility and parallel disassembly—an essential feature for supporting long-term circularity.

The DfMAD framework offers a life cycle-oriented lens for enhancing the design, implementation, and sustainability performance of construction systems. It facilitates the shift from linear to circular construction practices by promoting modular, adaptable, deconstructable, and serviceable building solutions. Furthermore, it aligns with broader trends in Construction 5.0, Lean Construction, and resource-efficient design, serving as a foundational model for advancing traceability, product-based delivery systems, and material circularity in the built environment.

From a practical standpoint, the DfMAD approach provides actionable guidance for designers, manufacturers, and contractors seeking to integrate industrialized and circular strategies from the earliest project stages. The identified DfMAD principles—summarized in Figure 7 and operationalized through the DfMAD-oriented flowchart in Figure 8—can lead to measurable improvements in environmental impact, economic performance, and construction process efficiency when adopted in early-stage design.

Future research should focus on the empirical validation of the DfMAD framework through real-world case studies and performance evaluations using tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), alongside other circularity and resource-efficiency indicators. Collaborations with industry stakeholders will be critical to refining the framework’s practical applicability and ensuring its integration into design practices, regulatory frameworks, and educational curricula. As part of the proposed validation strategy, a companion study is envisioned involving the design and construction of a full-scale (1:1) prototype module or small building that explicitly incorporates DfMAD principles. Furthermore, given the central role of digital tools within the DfMAD approach, a companion publication specifically focusing on the integration of digital technologies—such as BIM, digital twins, and parametric design tools—for DfMAD-related processes is also considered a feasible and valuable research direction to support the effective implementation of the framework.

Ultimately, the adoption of DfMAD has the potential to transform how buildings are conceived, built, used, maintained, and deconstructed—supporting a built environment that is not only more efficient and adaptable but also circular, resilient, and future-ready.