File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Modularisation strategies in the AEC industry: a comparative analysis

TitleModularisation strategies in the AEC industry: a comparative analysis
Authors
KeywordsModularisation
architecture
architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)
top-down modularisation
bottom-up modularisation
Issue Date2020
PublisherTaylor and Francis. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/taem20/current
Citation
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2020, v. 16 n. 4, p. 270-292 How to Cite?
AbstractMany industries have benefited from modularisation; while in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry, the concept of modularisation is associated with dimensional coordination. This has added to an already extensive list of challenges due to market size and the concept of economies of scale in AEC industry, to name but a few. Moreover, there is a myth that the AEC industry is bound to stay associated with build-to-order or made-to-order approach caused the AEC industry to restrict modularisation to the component level. This changes the balance in favour of what this paper calls a bottom-up approach. On the other hand, a valid alternative strategy – referred to in this study as top-down strategy – remains very much underexploited. The clients, therefore, do not have a neutral means by which they can assess which strategy is in their best interest. Likewise, if a construction company plans to make a strategic move towards the principles of modularisation and off-site manufacturing, they do not have clear decision support tools. This study investigates these two main modularisation strategies in the AEC industry to provide some examples of successful cases regarding how, when and where such strategy have been applied by different construction companies in different cases. The collected and collated empirical data and the results from the interviews will help clients and companies to analyse their own cases and make operational decisions on how, when and where to best utilise the bottom-up and top-down modularisation techniques while considering the pros and cons of such decisions.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/294814
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.7
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.622
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorShafiee, S-
dc.contributor.authorPiroozfar, P-
dc.contributor.authorHvam, L-
dc.contributor.authorFarr, ERP-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, GQ-
dc.contributor.authorPan, W-
dc.contributor.authorKudsk, A-
dc.contributor.authorRasmussen, JB-
dc.contributor.authorKorell, M-
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-21T11:48:57Z-
dc.date.available2020-12-21T11:48:57Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationArchitectural Engineering and Design Management, 2020, v. 16 n. 4, p. 270-292-
dc.identifier.issn1745-2007-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/294814-
dc.description.abstractMany industries have benefited from modularisation; while in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry, the concept of modularisation is associated with dimensional coordination. This has added to an already extensive list of challenges due to market size and the concept of economies of scale in AEC industry, to name but a few. Moreover, there is a myth that the AEC industry is bound to stay associated with build-to-order or made-to-order approach caused the AEC industry to restrict modularisation to the component level. This changes the balance in favour of what this paper calls a bottom-up approach. On the other hand, a valid alternative strategy – referred to in this study as top-down strategy – remains very much underexploited. The clients, therefore, do not have a neutral means by which they can assess which strategy is in their best interest. Likewise, if a construction company plans to make a strategic move towards the principles of modularisation and off-site manufacturing, they do not have clear decision support tools. This study investigates these two main modularisation strategies in the AEC industry to provide some examples of successful cases regarding how, when and where such strategy have been applied by different construction companies in different cases. The collected and collated empirical data and the results from the interviews will help clients and companies to analyse their own cases and make operational decisions on how, when and where to best utilise the bottom-up and top-down modularisation techniques while considering the pros and cons of such decisions.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/taem20/current-
dc.relation.ispartofArchitectural Engineering and Design Management-
dc.rightsAccepted Manuscript (AM) i.e. Postprint This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in [JOURNAL TITLE] on [date of publication], available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/[Article DOI].-
dc.subjectModularisation-
dc.subjectarchitecture-
dc.subjectarchitecture, engineering and construction (AEC)-
dc.subjecttop-down modularisation-
dc.subjectbottom-up modularisation-
dc.titleModularisation strategies in the AEC industry: a comparative analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailHuang, GQ: gqhuang@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailPan, W: wpan@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityHuang, GQ=rp00118-
dc.identifier.authorityPan, W=rp01621-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/17452007.2020.1735291-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85081354070-
dc.identifier.hkuros320652-
dc.identifier.volume16-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage270-
dc.identifier.epage292-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000518714500001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats