Construction Techniques of Today: Frequent Obstacles and Resolutions
In the realm of social housing, the adoption of modern methods of construction (MMC) has been a slow and arduous journey. The primary obstacles hindering widespread implementation include a "perception of risk," lack of standardization, technical limitations, coordination and knowledge gaps, ethical and quality concerns, economic and market limitations, and sceptical boards [1][2][3][4][5].
One of the main technical hurdles is the lack of uniform codes and curing difficulties associated with materials like 3D-printed geopolymer concrete. These uncertainties, coupled with the absence of clear regulatory standards, limit MMC's acceptance [2]. Traditional contractors, subcontractors, and site teams often struggle with MMC processes, such as modular construction, due to a lack of experience and the need for strict sequencing, integrated planning, and understanding of factory-to-site workflows [5].
Ethical dilemmas arise when the pressure to deliver housing rapidly and affordably leads to compromises on quality, safety, and long-term sustainability. This raises questions about maintaining dignity and livability in social housing [1]. Economic factors, such as high construction costs, land availability, and localized incentives, often result in social housing clustering in lower-income neighbourhoods, rather than mixed-income or higher-value areas where MMC could be transformative but less economically viable [3].
To tackle these challenges, collaboration among housing associations, local authorities, and manufacturers is essential. This collaboration can take several forms, including developing and adopting clear standards and guidelines, investing in education and training, implementing hybrid approaches, coordinating funding and policy frameworks, and early project integration of MMC specialists [2][3][4][5].
Building Better, an initiative led by Trina Chakravarti, offers free resources to help establish binding risk-sharing agreements. Trina, the Project Director for Building Better, identifies four ideas that aid collaborative partnerships in the MMC sector: reaching for common ground, keeping the focus on the goal, accepting tension, and making mechanisms contractual [6]. Trina has formed a strong partnership with Procurement for Housing to make it easier for housing associations and manufacturers to access MMC through bulk buying [7].
Despite the challenges, MMC presents new opportunities for tailored solutions. Sharing the burden of collaborative projects reduces the burden on designers, planners, builders, managers, and surveyors. Medium to small housing associations may not hold much sway individually in the MMC sector, but collaboration offers greater agency and better control over processes [8].
Navigating the market and overcoming scepticism towards MMC, due to it being a completely different way of doing business, is another challenge [9]. Only five out of around 16 major UK-based public lenders who deal with social housing have considered implementing a funding strategy for MMC-built homes [10].
In conclusion, standardization, education, ethical quality assurance, economic incentives, and integrated multi-stakeholder planning are key to enabling MMC's broader use in social housing. Collaborative efforts combining technical, social, and policy levers will help unlock MMC’s potential for affordable, sustainable housing solutions [1][2][3][4][5].
- The lack of uniform codes and uncertainties related to materials like 3D-printed geopolymer concrete, along with the absence of clear regulatory standards, limit the acceptance of modern methods of construction (MMC) in social housing.
- Collaboration among housing associations, local authorities, and manufacturers can help enable MMC's broader use in social housing by developing and adopting clear standards and guidelines, investing in education and training, and implementing hybrid approaches.
