Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Offsite has the Lords' backing – now it's time for action

Matthew Bool

The impetus towards wide-scale endorsement of offsite manufacturing continues to intensify.

While interest in this area as a potential silver bullet for the industry’s woes is nothing new, the focus on OSM has escalated since the Farmer Review in 2016.

In Modernise or Die, Mark Farmer recommended that the government promote “the use of pre-manufactured solutions through policy measures”. The government responded that it would incorporate Farmer’s recommendations into future policy development, but also suggested the sector itself had to up its game.

Since the review was published, the government demonstrated further commitment to OSM in 2017’s Autumn Budget and through the £420m construction sector deal announced earlier this month.

Compelling case

Last week the House of Lords’ science and technology select committee published a report into whether OSM can improve productivity. The committee held 10 evidence sessions and received 81 written submissions. It also visited Laing O’Rourke’s Explore Industrial Park factory to hear presentations on OSM and check out prototype ‘precision-manufactured’ apartments.

The Lords’ committee found “clear and tangible benefits” from OSM that made a “compelling” case for its widespread use. While none of these perceived benefits are revelationary, read together they are convincing.

Aside from the obvious potential upsides in terms of productivity, speed and quality, other notable benefits the committee identified include the potential to create regional jobs away from large conurbations and, critically, health and safety improvements for the sector.

“A crucial factor in successful uptake of OSM is ensuring the right skills and training are in place”

The question now is: how can the government drive the uptake of OSM?

The Lords’ report made various recommendations. Some related to high-level strategic planning – for example, stressing the importance of the government working together with the Construction Leadership Council to make the sector deal a success.

Others were on a more practical level, such as suggesting government set out the information that companies need in order to comply with the BIM Level 2 mandate (BIM being a key enabler of OSM).

Back to basics

As the committee recognised, a crucial factor in successful uptake of OSM is ensuring the right skills and training are in place. This isn’t only a matter of post-school training provision; it is also about ensuring secondary schools provide the basic skills to facilitate more specialist training later on.

The Lords’ report pointed out that perceptions of the careers available in the sector are based on the skills needed for onsite work; attracting the younger generation means showcasing the high-tech aspects of modern construction methods.

While OSM has had its detractors in the past, the report not only outlines its benefits clearly and emphatically, but also makes tangible suggestions for its successful implementation going forward.

It’s now up to the government and the sector itself to take up the recommendations – the sooner the better.

Matthew Bool is a partner in the construction team at Ashurst

Readers' comments (1)

  • Yay, another report recommending OSM / MMC!

    Govt has had recommended OSM and a bias towards for certain projects for a year.

    Industry looks at its own business case and plans, much akin to retention’s, and seems to think ‘too hard, let someone else go first’ or ‘that doesn’t suit my model, not doing that!’

    Both the first reactions are wrong in that it’s not too hard, and they certainly are NOT the 1st.

    The latter. Can’t argue with if that’s your model. Wonder what Yellow Pages might say about Google, or Kodak about digital photography? Your business plan needs re assessment. Look up Martin Roxby at MNR in LinkedIn or one of my blog posts at MMCEngineer.com for more information on changing Business Plan / Model

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.