IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction


  • Nick Blismas
  • Christine Pasquire
  • Alistair Gibb


Evaluating to what extent a component or building system should be produced off-site is inadequate within the industry. The potential benefits of off-site production (OSP) are commonly cited when justifying an OSP approach, yet holistic and methodical assessments of the applicability and overall benefit of these solutions, to a particular project, have been found to be deficient. Common methods of evaluation simply take material, labour and transportation costs into account when comparing various options, often disregarding other cost-related items such as site facilities, crane use and rectification of works. These cost factors are usually buried within the nebulous preliminaries figure, with little reference to the building approach taken. Further, softer issues such as health and safety, effects on management and process benefits are either implicit or disregarded within these comparison exercises. Yet it is demonstrated that these issues are some of the most significant benefits of OSP. A series of case studies demonstrated that evaluation focus is almost solely on direct material and labour costs of components, without explicit regard for the wider cost or soft issue implications of OSP on a project. The paper argues that until evaluation is more holistic and value-based rather than cost-based, OSP uptake in construction will be slow.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Blismas & Christine Pasquire & Alistair Gibb, 2006. "Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 121-130.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:24:y:2006:i:2:p:121-130
    DOI: 10.1080/01446190500184444

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1512-:d:109674 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1888-:d:115796 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Kamali, Mohammad & Hewage, Kasun, 2016. "Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1171-1183.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:24:y:2006:i:2:p:121-130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.