1 Construction-Oriented Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA)

2 Guidelines
3 Tan Tan 1, Weisheng Lu 2*, Gangyi Tan3, Fan Xue4, Ke Chen5, Jinying Xu6, Jing Wang7, and
4 Shang Gao8
5

This is the peer-reviewed, post-print version of the paper:

Tan, T., Lu, W., Tan, G., Xue, F., Chen, K., Xu, J., Wang, J. & Gao, S. (2020).
Construction-Oriented Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) Guidelines.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, in press.
This material is shared under the permission of ASCE, and may be downloaded for
personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of ASCE. The official version of
this paper may be accessed at LINK_TO_INSERT
6

7 Abstract
8 The pursuit of modern product sophistication and production efficiency has bolstered Design
9 for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) around the world. Being both a design philosophy and
10 a methodology, DfMA has existed in manufacturing for decades. It is coming into vogue in
11 construction as a potential solution to the industry’s lackluster productivity amid enduring
12 exhortation of cross-sectoral learning. However, many studies of DfMA in construction are still
13 simply following the DfMA guidelines developed from manufacturing without adequately
14 considering important differences between the two sectors of construction and manufacturing.
15 This study aims to develop a series of construction-oriented DfMA guidelines by adopting a
16 mixed-method approach. It critiques existing DfMA guidelines in relation to the characteristics
17 of construction, and further argues that construction-oriented DfMA should consider five
18 fundamental aspects: contextual basis, technology rationalization, logistics optimization,
19 component integration, and material-lightening, either individually or collectively. A case study
20 is then conducted to substantiate and verify the feasibility of these guidelines. This research
21 sheds new light on the cross-sectoral learning of DfMA from manufacturing to construction.
22 The guidelines can be used as the benchmark for the evaluation of manufacturability and

1
Ph.D. Student, The Bartlett School of Construction & Project Management, University College London, UK, e-mail:
[Link].17@[Link];
2
Professor, Corresponding Author, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
SAR, e-mail: wilsonlu@[Link], Tel.: +852 3917 7981;
3
Professor, Department of Architecture, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China, tan_gangyi@[Link];
4
Assistant Professor, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, e-mail:
xuef@[Link];
5
Associate Professor, Department of Construction Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China, e-
mail: chenkecm@[Link];
6
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, e-mail:
jinyingxu@[Link];
7
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, e-mail:
jingww@[Link];
8
Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia, e-mail:
[Link]@[Link].

1
23 assemblability in practice. It also opens up a new avenue for further DfMA studies in
24 construction.
25

26 Keywords: Design for manufacture and assembly; Architecture; Construction; Manufacturing;

27 Assembly; Design guidelines
28

29 Introduction
30 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) is both a design philosophy and methodology
31 whereby the downstream processes of manufacturing and assembly are considered when
32 designing products (Boothroyd, 2005). Originating from the manufacturing industry, DfMA
33 suggests a systematic design process that integrates the production experience into the product
34 design (Corbett et al., 1991; Kuo et al., 2001; Harik and Sahmrani, 2010). It has two components:
35 design for manufacture (DfM) and design for assembly (DfA). DfM compares selected
36 materials and manufacturing processes for the parts, determines the cost impact of those
37 materials and processes, and finds the most efficient use of the component design (Ashley,
38 1995), while DfA addresses the means of assembling the parts (Bogue, 2012). Altogether,
39 DfMA represents a shift from a traditional, sequential approach to a non-linear, reiterative
40 design methodology. Since its emergence during World War II and flourishing in the
41 1960s~1970s, numerous DfMA guidelines (e.g., Boothroyd, 2005; Swift and Brown, 2013;
42 Bogue, 2012; Emmatty and Sarmah, 2012) have been developed to help designers to operate
43 this design philosophy to improve designs, productivity and profitability (Gatenby and Foo,
44 1990; Kuo et al., 2001). More recently, a ‘Design for Excellence’ (DfX) approach has
45 developed where the ‘X’ may denote excellence in any aspect, including testability, compliance,
46 reliability, manufacturability, inspection, variability, and cost (Maskell, 2013; Huang, 2012).
47

48 DfMA is now beginning to come into vogue in the construction industry. Notably, the Royal
49 Institute of British Architects (RIBA) (2013) published a DfMA overlay to its Plan of Work
50 2013. The governments of the UK, Singapore, and Hong Kong have all published DfMA guides
51 or emphasized its importance in construction. Industry giants such as a Laing O’Rourke (2013)
52 and Balfour Beatty (2018) have even indicated that they consider DfMA to be the future of
53 construction.
54

55 Some terminologies need to be clarified here. According to Dainty et al. (2007), precisely what
56 constitutes construction is subject to a range of boundary definitions. There are narrow and
57 broad definitions of construction (Pearce, 2003). The narrow definition of construction focuses
58 on onsite assembly and the repair of buildings and infrastructure. Contrastingly, the broad
59 definition of construction could include quarrying of raw materials, manufacture of building
60 materials, sale of construction products (Dainty et al., 2007), and professional services such as
61 architectural design, urban planning, landscape architecture, engineering design, surveying,
62 construction-related accountancy, and legal services (Jewell et al., 2014). All the above sub-

2
 63 sectors can be allocated a four-digit U.S. SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) code, which
64 is in accordance with the United Nation’s International SIC or the U.K. SIC (Lu et al., 2013).
65 At the risk of oversimplification, this study treats upstream architecture and engineering
66 activities as “design”, and downstream onsite activities as “construction”. Onsite construction
67 is traditionally conducted using cast in-situ; it is a combination of fabrication and assembly
68 (Ballard and Howell, 1998). In recent years, the global construction industry has seen a number
69 of initiatives to minimize onsite construction, shifting it to downstream offsite
70 “manufacture”/fabrication but bringing it back onsite for “assembly” (Duncan in RIBA 2013).
71 To understand the concept of DfMA in construction, one must position it in the heterogeneous
72 context of construction and be cognizant of the relationships between architecture, engineering,
73 construction, manufacturing, and assembly therein.
74

75 One can also understand the DfMA trend against the background of global construction, which
76 is characterized by ever-heightened product sophistication, sluggish productivity growth,
77 increasing influence of cross-sectoral learning, and emerging technological advancements in
78 virtual design and construction. Production inefficiency in construction has been criticized in a
79 succession of influential UK-based industry reports, including ‘Constructing the Team’
80 (Latham, 1994), ‘Rethinking Construction’ (Egan, 1998), ‘Never Waste a Good Crisis’
81 (Wolstenholme et al., 2009), and more recently in The Economist (2017) comparing
82 construction productivity with its manufacturing and agriculture counterparts. Construction has
83 been accused of being ‘adversarial’, ‘ineffective’, ‘fragmented’, and ‘incapable of delivering’,
84 with an appalling backwardness that should be improved, e.g., through industrial structure or
85 organizational culture. Increasingly, it is exhorted that construction should look to and learn
86 from highly productive industries such as advanced manufacturing (Camacho et al., 2018).
87 Lean construction (Koskela, 1992) is typically advocated as a result, as is DfMA.
88

89 The exploration of production innovation, in particular offsite construction, has provided an

90 unprecedented opportunity for DfMA. It is the similarities between offsite
91 construction/prefabrication and manufacturing that have pushed DfMA to the fore of the
92 industry’s cross-sectoral learning and innovation agenda. In addition, emerging technological
93 advancements, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), 3D printing, the Internet of
94 Things (IoTs), and robotics provide the construction industry, DfMA in particular, new entry
95 points for manufacturing knowledge and efficiency improvement.
96

97 However, current DfMA practices in construction still, by and large, follow DfMA guidelines
98 developed in a manufacturing context without sufficiently considering the differences between
99 construction and manufacturing. For example, DfMA procedures in Boothroyd (2005) consider
100 DfA and DfM but not the downstream logistics and supply chain (LSC), which plays a critical
101 role in offsite prefabrication construction. Some construction DfMA guidelines proposed, e.g.,
102 Gbadamosi et al., (2019), Kim et al., (2016), and Banks et al. (2018), originate more or less

3
103 from manufacturing-oriented guidelines. While inspiring, some of these guidelines are not
104 necessarily a good fit with construction’s characteristics, leading to an inability to improve
105 manufacturing and assembly. Some guidelines are proposed in a fragmented fashion without
106 necessarily forming an organic whole, leading to a lack of comprehensiveness, or “easy to use”
107 throughout the building process. The RIBA, in recognizing the potential of DfMA in
108 construction, added an overlay of DfMA to its time-honored Plan of Work. Following RIBA’s
109 vision (2013, p. 24), much “soft-landing” work remains to implement DfMA in construction.
110

111 Partly responding to this call for “soft-landing” work, this paper aims to facilitate the
112 implementation of DfMA in construction by proposing a series of construction-oriented DfMA
113 guidelines. It has three objectives: (1) to identify the differences between manufacturing and
114 construction; (2) to propose a series of construction-oriented DfMA guidelines; and (3) to
115 evaluate the proposed DfMA guidelines by using empirical evidence. These objectives are
116 achieved using a mixed-method approach including literature review, comparative analysis, and
117 case study. The remainder of this paper is organized into six sections. Section 2 presents basic
118 knowledge such as the origin, concept, and general applications of DfMA. Section 3 describes
119 the research methods adopted. Section 4 introduces the development of DfMA guidelines for
120 construction projects by adapting existing DfMA guidelines to fit the characteristics of the
121 design process and the final product in construction. In Section 5, the developed DfMA
122 guidelines are evaluated through empirical evidence from research and practice. The last two
123 sections present discussions and a conclusion, respectively.
124

125 An overview of Design for Manufacture and Assembly

126 DfMA originated in the weapon production processes developed by Ford and Chrysler during
127 World War II. Formal approaches to DfM and DfA emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s
128 when the UK published The Management of Design for Economic Production standard in 1975.
129 The academic exploration of DfMA can be traced back to the 1970s when Boothroyd and
130 Dewhurst conducted research and practice in this area. Boothroyd (1994) described the
131 shortcomings of an “over the wall” design approach and suggests the application of DfMA
132 methodology to making production knowledge available to designers. Hamidi and Farahmand
133 (2008) suggested that DfMA implementation needs a feedback loop between design and
134 manufacturing; for example, with a design being checked by the manufacturer to identify
135 potential problems or waste in the downstream processes of manufacturing and assembly.
136

137 Since its adoption in manufacturing, DfMA has helped many companies increase their profits
138 through optimized design (Gatenby and Foo, 1990; Kuo et al., 2001). Several guidelines have
139 been consolidated to help designers reduce difficulties in manufacturing and assembling a
140 product. Examples include minimizing the number of parts (Kuo et al., 2001; Eastman, 2012;
141 Bogue, 2012) and searching for the most efficient use of modular design (Ashley, 1995). Some
142 analytical tools have also been developed for designers to evaluate their proposed design from

4
143 the perspectives of manufacturing and assembly difficulties. Although these
144 guidelines/principles have been developed from various reference points, they share substantial
145 similarities, with minimization, standardization, and modular design emerging as key DfMA
146 principles.
147

148 The importance of considering the production process in the design stage is also recognized by
149 the construction industry. Architectural and engineering design have never been a pure art; there
150 is a long-standing architectural philosophy of “form follows function” (Goulding et al., 2015)
151 whereby form, functions, quantity, and buildability should be considered in design. Design
152 optimization has been advocated. But DfMA is different in that it consciously highlights the
153 downstream processes of manufacturing and assembly. With its success in the manufacturing,
154 civil aviation, auto, and other industries, researchers have suggested the implementation of
155 DfMA in construction to harvest benefits including time reduction, cost minimization, and
156 achieving customer satisfaction. Although DfMA has only recently been introduced to
157 construction, some DfMA-like thinking precedes it. For example, Fox et al. (2001) proposed a
158 strategy for DfM application to buildings, and Crowther (1999) proposed design for
159 disassembly as the final step of DfA in construction for life cycle assemblability. More recently,
160 Yuan et al. (2018) integrated BIM and DfMA to develop the concept and process of DfMA-
161 oriented parametric design, and Arashpour et al. (2018) explained DfMA guidelines in modular
162 prefabrication of complex façade systems. Chen and Lu (2018) also highlighted the application
163 of DfMA in the façade system through a case study. In addition to this research work, industrial
164 reports such as Laing O’Rourke (2013), Balfour Beatty (2018), and RIBA’s DfMA overlay
165 (2013) have helped popularize DfMA in construction.
166

167 Despite support from both academia and industry, DfMA has yet to achieve fervent
168 implementation in construction because of problems related to new design system and
169 standardization, fragmentation, multi-party coordination, and lack of proper design guidelines
170 (Jin et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019). Few studies, if any, have discussed the differences of DfMA's
171 guidelines between manufacturing and construction. Indiscriminate introduction of guidelines
172 from a manufacturing to construction may not increase productivity, and will definitely pose
173 additional uncertainties and risks (Paez et al. 2005).
174

175 Research methods

176 This study adopts a four-step research design, as shown in Figure 1. The first step is to review
177 fundamental guidelines of DfMA widely adopted in the manufacturing industry. These
178 guidelines are retrieved from authoritative publications, including academic papers and reports.
179 Some of these guidelines can be applied to the design of building components for efficient
180 construction, but others cannot. Therefore, the second step is to generate a tentative set of DfMA
181 guidelines applicable to construction. This process is delivered based on an understanding of
182 the similarities and differences between construction and manufacturing. The third step is to

5
183 complement the tentative DfMA guidelines by analyzing construction projects that have
184 pioneered DfMA-oriented design. The set of DfMA guidelines will be further validated in the
185 fourth and final step of this study.
186

187
188 Fig. 1. Research design and methods
189

190 Three principles underpin the transplantation of DfMA guidelines from manufacturing to
191 construction. The first is to reduce inappropriate guidelines and merge or amend vague
192 guidelines. Some guidelines that cannot meet the production requirements of construction due
193 to its unique characteristics will be deleted. Guidelines that are too vague or not amenable to
194 accurate and efficient implementation will be re-organized or re-presented. The second
195 principle is to increase applicable guidelines in line with the unique characteristics of
196 construction. Manufacturing-oriented DfMA guidelines may not fully describe the needs of
197 manufacturability and assemblability in construction projects. Properly enhanced, these DfMA
198 guidelines, however, can provide decision-makers with adequate design options. The third
199 principle is to establish DfMA guidelines using a systems theory lens. Many DfMA guidelines
200 developed from the manufacturing industry are, in fact, appropriate only from a micro
201 perspective. Using these guidelines discretely without systematic consideration might not
202 increase manufacturability and assemblability in real-life construction projects.
203
204 Towards construction-oriented DfMA guidelines
205 DfMA guidelines for manufacturing
206 DfMA signifies a shift in traditional, sequential design thinking to a non-linear, reiterative
207 methodology by actively considering the downstream processes in the upfront design stage.
208 Researchers such as Stoll (1986), Swift and Brown (2013), Bogue (2012), and Emmatty and
209 Sarmah (2012) provided some key guidelines for the application of DfMA in manufacturing,
210 as shown in Table 1. Their focal points are mainly related to design, fabrication, assembly, and
211 materials. From Table 1, it is clear that simplification and the assembly process are spotlighted.
212 The guidelines are descriptive and qualitative, with no quantitative, implementable, and

6
213 numerical details that are easy to comprehend and execute. While some of the principle aspects
214 are relevant to construction, the guidelines when proposed did not necessarily consider the
215 heterogeneity of construction.
216 Table 1. A non-exhaustive list of DfMA guidelines
Guidelines Persp Benefits Refere
ective nce
s
1 Aim for mistake-proof design SD Avoids unnecessary re-work, improve quality, ①; ②;
reduce time and costs ③; ④
2 Design for ease of fabrication F; SP Reduces time and costs by eliminating complex ①; ②;
fixtures and tooling ④
3 Design for simple part F; SP Reduces time and costs by avoiding non-value ①; ②;
orientation and handling adding manual effort ④
4 Design with a predetermined F Reduces time and costs when assembling ①; ④
assembly technique in mind
5 Design multifunctional and F; SP; Reduces time with fewer manufacture processes ②
multi-use parts SD and simplified jointing
6 Consider modular designs SP; M Reduces time and costs due to simplified design ①; ②;
and assembly ③; ④
7 Consider design for SP; A Improves assembly efficiency, quality, and ①; ③;
mechanized or automated security ④
assembly
8 Use standard and off-the- SP; Reduces purchasing lead time and costs ①; ②;
shelf components M; SD ③; ④
9 Use as similar materials as SP; M Reduces time with fewer manufacture processes ①; ④
possible and simplified jointing
1 Use as environmentally Reduces harm to the environment and residents ③
0 friendly materials as possible
1 Minimize the part count SP Reduces time and costs with simplified design, ①; ②;
1 manufacture, and assembly ③; ④
1 Minimize and standardise SP; Reduces time and costs with simplified design, ①; ②;
2 connector types and quantity SD manufacture, assembly, repair and maintenance ③; ④
1 Minimize the use of fragile SP Reduces costs due to fewer part failures, and ①; ④
3 parts easier handling and assembly
1 Do not over-specify F; SP Reduces time and costs with easier manufacture ①; ④
4 tolerances or surface finish
217 Note: A=Automation; F=Flexibility; M=Modularity; SD=Standardization; SP=Simplification.
218 ①=Bogue, 2012; ②=Stoll, 1986; ③=Emmatty and Sarmah, 2012; ④=Swift and Brown, 2013
219

220 Similarities and differences between manufacturing and construction

221 Transplanting DfMA guidelines from manufacturing to construction first requires
222 understanding the connections and distinctions between the two industries. Manufacturing can
223 be defined as “the process of transforming materials and information into goods for the
224 satisfaction of human needs” (Chryssolouris, 2013). It is often linked to the concept of “mass

7
225 production”, evolving to successfully adopt machinery and information technologies to achieve
226 cost-effective production (Lanigan, 1992; Crowley, 1998). Construction can also be considered
227 as production process with products that are location-based and involve heavier onsite assembly,
228 e.g., buildings, bridges, roadways, and other infrastructure (Jewell et al., 2014). It is a project-
229 based activity employing huge human, material, and machine resources and involving heavy
230 investment (Chitkara, 1998).
231

232 Manufacturing and construction share many managerial practices, however. For example, they
233 both engage multiple stakeholders to participate in the design, procurement, production, and
234 logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) process (Winch, 2003). The process of
235 producing physical products can be intensive, and thus requires skilled labor and a high level
236 of technology (Sanvido et al., 1990). In recent years, as construction shifts towards
237 prefabrication and other manufacturing techniques, the distinctions between these two
238 industries have blurred. Some scholars advocate construction as a manufacturing process,
239 intending to encourage adoption of manufacturing processes and guidelines (e.g., Crowley,
240 1998; Gann, 1996). The underpinning idea is to make the construction process more
241 controllable to alleviate the long-lasting problems of the industry such as low efficiency, poor
242 quality control, and labor shortage.
243

244 Still, construction differs from manufacturing in its end products and production process.
245 Construction outputs are generally more sophisticated (Sanvido et al., 1990). Unlike
246 manufacturing goods produced at factories and transported to end users, construction outputs
247 are largely built in place (Paez et al., 2005). The unique features of construction outputs lead to
248 the more dynamic, highly localized, and complex nature of construction process. For example,
249 construction involves an onsite production cycle that could last for years and many
250 contingencies and risks can occur during this period (Koskela, 1992; Paez et al., 2005). It is
251 challenging for proactive planning, visual control, and orderly management (Aapaoja and
252 Haapasalo, 2014). Compared to manufacturing with its relatively standardized workflow,
253 construction is a highly localized activity that involves using locally available resources and
254 taking into account local geographic, economic, social and climatic constraints (Akanni, et al.,
255 2015). The site-specific, one-of-a-kind nature of construction projects makes it difficult to apply
256 a standardized routine that has been proved efficient by other projects (Koskela, 1992; Jewell
257 et al., 2014; Aapaoja and Haapasalo, 2014).
258

259 Even though offsite construction is quite similar to manufacturing and hence presents an
260 unprecedented opportunity for DfMA, they are not the same. Some major components can be
261 manufactured, e.g., in an offsite precast yard, but a considerable portion of the construction and
262 assembly work are still conducted onsite. Full modular integrated construction has never been
263 the ultimate choice (Lu et al., 2018b). Construction LSCM of raw materials and precast
264 components play a key role in the success or failure of prefabrication construction (Zhong et

8
265 al., 2017). The final products are still location-based, confined by site conditions and bespoke
266 requirements from diverse clients. As shown in Table 2, the differences mentioned above are
267 summarized into six perspectives, including place, power, mode, form, period, and process. All
268 these features together necessitate a closer look at “general” manufacturing DfMA guidelines
269 to propose a set of guidelines that are more construction-oriented.
270

271 Table 2. Difference between manufacture industry and construction industry

Perspectives Manufacture industry Construction industry
Place Lowly localized activity Highly localized activity
Power Factory mechanization Labor-intensive onsite
Mode Mass production Customized design
Form Product-based activity Project-based activity
Period Short cycle Long cycle
Process Standardized workflow Non-standardized workflow
272

273 Tentative DfMA guidelines for construction

274 Several studies have tried to apply DfMA in construction, as shown in Table 3. Most of these
275 guidelines directly adopted the manufacturing-oriented DfMA (see Table 1) or made some
276 adaption, mainly by changing their descriptions . Gbadamosi et al. (2019) generalized the four-
277 category of guidelines by considering DfMA and lean construction and developed a DfMA-
278 based optimizer for improving constructability. Kim et al. (2016) employed DfMA to overcome
279 the limitations of current bridge construction practice and to realize the standardization of
280 bridge construction in the UK. Chen and Lu (2018) reported DfMA guidelines for curtain wall
281 system specifically. Banks et al. (2018) introduced DfMA to support high-rise residential
282 construction. Safaa et al. (2019) proposed DfMA-based evaluation criteria for the prefabricated
283 bridge.
284

285 However, these studies do not adequately discuss the DfMA guidelines applied. Meanwhile,
286 some of the stated guidelines are inconsistent with current architectural and engineering design
287 practices. Hence, they cannot represent the core ideas of DfMA, such as improving
288 manufacturability and assemblability without reducing flexibility and functionality. Many
289 DfMA guidelines only consider reducing cost and number of components, not maintaining and
290 balancing other building attributes, and therefore cannot be used directly. More seriously, these
291 guidelines may make sense when being implemented individually, but can be easily
292 contradictory to each other if being applied together. Therefore, more systematic and iterated
293 guidelines need to be developed.
294

295 Considering context specificity and technical limitations, this study treats DfMA
296 implementation as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) issue in the evaluation and
297 optimization of manufacturability and assemblability. Through systematical consideration,

9
298 these guidelines can be assigned importance weights during project process to achieve overall
299 optimization. Therefore, this research derive the five construction-oriented DfMA guidelines
300 shown in Table 4. The generalization of these guidelines is grounded based on the combined
301 consideration between existing DfMA guidelines and construction characteristics. Most of the
302 guidelines mentioned in Table 3 are summarized into component-integrated design which is
303 more closed to manufacture-oriented DfMA. Part of the guidelines are summarized into
304 material-lightened design, logistics-optimized design, and technology-rationalized design. In
305 addition, the inherent differences between the construction and manufacturing industries lead
306 to a new DfMA guideline – context-based design – for construction because the construction is
307 generally a highly localized activity (Akanni et al., 2015). Detailed descriptions of these five
308 guidelines are shown as follows.
309

310 Table 3. Some construction-related DfMA guidelines reported in the literature

311

Refer Guidelines Sources

ence
1 Gbad (1) ease of assembling parts Minimize and standardise connector types and
amosi quantity (①; ②; ③; ④); Use standard and off-
et al., the-shelf components (①; ②; ③; ④)

(2019 (2) ease of handling parts

Design for simple part orientation and handling
(①; ②; ④); Minimize the part count (①; ②;
)
③; ④)
(3) speed of assembling the whole Design with a predetermined assembly
system technique in mind (①; ④)

(4) waste produced during operation Use as environmentally friendly materials as

possible (③)
2 Kim (1) simplification in design Design for ease of fabrication (①; ②; ④);
et al., Design for simple part orientation and handling
(2016 (①; ②; ④)
) (2) reduced number of parts Minimize the part count (①; ②; ③; ④)
(3) standardization of commonly Minimize and standardise connector types and
used parts and materials quantity (①; ②; ③; ④); Use as similar
materials as possible (①; ④)
(4) ease of orientation, handling and Design for simple part orientation and handling
assembly of parts (①; ②; ④)

3 Chen (1) reducing the part count of curtain Minimize the part count (①; ②; ③; ④)
and wall system
Lu (2) reducing the numbers of unique Minimize and standardise connector types and
(2018 fasteners necessary to assemble the quantity (①; ②; ③; ④)
) curtain wall system on the
construction site

10
 (3) using cost-effective materials Use as similar materials as possible (①; ④)
(4) making sure that the size and Design for simple part orientation and handling
weight of components is easy to (①; ②; ④)
handle
(5) reducing waste of materials Use as environmentally friendly materials as
possible (③)
4 Bank (1) use of prefabricated elements Use standard and off-the-shelf components (①;
s et and modules ②; ③; ④)
al. (2) reducing the number of unique Minimize and standardise connector types and
(2018 parts quantity (①; ②; ③; ④); Minimize the part
) count (①; ②; ③; ④)
(3) removing labor-intensive Consider design for mechanized or automated
construction activities from site assembly (①; ③; ④)

(4) placing the prefabrication Consider design for mechanized or automated

activities in a controlled factory assembly (①; ③; ④)
environment
(5) using a highly automated Consider design for mechanized or automated
approach assembly (①; ③; ④)

(6) reducing waste in the process Use as environmentally friendly materials as

overall possible (③)

(7) improving efficiency in site N/A

logistics and a reduction in overall
vehicle movements transporting
materials to and from site
(8) lowering the number of parts Minimize the part count (①; ②; ③; ④)
(9) reducing the proportion of work Consider design for mechanized or automated
carried out in the relatively harsh assembly (①; ③; ④)
site environment
5 Safaa (1) simplicity of design Design for ease of fabrication (①; ②; ④);
et al., Design for simple part orientation and handling
(2018 (①; ②; ④)
) (2) number of components Minimize the part count (①; ②; ③; ④)
(3) standardization on elements or Minimize and standardise connector types and
material quantity (①; ②; ③; ④); Use as similar
materials as possible (①; ④)
(4) ease of handling Design for simple part orientation and handling
(①; ②; ④)
312

313

314 Table 4. Construction-oriented DfMA guidelines proposed in this study

Guidelines Perspectives Generation sources

11
 NO. Existing Construction
guideline characteristi
s cs
1 Context-based design Physical site X
Cultural locality X
2 Technology-rationalized Onsite craftsmanship X
design Off-site prefabrication X
3 Logistics-optimized design Logistics inside the site X
Logistics outside the X
factory
4 Component-integrated Finished surface X
design Connection joints X
5 Material-lightened design Material properties X
Structural system X
315

316 Context-based design

317 For DfMA implementation in construction, context-based design is conducted from both
318 physical site and cultural locality perspectives. Building process performance is highly
319 influenced by context (McHarg, 1992; Kalay, 1999; Gifford, 2007), and manufacturability and
320 assemblability are two important indicators of this performance. The physical, cultural, social,
321 and other environments in which a building is embedded not only have an impact on the form
322 of the building, but also on the building process. These factors provide references for the
323 building design and process. As shown in Figure 2, different contexts cause different
324 construction results. Seda, a traditional Chinese minority area, relies on mountains to build
325 layers of wooden houses. High-density cities like Hong Kong utilize concrete for high-rise
326 buildings. Old European towns, like Siena, build using bricks and stones. Based on the specific
327 context, building practitioners can use localized craftsmanship, technology, and materials to
328 tackle the difficulties in manufacturing and assembly process without compromising building
329 quality and historical continuity. Thus, the context-based design method adapts the building
330 process to the context to enhance manufacturability and assemblability.

(a) Wood (Seda, Sichuan, (b) Concrete (Hong Kong, (b) Stone (Siena, Italy)
China) China)

12
331 Fig. 2. Context-based buildings (source: photo by authors)
332

333 Technology-rationalized design

334 Increase of manufacturability and assemblability does not have an absolute positive correlation
335 with the depth of adoption of new technologies. Appropriate technology is seen as a more
336 sensible approach than “rocket technology” in the construction industry (Ofori, 1994;
337 Mitropoulos and Tatum, 1999; Lu, 2017). For example, Lu et al. (2018b) recommended the
338 implementation of an optimal rather than a high degree of prefabrication. Tan et al. (2019)
339 highlighted the technology implementation barriers in different contexts and advocated
340 appropriate technology implementation strategies. DfMA is considered an ideal way for
341 prefabricated building production in many studies. Since it is not a case of “the higher the
342 degree of prefabrication, the better”, the corresponding DfMA strategies must also change with
343 the degree of prefabrication for better manufacturability and assemblability.
344

345 Logistics-optimized design

346 Optimizing construction logistics has a positive impact on the building process (Sobotka et al.,
347 2005; Vidalakis et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2011). Compared with manufacturing production,
348 building process, which involves off-site factories and onsite assembly, is complicated in terms
349 of LSCM. Therefore, unlike Boothroyd (2005), architectural DfMA should not only consider
350 the building product itself, but also LSCM. Banks et al. (2018) mentioned that DfMA needs to
351 improve efficiency in site logistics and reduction in overall vehicle movements transporting
352 materials to and from the site. It is necessary to consider the effectiveness of component
353 transport and onsite placement on site when carrying out detailed design. Both logistics inside
354 the site and outside the factory need to be considered interconnectedly.
355

356 Component-integrated design

357 The selection and combination of building components at the design stage is important to a
358 construction project (Flager et al., 2009) and requires knowledge of engineering, materials, and
359 building equipment. Component-integrated design based on component characteristics and
360 construction logic can improve manufacturability and assemblability. For example, Zhang et al.
361 (2018) proposed a high-speed, integrated component design method for modular houses
362 whereby large components are assembled at the site factory, and aloft work and complex
363 assembly operations are moved to the construction ground. Halfawy and Froese (2007)
364 proposed a component-based framework for project system integration. These measures of
365 integration improve assembly efficiency and reduce dangerous aloft work, which greatly
366 reduces onsite safety hazards while improving the efficiency of onsite construction equipment
367 and tools.
368

369 Material-lightened design

13
370 Lightweight buildings first emerged to alleviate the problems of manufacturing overcapacity
371 and lack of social housing after World War II. Therefore, from birth, the lightweight building
372 is a product highly related to industrialized production. The material-lightened design
373 represents the material and structural efficiency when creating the volume of space. It is also
374 the impact of the overall construction on the environment as little as possible. Both light timber
375 (Scotta et al., 2015) and light steel (Jackson, 2016) have been appraised for rapidity of
376 realization, affordability, and flexibility in design and construction. Chen and Lu (2018) also
377 highlighted the importance of easy-to-handle size and weight of components in DfMA.
378 Reduction in overall building weight helps to improve efficiency in activities related to
379 manufacturing and assembly. Production, transportation, and onsite manual work become more
380 convenient, as does subsequent demolition and relocation of the building. Under the material-
381 lightened design guideline, architectural design must consider not only the properties of the
382 material but also the weight reduction and achievement of the ideal stiffness-to-weight ratios.
383 It is also necessary to consider the structural system design of the building to achieve overall
384 weight optimization at the system level.
385
386 A case study of a construction project pioneering DfMA-oriented design
387 The selected case is a housing project located in Yunnan Province, China. It adopted a
388 prefabricated light steel-frame. The project was carried out by a real estate company under the
389 impetus of the Chinese government’s policy of taking targeted measures to help people lift
390 themselves out of poverty. The case is analysed in view of the five construction-oriented DfMA
391 guidelines as proposed by this study.
392

393 With regards to context-based design principle, the project adapted to the undulating terrain
394 through the underlying steel structural pillars while adopting ethnic minority Dai-style
395 architecture as seen in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows that topological deformation combinations,
396 planned courtyards, and entrance locations were organized into different residential space
397 modes according to different context conditions. Using context-based design principle, design
398 choices were more culturally and geographically adaptable and able to reflect local
399 characteristics.

(a) Establish the foundation (b) Build a floor panel

14
 (c) Light steel framing construction (d) Final completed construction
400 Fig. 3. Building process (source: photo by authors)
401

402
403 Fig. 4. Design under the site context
404

405 As for material-lightened design principle, this project is lightweight, of high strength and small
406 footprint, adopting a light steel-frame structure with high-efficiency lightweight thin-walled
407 profiles. The light steel framing system saves construction time and cost to a large extent. This
408 design highly responded to the integration of material properties and building structure system.
409 The structure is adaptable, the materials easy to recycle, and the project with low waste. Scotta
410 et al., (2015), Jackson (2016) and Chen and Lu (2018) all highlighted the importance of weight
411 in rapidity of realization. The lightweight steel-framed structure is likely to be close to zero
412 energy consumption in terms of energy and environmental performance of the building,
413 reducing waste during manufacturing and assembly (Roque and Santos, 2017; Santos and Silva,
414 2017). Due to factors such as environmental awareness and wood shortages, countries including
415 the U.S., Japan, the U.K, and Australia are actively promoting the application and development
416 of low- and medium-rise light steel structure houses.
417

418 In this project, the component-integrated design principle was consciously considered; the
419 production of components was automated, continuous, and highly precise. Product
420 specifications, especially connection joints and finished surface, were serialized, finalized, and

15
421 matched. It is easy to enlarge the column spacing and provide more separation space, which
422 can reduce the height and increase the building area (the saleable area can reach up to 92%).
423 Based on the component-integrated design, the advantages of adding floors, building renovation,
424 and building reinforcement are easily perceivable, as shown in Figure 5. Villagers decided the
425 size of the residential area to be built according to the actual situation of their own homes, and
426 they were able to reserve the land for later development. As shown in Figure 6, according to
427 their actual needs, the villagers could freely combine the components of the façade in the
428 available material library to form different effects and styles. These design strategies provided
429 flexibility and expandability for assembly based on component-integrated design.
430

431
432 Fig. 5. Assembly expandability
433

434
435 Fig. 6. Facade material
436

437 This project also considered the logistics-optimized design principle in view of the difficulties
438 of logistics in the rural areas of Yunnan, where much of the terrain features tall mountains
439 without proper roads. The lightweight material reduced transport pressures and the design of
440 the components also took into account the size requirements of the transport. After the
441 prefabricated modules had been delivered to the site, the construction activities were carried
442 out immediately by the villagers, who learned and helped each other to complete the assembly

16
443 process of the houses. All dry works were carried out with little impact from the weather. A
444 building of about 300m2 required only five workers and 30 working days to construct.
445

446 For the technology-rationalized design principle, this project used low-tech but suitable
447 technology to facilitate rapid construction by ordinary farmer workers and combined onsite
448 craftsmanship and off-site prefabrication. For example, as shown in Figure 7, a new type of
449 mortar-free and self-locking block was used. It can be recycled and used economically and
450 environmentally. Unlike the traditional brick-concrete structure, the masonry can be bonded
451 without relying on cement mortar. This saved labor costs and speeded up the building process.
452 In addition, after the blocks were connected to the wall, the mechanical strength of the wall was
453 increased, which can effectively mitigate the damage caused by earthquakes, typhoons,
454 humidity, and floods.
455

456
457 Fig. 7. Brick wall construction method
458
459 Discussion
460 Traditional DfMA guidelines were developed from a manufacturing perspective. Although they
461 make sense in some situations, architects complain that the guidelines ignore other critical
462 elements such as site conditions, cultural context, flexibility of building forms, and LSCM.
463 Some architects believe that architecture should not be just an industrial product, but rather an
17
464 organic product of the urban environment. Based on these conflicting opinions, the use of
465 context-based design is proposed as a fundamental DfMA guideline. When implementing it,
466 designers should pay attention to both physical and cultural issues related to the site, and try to
467 make use of these characteristics for manufacturing and assembly.
468

469 In addition to interdisciplinary integration from manufacturing to construction, the adoption of

470 technology is seen as an important factor affecting manufacturing and assembly. Technology
471 can transform transportation methods, module components, and material processing. Thus, the
472 second guideline is regarded as an enabler for DfMA implementation. The specific context
473 determines the background, obstacles, results, and effects of technology implementation. In
474 addition, various places, especially remote areas, may retain their own unique construction
475 craftsmanship. Some forms of buildings, for example, have high requirements for onsite
476 craftsmanship. Therefore, appropriate degree of prefabrication should be set for achieving
477 optimal manufacturability and assemblability.
478

479 Optimization of the logistics is often overlooked at the design stage because architects often
480 consider a building as a static product, rarely treating it as a building process. For architects to
481 consider logistics, they need knowledge of project management and LSCM. This requires the
482 architect to be more than just a designer, but also a coordinator of different types of work and
483 a project manager to guide the building process. When it is impossible for an architect to possess
484 all the knowledge of logistics, it is recommended to get construction or facility managers
485 involved early in the design phase to perform, e.g. a buildability check, or pre-occupancy
486 evaluation.
487

488 Component-integrated design and material-lightened design are also set as the construction-
489 oriented guidelines. The prefabrication degree of each project may be different, resulting in
490 different proportions of prefabricated components vs. cast in-situ. These two guidelines
491 emphasize the integrated design of components and the lightweight design of materials. For the
492 former, this study proposes to guide the production of components based on the finished surface
493 of the building and to focus on the design of connection joints. The design from the finished
494 surface to the detail can help the manufactured product to be closer to the final assembly
495 requirements. Standardization of connection joints also increases the efficiency of
496 manufacturing and assembly. For the latter, this study argues that reducing the weight of the
497 material as much as possible will help DfMA implementation, as also evident in Gerth et al.
498 (2013), Chen and Lu (2018), Roque and Santos (2017), and Santos and da Silva (2017).
499 Utilizing the properties of materials means maximizing the use of physical properties and
500 minimizing material modifications. These measures reduce the level of demand for total
501 processing time. The emphasis on structural system design is to break down the limitations of
502 single material consideration. From the whole system, it reduces the consumption required to
503 process materials, thereby increasing manufacturability and assemblability.

18
504

505 It worth noting that these five guidelines may not have equal weight in every construction
506 project. Due to the uniqueness of each project, it is necessary to change the importance of these
507 guidelines in actual practice. For example, in remote areas, logistics-optimized design would
508 weight higher than other four guidelines. Likewise, prefabrication and cast in-situ will also have
509 different importance weights under different circumstances. Therefore, when implementing the
510 DfMA guidelines proposed in this study, one should evaluate their weights rather than treating
511 them equally each time. By doing so, with due respect to creativity and imagination in design,
512 DfMA inevitably involves an iteration of MCDM that can be assisted by techniques such as
513 Weighted Sum Method, Analytic Hierarchy Process, and Technique for Ordered Preference
514 (Singh and Malik, 2014).
515

516 Conclusion
517 DfMA is both a design philosophy and methodology with a long history in the manufacturing
518 industry. It has many advocates in the construction industry, who believe that DfMA can
519 alleviate longstanding problems such as lackluster productivity, time delay, cost overrun, and
520 poor safety. While there are considerable differences between manufacturing and construction
521 in terms of production processes and final products, the resurgence of offsite prefabrication
522 construction provides an unprecedented opportunity to adapt DfMA to construction.
523

524 Based on a critical investigation of existing DfMA guidelines and the similarities and
525 differences between manufacturing and construction, we propose five construction-oriented
526 DfMA guidelines. First, DfMA must consider context-based design because a construction
527 project must attach to a land within a physical, natural, and cultural context. Second, building
528 technologies provide unlimited options for construction but their availability and efficiency
529 must be considered under a DfMA technology-rationalized guiding principle. Third, DfMA in
530 manufacturing considers parts carefully but rarely their LSCM. In contrast, LSCM play a
531 pivotal role in construction for both cast in-situ and offsite prefabrication construction.
532 Therefore, DfMA in construction must consider the logistics-optimized design principle. Fourth,
533 different levels of onsite and offsite distribution, and different levels of individual and
534 integrated parts are major considerations in conducting a construction project. Therefore,
535 DfMA must consider component-integrated designs. Fifth, materials are related to all the above
536 guiding principles. Use of lightweight materials while guaranteeing structural efficiency is
537 captured by the principle that DfMA must consider material-lightened designs.
538

539 The case study conducted in this study illustrated that the guidelines proposed in this study are
540 rooted in the general DfMA guidelines but considers the heterogeneity of construction. It can
541 be further decomposed into more detailed, operable sub-guidelines. Apparently, these
542 construction-oriented DfMA guidelines can operate individually or collectively. The research
543 helps to deepen the application of this new design philosophy in the construction industry

19
544 through proposing five more construction-oriented guidelines. In practice, these guidelines
545 provide direct design guidance to designers, which in turn can lead to significant improvements
546 in manufacturability and assemblability.
547

548 The guidelines proposed in this study are not exhaustive. Future studies are recommended to
549 develop other architecture and construction-oriented DfMA guidelines and practices, with a
550 view to improving design and construction. Some areas are particularly critical for such
551 research efforts, e.g., (1) DfMA guidelines for onsite fabrication and prefabrication; (2) DfMA
552 guidelines for different roles, such as project managers and designers; and (3) a
553 standard/method for selecting guidelines, and measuring the degree of implementation and its
554 improvement of manufacturability and assemblability.
555

556 Data Availability Statement

557 Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the
558 corresponding author upon reasonable request.
559

560 References
561 Aapaoja, A., & Haapasalo, H. (2014). The challenges of standardization of products and
562 processes in construction. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the
563 International Group for Lean (pp. 983-993).
564 Akanni, P. O., Oke, A. E., & Akpomiemie, O. A. (2015). Impact of environmental factors on
565 building project performance in Delta State, Nigeria. HBRC Journal, 11(1), 91-97.
566 Arashpour, M., Miletic, M., Williams, N., & Fang, Y. (2018). Design for manufacture and
567 assembly in off-site construction: Advanced production of modular façade systems. In
568 ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
569 Construction (Vol. 35, pp. 1-6). IAARC Publications.
570 Ashley, S. (1995). Cutting costs and time with DfMA. Mechanical Engineering, 117(3), 74.
571 Balfour Beatty (2018). Streamlined construction: Seven steps to offsite and modular building.
572 Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1998). What kind of production is construction? In Proc. 6 th Annual
573 Conf. Int’l. Group for Lean Construction (pp. 13-15).
574 Banks, C., Kotecha, R., Curtis, J., Dee, C., Pitt, N., & Papworth, R. (2018). Enhancing high-
575 rise residential construction through design for manufacture and assembly–a UK case
576 study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and
577 Law, 171(4), 164-175.
578 Bogue, R. (2012). Design for manufacture and assembly: background, capabilities and
579 applications. Assembly Automation, 32(2), 112-118.
580 Boothroyd, G. (1994). Product design for manufacture and assembly. Computer-Aided Design,
581 26(7), 505-520.
582 Boothroyd, G. (2005). Assembly automation and product design. CRC Press.

20
583 Camacho, D. D., Clayton, P., O'Brien, W. J., Seepersad, C., Juenger, M., Ferron, R., &
584 Salamone, S. (2018). Applications of additive manufacturing in the construction
585 industry–A forward-looking review. Automation in Construction, 89, 110-119.
586 Chen, K., & Lu, W. (2018). Design for manufacture and assembly oriented design approach to
587 a curtain wall system: A case study of a commercial building in Wuhan, China.
588 Sustainability, 10(7), 2211.
589 Chitkara, K. K. (1998). Construction project management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
590 Chryssolouris, G. (2013). Manufacturing systems: theory and practice. Springer Science &
591 Business Media.
592 Corbett, J., Dooner, M., & Meleka, J. (1991). Design for manufacture: strategies, principles
593 and techniques. C. Pym (Ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
594 Crowley, A. (1998). Construction as a manufacturing process: Lessons from the automotive
595 industry. Computers & Structures, 67(5), 389-400.
596 Crowther, P. (1999). Design for disassembly. BDP environment design guide.
597 Dainty, A., Moore, D., & Murray, M. (2007). Communication in construction: Theory and
598 practice. Routledge.
599 Eastman, C. M. (2012). Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives. Springer Science &
600 Business Media.
601 Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking construction. Department of Environment, Transport and the
602 Region.
603 Emmatty, F. J., & Sarmah, S. P. (2012). Modular product development through platform-based
604 design and DfMA. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(9), 696-714.
605 Fox, S., Marsh, L., & Cockerham, G. (2001). Design for manufacture: a strategy for successful
606 application to buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 19(5), 493-502.
607 Gann, D. M. (1996). Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences
608 between industrialized housing and car production in Japan. Construction Management
609 & Economics, 14(5), 437-450.
610 Gao, S., Low, S. P., & Nair, K. (2018). Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA): a
611 preliminary study of factors influencing its adoption in Singapore. Architectural
612 Engineering and Design Management, 14(6), 440-456.
613 Gatenby, D. A., & Foo, G. (1990). Design for X (DFX): key to competitive, profitable products.
614 AT&T Technical Journal, 69(3), 2-13.
615 Gerth, R., Boqvist, A., Bjelkemyr, M., & Lindberg, B. (2013). Design for construction: utilizing
616 production experiences in development. Construction Management and Economics,
617 31(2), 135-150.
618 Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (p. 372). Colville, WA:
619 Optimal books.
620 Goulding, J. S., Pour Rahimian, F., Arif, M., & Sharp, M. D. (2015). New offsite production
621 and business models in construction: priorities for the future research agenda.
622 Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(3), 163-184.

21
623 Halfawy, M. M., & Froese, T. M. (2007). Component-based framework for implementing
624 integrated architectural/engineering/construction project systems. Journal of Computing
625 in Civil Engineering, 21(6), 441-452.
626 Hamidi, M., & Farahmand, K. (2008). Developing a design for manufacturing handbook. In
627 Proceedings of the 2008 IAJC-IJME International Conference, Paper (Vol. 220).
628 Harik, R. F., & Sahmrani, N. (2010). DFMA+, a quantitative DFMA methodology. Computer-
629 Aided Design and Applications, 7(5), 701-709.
630 Huang, G. Q. (2012). Introduction. In Eastman, C. M. (Ed.). Design for X: concurrent
631 engineering imperatives. (1-18). Springer Science & Business Media.
632 Jackson, N. (2016). The modern steel house. Taylor & Francis.
633 Jewell, C., Flanagan, R., & Lu, W. (2014). The dilemma of scope and scale for construction
634 professional service firms. Construction Management and Economics, 32(5), 473-486.
635 Jin, R., Gao, S., Cheshmehzangi, A., & Aboagye-Nimo, E. (2018). A holistic review of off-site
636 construction literature published between 2008 and 2018. Journal of Cleaner Production.
637 Kalay, Y. E. (1999). Performance-based design. Automation in construction, 8(4), 395-409.
638 Kim, M. K., McGovern, S., Belsky, M., Middleton, C., & Brilakis, I. (2016). A suitability
639 analysis of precast components for standardized bridge construction in the United
640 Kingdom. Procedia Engineering, 164, 188-195.
641 Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction (Vol. 72).
642 Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
643 Kuo, T. C., Huang, S. H., & Zhang, H. C. (2001). Design for manufacture and design for ‘X’:
644 concepts, applications, and perspectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 41(3),
645 241-260.
646 Laing O’Rourke (2013). The future of DfMA is the future of construction. Engineering
647 Excellence Journal (2013), 77.
648 Lanigan, M. (1992). Engineers in business: The principles of management and product design.
649 Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
650 Latham, S. M. (1994). Constructing the team.
651 Liao, L., Teo, E. A. L., & Low, S. P. (2017). A project management framework for enhanced
652 productivity performance using building information modelling. Construction Economics
653 and Building, 17(3), 1-26.
654 Lu, W. (2017). Design for ‘X’, not for a high index: The proposition of an optimal level of
655 prefabrication construction for different socio-economic technical contexts. In RISUD
656 Annual International Symposium 2017.
657 Lu, W., Lai, C. C., & Tse, T. (2018a). BIM and Big Data for Construction Cost Management.
658 Routledge.
659 Lu, W., Chen, K., Xue, F., & Pan, W. (2018b). Searching for an optimal level of prefabrication
660 in construction: An analytical framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 236-245.

22
661 Lu, W., Ye, K., Flanagan, R., & Jewell, C. (2013). Developing construction professional
662 services in the international market: SWOT analysis of China. Journal of Management in
663 Engineering, 29(3), 302-313.
664 Lu, W., Huang, G. Q., & Li, H. (2011). Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction
665 project management. Automation in Construction, 20, 101-106.
666 Lu, W., & Yuan, H. (2010). Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
667 construction projects of China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(2), 201-208.
668 Maskell, B. H. (2013). Performance measurement for world class manufacturing: A model for
669 American companies. Productivity Press.
670 McHarg, I. L. (1992). Design with nature (No. 712: 504.75). John Wiley & Sons.
671 Mitropoulos, P., & Tatum, C. B. (1999). Technology adoption decisions in construction
672 organizations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(5), 330-338.
673 Ofori, G. (1994). Construction industry development: role of technology transfer. Construction
674 Management and Economics, 12(5), 379-392.
675 Paez, O., Salem, S., Solomon, J., & Genaidy, A. (2005). Moving from lean manufacturing to
676 lean construction: Toward a common sociotechnological framework. Human Factors and
677 Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 15(2), 233-245.
678 Pearce, D. (2003). Environment and business: Socially responsible but privately profitable?.
679 Profile Books.
680 RIBA (2013). RIBA Plan of Work 2013 Designing for Manufacture and Assembly. RIBA
681 London.
682 Roque, E., & Santos, P. (2017). The effectiveness of thermal insulation in lightweight steel-
683 framed walls with respect to its position. Buildings, 7(1), 13.
684 Santos, P., & da Silva, L. S. (2017). Energy efficiency of light-weight steel-framed buildings.
685 Energy Efficient Buildings, 35.
686 Sanvido, V. E., & Medeiros, D. J. (1990). Applying computer-integrated manufacturing
687 concepts to construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2),
688 365-379.
689 Scotta, R., Trutalli, D., Fiorin, L., Pozza, L., Marchi, L., & De Stefani, L. (2015). Light steel-
690 timber frame with composite and plaster bracing panels. Materials, 8(11), 7354-7370.
691 Singh, A., & Malik, S. K. (2014). Major MCDM Techniques and their application-A Review.
692 IOSR Journal of Engineering, 4(5), 15-25.
693 Sobotka, A., Czarnigowska, A., & Stefaniak, K. (2005). Logistics of construction projects.
694 Foundations of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 6, 203-216.
695 Stoll, H. W. (1986). "Design for manufacture: An owerwiew." Appl Mech Rev, 39(9), 1356.
696 Swift, K. G, & Brown, N. J. (2013). Implementation strategies for design for manufacture
697 methodologies, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part B: Journal
698 of Engineering Manufacture, 217(6), 827–833.

23
699 Tan, T., Chen, K., Xue, F., & Lu, W. (2019). Barriers to Building Information Modeling (BIM)
700 implementation in China's prefabricated construction: An interpretive structural modeling
701 (ISM) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 949-959.
702 The Economist (2017). The construction industry’s productivity problem [Electronic Version].
703 The Economist. [Link] retrieved on April 03, 2019.
704 Vidalakis, C., Tookey, J. E., & Sommerville, J. (2011). The logistics of construction supply
705 chains: the builders' merchant perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
706 Management, 18(1), 66-81.
707 Winch, G. (2003). Models of manufacturing and the construction process: the genesis of re-
708 engineering construction. Building Research & Information, 31(2), 107-118.
709 Wolstenholme, A., Austin, S. A., Bairstow, M., Blumenthal, A., Lorimer, J., McGuckin, S., ...
710 & Guthrie, W. (2009). Never waste a good crisis: a review of progress since Rethinking
711 Construction and thoughts for our future.
712 Yuan, Z., Sun, C., & Wang, Y. (2018). Design for Manufacture and Assembly-oriented
713 parametric design of prefabricated buildings. Automation in Construction, 88, 13-22.
714 Zhang H., Luo S., Tang S., & Li Y. (2018). Conceptual House for the Future: Architecture
715 Expansion Based on C-house Construction, Performance, Humanities and Design.
716 Architectural Journal, 603(12), 105 -109. (in Chinese).
717 Zhong, R., Peng, Y., Xue, F., Fang, J., Zou, W., Luo, H., Ng. S.T., Lu, W.S., Shen, Q.P., and
718 Huang, G.Q. (2017). Prefabricated construction enabled by the Internet-of-Things.
719 Automation in Construction, 76(4), 59–70.
720

721

722

24