No description available.

Global reports over the years indicate that productivity development in construction is poor if compared to other industries, even negative in some countries, calling for a change to increase productivity. However, the construction industry has a problem of defining, measuring and using productivity. Previous research suggest that productivity is a multifaceted term, which meaning depends on the purpose of addressing productivity, the context where one uses the term, the level of analysis (e.g. task, project or industry) or even the background of who addresses the term. The multifaceted meaning seems to have encouraged the development of multiple methods for measuring productivity in construction. The variety of understandings indicate that different aspects of productivity are accounted for by different people. Moreover, the construction productivity measures at different levels account for different things, and there is a lack of a clear connection between the levels of analysis. Subsequently, the multiple meanings and measures hamper how to understand construction productivity, what or how to measure and how to use the measures to improve overall productivity. This thesis furthers how housebuilding productivity can be understood by drawing on how the literature and on‐site housebuilding contractors address productivity concerning how it is defined, measured and used. An understanding of productivity that has a base in how productivity can be defined and measured, including how different performance measures can be applied to represent measures of productivity and then be used to improve productivity. The research questions of how productivity is understood, measured and used by Swedish housebuilding contractors are answered and synthesized to contribute with an enhanced understanding of construction productivity. Empirical data was collected through 17 semi‐structured interviews and four workshops. The interviews were held with practitioners ranging from site‐, to project‐, to business area managers from one small and four of Sweden’s largest contractors. The workshops were held with senior managers in charge of production development at the four large companies. Data was cross‐analyzed to identify commonalities and contrasting findings connected to how productivity is defined or understood to represent and include, how productivity is measured, and how productivity is used. The findings suggest that productivity in on‐site housebuilding production is about how efficiently the production system reaches its goal. That is, how efficiently the building is produced in conformance with the requirements to meet client values. Hence, productivity in housebuilding production integrates efficiency, effectiveness and many other factors that make the production system function better towards reaching its goal. Yet, what is included in, and thus what productivity represents, differs, caused by the choice of level of analysis (e.g. task, project or industry) and the length of the considered system or value chain (e.g. only production, or design, planning and production). The results also indicate that housebuilding productivity includes planning, measurement, control and reporting results. While separate direct productivity measures can be used in planning and for reporting results, many different indirect productivity measures are applied to enable for and control productivity during operations. These different measures represent different factors understood to influence productivity at different levels. However, the choice of measures vary, their use is unstructured and the measures usually stay undocumented. The results suggest that one measure of productivity is not enough to understand productivity of building production systems, it is rather through the combination of direct and indirect measures of productivity. Yet, there is a need to adopt a systems perspective to understand how to structure and connect the different measures from sub‐processes to processes and productivity, which this thesis suggests as a line of future research. Moreover, it is not enough to measure productivity to develop productivity. Systematic routines for measurements, review and action based on the measures must be developed and implemented.

In recent years the industry has been exhorted to increase its use of offsite technologies, or 'Modem Methods of Construction', in order to address the under-supply and poor build quality of housing. Despite the well-rehearsed benefits of such technologies, the take-up within the industry has been slow. Many studies have attempted to scrutinise the barriers and seek solutions, but the perspectives and practices of housebuilders of using offsite remain unclear. This is significant given that housebuilders contribute nearly 90% to the housing unit completions by the industry overall. This thesis aims to provide a strategy for optimising the use of offsite in housebuilding by investigating UK housebuilders' views on, and utilisations of, such technologies. This has been achieved through a combination of a survey of the top 100 firms, a one and-half-year case study of a large housebuilding organisation, and a series of validation interviews and group exercises, within the existing theoretical framework. The thesis reveals that the current low level of offsite usage in large housebuilders was likely to increase given the pressures to improve quality, time, cost, productivity and health & safety. However, a wider take-up was inhibited by perceived higher capital costs, interfacing problems, long lead-in time, delayed planning process and current manufacturing capacity. For addressing this a framework of strategies is presented, surrounding changing the industry's perceptions, improving procurement, providing better cost data, tackling planning and regulations, encouraging political levers, and providing guidance on decision-making and offsite integration. The thesis then contextualises these findings into the organisational and project contexts, examining the historical and current offsite practices within the general housebuilding business. It reveals that housebuilders primarily aspired to improve business efficiency and mitigate financial risks through the use of offsite despite a complicated agenda for such usage. For using offsite housebuilders developed strategies centred on process, procurement, learning & benchmarking, and training. However, the current heuristic approach to decision-making, coupled with the lack of knowledge of build system selection (BSS) for housebuilding, prevents the benefits from offsite being fully realised. A robust, structured and transparent decision support tool for BSS is developed, transferring knowledge in operational and construction management research to the housebuilding context. It provides an improved decision-making process and databases for system selection. Both the process and data were validated within the wider industry and academic domain, by which the tool was claimed as an effective mechanism for optimising the use of offsite and enhancing organisational learning. The thesis contributes to a better theoretical understanding of offsite and provides strategies for its increased take-up in housebuilding. This helps housebuilding organisations to achieve long-term profitability, but also contributes to addressing the current under-supply of housing. The thesis also contributes to knowledge of decisionmaking and construction management research. This has an implication for wider organisational and decision theory.