Standardization and Industrialized Construction of Special Purpose Buildings
10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization
eISBN: 978-1-83867-051-1
ISSN: 2516-2853
Publication date: 1 May 2019
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of the present study is to look into the potential of standardization of special purpose buildings, with the example of the Norwegian Directorate of Public Construction and Property Management (Statsbygg).
Design/Methodology/Approach
The present study uses results from a group workshop on the topic of standardization, suggesting building types suitable for standardization or modular construction. In addition, data from Statsbygg’s project database is used.
Findings
There is a broad specter of special purpose buildings with potential for standardization, such as customs facilities, courthouses, university buildings and buildings with a high share of office functions. Even buildings with an individualized character, such as museums or government buildings, have a certain potential for standardization of functional or constructional elements. Modular construction can be used where and when appropriate.
Research Limitations/Implications
Being on a brainstorming level and limited to Statsbygg, the study provides a starting point for further research looking at other building commissioners working with special purpose buildings, or quantifying the potential for cost reduction.
Practical Implications
On the basis of the findings from this study, Statsbygg considers further standardization of their special purpose buildings, not only within building types but also across the portfolio or within a project, for example rooms or functional elements.
Originality/Value
Research on standardization of special purpose buildings is limited. The article presents the results of a workshop with project managers, contributing to the topic based on their experience from the construction of special purpose buildings. Although on a brainstorming level, the research is a starting point for further research into this topic.
Keywords
Citation
Beste, T.M., Klakegg, O.J. and Jørgen Kjetil, K. (2019), "Standardization and Industrialized Construction of Special Purpose Buildings", Lill, I. and Witt, E. (Ed.) 10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization (Emerald Reach Proceedings Series, Vol. 2), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2516-285320190000002033
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Teresa Magdalena Beste, Ole Jonny Klakegg, Jørgen Kjetil Knudsen.
License
Published in the Emerald Reach Proceedings Series. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Statsbygg, the Directorate of Public Construction and Property Management, is responsible for building special purpose buildings for the Norwegian state. A special purpose building is a “type of property [with a] unique design or layout, [...] or other features that limit the property's utility for purposes other than the one for which it was built.” (US Legal, 2018). This includes e.g. university buildings, governmental buildings, customs facilities, courthouses, police stations, prisons and museums. Planning and construction of special purpose buildings differs from constructing houses or office buildings because every building’s unique function and character needs to be addressed individually.
Despite this paradigm, Statsbygg and the Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service (KDI) developed a standardized set of functional requirements for Norwegian prisons to meet the urgent need for extended prison capacity in Norway (Statsbygg, 2018). The standard facilitates planning and construction by proposing a standard prison concept with possible partial modular construction. Statsbygg has used the standard in four prison projects (two finished and two under construction). Positive effects on project performance, regarding both time and cost (Økland et al., 2017), have inspired Statsbygg to look into further standardization, assuming potential savings through economies of scale and learning effects between projects. Standardization within construction projects is not a new topic, but for special purpose buildings built by Statsbygg, the unique character has been in focus rather than standardization.
This paper investigates the potential for further standardization of special purpose building along the following research questions:
Which types of special purpose buildings have a high potential for standardization?
How can also buildings with a highly individual character benefit from standardization?
What are the constraints when standardizing special purpose buildings?
We will start by outlining the research method and the theoretical reference for the topic of standardization of special purpose buildings before presenting the results from a group workshop and drawing conclusions for the potential for standardization of special purpose buildings.
2. Method
This research is conducted at the beginning of a PhD-project on cost reduction in public construction projects. Further standardization of special purpose buildings can be one of the starting points for cost reduction. A qualitative case-study approach was taken, allowing for collection of in-depth information on a specific topic (Neuman, 2006) for a limited research object (Halvorsen, 2008) – in this case, Statsbygg.
As part of a seminar for Statsbygg’s building commissioning department in March 2018, a group work on the cost-reduction in Statsbygg’s construction projects was conducted. “Group discussion is a means of collecting data in one go from several people (who usually share common experiences) and which concentrates on their shared meanings” (Payne and Payne, 2004, p. 103), allowing ideas to develop through interaction among group members. The group work followed a presentation on the standardization of prisons. The approximately 120 group members were mainly project managers and other project staff members. They were split into 15 equally sized groups with different levels of experience from construction projects represented in each group. Staff from the department facilitated the group work, and the first author of this paper was a regular participant in one group. The response rate was 73 per cent; 11 of 15 groups reported results through a quest back form. The groups were asked to discuss the topic of standardization and suggest other types of projects for standardization and/or modular construction. The varied outcome reflects the open discussion question and the fact that the author did not direct groups into a certain direction. Answers also included suggestions for standardization of specific building elements and room types as well as comments on challenges with standardization (cf. Chapter 4.2).
Transferability to other building commissioners has to be verified, but it is assumed that results can be reproduced for other special purpose buildings. High internal validity (Johannessen et al., 2011) is achieved as almost all employees in the building commissioning department contributed.
3. Theoretical reference
3.1. Standardization and industrialized building of special purpose buildings
Standardization is a concept including “the extensive use of components, methods or processes with regularity, repetition and a successful history” (Pasquire and Gibb, 2002, p. 3). Standardization is often also associated with processes, suggesting “not necessarily functionally or aesthetically distinct products from more conventional construction, but more routes toward the attainment of stated goals” (Craig et al., 2000, p. 3). Subsequent similar projects can profit by re-using the same processes, functionalities, design or plans from previous projects. Standardization is often a prerequisite for a high degree of industrialized building, where parts or modules are produced in factories and being assembled on site (Berg, 2005; Berg, 2008). Buildings with many repetitive units, such as hotels, student housing, hospitals and prisons are considered as suitable for modular building (Kamali and Hewage, 2016; Grant, 2013). As mentioned in Chapter 1, special purpose buildings are properties with unique features appropriate for one type of use (US Legal, 2018). Research on the standardization of special purpose buildings is limited, as standardization is perceived as incompatible with the unique character of special purpose buildings, where every construction project has to be addressed in an individual way (Moum et al., 2016). Nevertheless, standardization of processes and technical solutions, as well as reduction of variation is possible without compromising the individuality of each building (ibid.).
3.2. The effects of standardization
Standards make the technical state of the art accessible for the broad market (Blind et al., 2011), reduce variation in product quality (Jones and Hudson, 1996), ensure safety, environmental and social standards, and allow collaboration by different suppliers (Viardot et al., 2016). Technological standards lead to innovative efficiency and productivity in knowledge creation (Spulber, 2013). In the construction industry, standardization can contribute to improved performance (Pasquire and Gibb, 2002). Among positive effects arising from standardization and pre-assembly are better planning and control, improved quality, an improved health and safety environment, higher predictability and the possibility for increased profitability through reduced costs, shorter lead times, less defects and higher productivity (Pasquire and Gibb, 2002). Dullness, lack of innovativeness (ibid.), failure to meet individual needs of the users and a lack of flexibility (Craig et al., 2000) are downsides. When the standard is optimized through positive and negative experiences, standardization presents an opportunity for increased learning for future projects (Berg, 2008), e.g. by developing better tendering documentation based on the log of change request from previous projects.
Recent research by Økland et al. (2017) found mainly positive effects of standardization and modular construction of Norwegian prisons, including significantly reduced planning time through re-use of design and facilitated client/user participation. Parallelization of groundwork and module production shortens construction time. The standard facilitates learning from one project to the other (ibid.). Research also points toward a positive effect of modular building on project cost but somewhat limited by a shallow pool of contractors with experience of modular construction (ibid.).
4. Findings and discussion
4.1. Results from the group work
In the group sessions, the participants were given the instruction: “Discuss the topic of standardization and suggest other types of projects where standardization and/or modular construction can be of relevance.” Engaging discussions led to extensive answers to the topic and to interesting side results beyond the original question.
Nine groups named educational buildings having high potential for standardization, followed by office and administration buildings (mentioned by seven groups) and court houses (mentioned by six groups). Five groups each reported traffic control facilities, customs facilities and children’s homes. Other building types mentioned were governmental buildings, police stations, student accommodation and museums.
In addition, most of the groups also listed building elements with a potential for standardization. This is an interesting finding as it allows standardization of special purpose buildings on a more general level with standardized solutions for the whole portfolio. Figure 1 shows a full overview of the answers.
Most of the groups also suggested room types to be standardized. Figure 2 shows room types mentioned by more than one group. In addition, one group each mentioned treatment rooms, parking lots, special rooms (of repetitive type), dog stables (e.g. at police stations), traffic control halls, weight control functions, emergency control rooms, court rooms, dormitories, shooting ranges, bicycle parking and vestibules.
The results show that the project managers see potential for standardization and modular construction for a broad specter of special purpose buildings. They even mentioned highly individual building types, such as museums, which on first sight do not seem to be suitable for standardization. Suggestions include a high degree of standardization of more common building elements.
Statsbygg has completed two standardized prison projects by now, with shortened project time, achieving cost savings of around 20 per cent through standardization and industrial building, compared to the last prison project completed before standardization. Considering that Statsbygg manages buildings with an area of 2.9 million m2 worth 22 billion NOK and has 120 ongoing construction projects, with a total expected investment volume of 7 billion NOK for 2018, even a more tentative saving of 10 per cent through standardization on a portfolio level would mean reduction of 700 million NOK per year.
Suggestions for standardization of buildings, building elements and room types show that project managers see potential for standardization of special purpose buildings, although with limitations (cf. Chapter 4.2). This is in accordance with the literature, and going beyond it by suggesting that even construction projects without many repetitive units can be standardized to a certain degree. The results from the workshop are used internally to prioritize building types where a process toward further standardization will be initiated.
4.2. Additional results from the group sessions
As an additional result from the group sessions, participants state several challenges with standardization:
Architectural challenges: Standardization should not limit the possibilities of the architect to develop a unique architecture of every building. Standardizing functions or parts of the building should not compromise the architectural expression of each building.
Acceptance challenges: Users of special-purpose buildings tend to consider their building as unique. Thus, a challenge is to make them accept that less unique parts can be standardized or built with modules. A good and accepted standard is developed in collaboration with the client and the user of the building.
Challenges toward the extent of the standard: Complete standardization can be difficult, but it might be broken down into appropriate levels. A standard has to take into account adaptation to real estate differences, which are setting prerequisites for the geometry of the building on site.
Other suggestions included standardization across sectors, the standardization of user equipment to allow for standardized interfaces, the establishment of a standard with built-in flexibility, and further standardization of processes. Group members also mentioned the reduction of variation within a building (e.g. concerning wall thickness), the collection of a “drop-down menu” for standard room types or the adaption of room sizes to standard module size.
5. Conclusion and suggestions for further research
The findings from the group sessions indicate that further standardization of special purpose buildings is possible. On the basis of the present research, building types with the highest potential for standardization are customs facilities, courthouses, university buildings and buildings with a high share of office functions. Standardization even of buildings with a highly individualized character is possible when it comes to certain rooms and to constructional elements. Standardized solutions for building elements can be developed for the whole portfolio. Standardizing common features of the buildings allows focusing on unique elements for the present special purpose building. In this manner, standardization can contribute to faster project delivery and to more cost-efficient construction projects without compromising on the architectural expression and the individuality of special purpose buildings. Both literature and experience from projects suggests that standardization contributes to cost-effective construction projects, but it remains to quantify more exactly the potential for cost savings through standardization.
The present study provides a starting point. Results are on a brainstorming level, though from qualified and experienced participants. Further research might look at other building commissioners working with special purpose buildings, or focus on the extent, practicability and cost reduction potential of standardization, which is possible for the different types of buildings, and on approaches for implementation of a higher degree of standardization in the construction of special purpose buildings.
References
Berg, 2005Berg, T. (2005). Industrialisering som mulig vei for reduksjon av byggekostnader. Oppdragsrapport. Trondheim: Norges Byggforskningsinstitutt/.
Berg, 2008Berg, T. (2008). Industrialisering og systematisering av boligbyggproduksjon. Er systematisering og standardisering BA-næringens veivalg? Trondheim: SINTEF Byggforsk. Prosjektrapport 20.
Blind, Jungmittag, Mangelsdorf, 2011Blind, K., Jungmittag, A., Mangelsdorf, A. (2011). The economic benefits of standardization. DIN German Institute for Standardization.
Craig, Laing, Edge, 2000Craig, A., Laing, R., Edge, M. (2000). The social acceptability of prefabrication and standardisation in relation to new housing. 16th IAPS Conference “21st century: Cities, social life and sustainable development”, Paris, 4th-7th July 2000. Paper Number 161.
Grant, 2013Grant, E.M. (2013). “Pack’em, rack’em and stack’em”: The appropriateness of the use and reuse of shipping containers for prison accommodation. Construction Economics and Building, 13(2): pp. 35–44.
Halvorsen, 2008Halvorsen, K. (2008). Å forske på samfunnet – En innføring i samfunnsvitenskapelig metode. Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag.
Johannessen, Tufte, Christoffersen, 2011Johannessen, A., Tufte, P.A., Christoffersen, L. (2011). Introduksjon til samfunnsvitenskapelig metode. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Jones, Hudson, 1996Jones, P., Hudson, J. (1996). Standardization and the costs of assessing quality. European Journal of Political Economy, 12, pp. 355–361.
Kamali, and Hewage, 2016Kamali, M. and Hewage, K. (2016). Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, pp. 1,171–1,183.
Moum, Høilund-Kaupang, Olsson, Bredeli, 2016Moum, A., Høilund-Kaupang, H., Olsson, N., Bredeli, M. (2016). Industrialisering av byggeprosessene. Status og trender. Trondheim: SINTEF, Prosjektnotat.
Neuman, 2006Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social Research Methods. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Education.
Økland, Johansen, Beste, Gjesteby, 2017Økland, A., Johansen, A., Beste, T., Gjesteby, E. (2017). Standardization and modularization of prisons. Procedia Computer Science 121, 990–997.
Pasquire, Gibb, 2002Pasquire, C.L., Gibb, A.G.F. (2002). Considerations for assessing the benefits of standardisation and pre-assembly in construction. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 7(3), pp. 151–161.
Payne, Payne, 2004Payne, G., Payne, J. (2004). Group discussions/focus groups. In: Sage key Concepts: Key concepts in social research, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 103–107.
Spulber, 2013Spulber, D. (2013). Innovation Economics: The interplay among technology standards, competitive conduct, and economic performance. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 9(4), pp. 777–825.
Statsbygg, 2018Statsbygg (2018). Funksjons- og arealveileder. Kravspesifikasjon for fengselsbygg (version 2.0, 15.01.2018), KDI/Statsbygg.
Statsbygg, 2018Statsbygg (2018). Prosjekt Nytt Nasjonalmuseum. https://www.statsbygg.no/Prosjekter-og-eiendommer/Byggeprosjekter/Nasjonalmuseum/, accessed 19.09.2018.
US LegalUS Legal, definition of Special Purpose Property: https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/special-purpose-property/, accessed 22.07.2018.
Viardot, Sherif, Chen, 2016Viardot, E., Sherif, M.H., Chen, J. (2016). Managing innovation with standardization: An introduction to recent trends and new challenges. Editorial. Technovation 48-49, pp. 1–3.
The authors would like to thank all the participants contributing with their ideas and experience during the group work.
- Prelims
- THE ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION
- Updating and Cleaning Out: The “Make or Buy” Decision in Construction Revisited
- Bispevika Project: Research for Constructing a Collaborative Value Chain
- Social Considerations in the Procurement of Road and Railroad Projects in Sweden
- Standardization and Industrialized Construction of Special Purpose Building
- Identifying Contradictions of Integrating Life-Cycle Costing in Design Practices
- Advancing Networking-Based Business Management in Construction Markets
- Contracts and Culture in a Partnering Project
- Sub-Contractors’ Perception of Contracting: The Case of Crime
- Project Managers: Gatekeepers or Inside Men?
- The Hybridity of Strategic Partnerships and Construction Supply Chain Management
- Dynamic Capabilities and Risk Management: Evaluating the CDRM Model for Clients
- An Opposite Design-Build Procurement Method: Competing on Quality with a Fixed Price
- CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
- An Appraisal of Water Infrastructure Projects’ Financing Challenges in South Africa
- The Soft Factors in Design Management: a Hidden Success Factor?
- Room to Manoeuvre: Governing the Project Provisions
- A Longitudinal View of Adopting Project Alliancing: Case Finland
- A Simulation-Based Optimization for Contractors in Precast Concrete Projects
- Governed by Municipal Land Allocations: Implications for Housing Developers
- Situation Picture Through Construction Information Management
- Who Benefit from Crime in Construction? A Structural Analysis
- Quality Evaluation of Contractor’s Schedule in the Bidding Phase
- Activity Cruciality as Measure of Network Schedule Structure Resilience
- Construction Programmes and Programming: A Critical Review
- Procurement Research: Current State and Future Challenges in the Nordic Countries
- Exploitative Learning in Inter-Organizational Projects: Evidence from Dutch Infrastructure Practices
- The Transition from Design-Bid-Build Contracts to Design-Build
- Exploring the Dynamics of Supplier Innovation Diffusion
- Understanding Collaborative Working in a Facilitated Interdisciplinary Environment
- Ensuring Successful Knowledge Transfer in Building Renovation Projects
- Public Private Collaboration in the Context of Zero Emission Neighbourhood
- Strategizing and Project Management in Construction Projects: An Exploratory Literature Review
- BUILDING INFORMATION, DATA AND DIGITALIZATION
- BIM-Enabled Education: a Systematic Literature Review
- A BIM-Enabled Learning Environment: a Conceptual Framework
- “I Work All Day with Automation in Construction: I am a Sociomaterial-Designer”
- Developing Smart Services to Smart Campus
- An Overview of BIM Adoption in the Construction Industry: Benefits and Barriers
- BIM for Construction Education: Initial Findings from a Literature Review
- Model for Smart, Self-learning and Adaptive Resilience Building
- Investigating the Drop-Out rate from a BIM Course
- INNOVATIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
- Senior Residence Concepts in Norway: Challenges and Actions for a Sustainable Development
- 3D-Printing Technology in Construction: Results from a Survey
- Product and Manufacturing Systems Alignment: a Case Study in the Timber House Building Industry
- Opening the Black Box of Accessibility Regulation
- Orchestrating Multi-Actor Collaborative Innovation Across Organizational Boundaries
- SUSTAINABILITY AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
- Social Sustainability in Modelling of Value Creation in Housing Refurbishment
- Reviewing the Role of Sustainability Professionals in Construction
- Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Building Environment Assessment Methods in Achieving Green Building
- STAKEHOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE
- Challenging the Rhetoric of Construction Briefing: Insights from a Formula 1 Sports Venue
- Underlying Causes for Risk Taking Behaviour Among Construction Workers
- Towards Developing a Framework for User-Driven Innovation in Refurbishment
- Reconstructing Knowledge Integration in the Norwegian AEC-Industry
- Institutional Complexity for Chinese International Contractors
- BUILT ENVIRONMENTS
- BIM Related Innovation in Healthcare Precinct Design and Facilities Management
- Location is Crucial in Retrofit: Strategy Selection in Different Regions
- CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
- From Theoretical to Practical Competence on Health and Safety
- A Test Platform of Viable Methods to Improve Production and Learning on Construction Sites