Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) in construction: the old
and the new

Weisheng Lu1, Tan Tan2*, Jinying Xu3, Jing Wang4, Ke Chen5, Shang Gao6, and Fan Xue7
This is a copy of the peer-reviewed Accepted Manuscript of the paper:
Lu, W., Tan, T., Xu, J., Wang, J., Chen, K., Gao, S. & Xue, F. (2020). Design for
Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) in construction: The old and the new.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, in press. Doi:
10.1080/17452007.2020.1768505
This document is available for personal and non-commercial use only, as permitted by
Taylor & Francis Group’s Architectural Engineering and Design Management. The final
version is available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17452007.2020.1768505
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Abstract
Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) has become a buzzword amid the global
resurgence of prefabrication and construction industrialization. Some argued that DfMA is
hardly new, as there are concepts such as buildability, lean construction, value management,
and integrated project delivery in place already. Others believe that DfMA is a new direction
to future construction. This paper aims to review the development of DfMA in manufacturing
and its status quo in construction, and clarify its similarities and differences to other concepts.
A multi-step research method is adopted in this study: First, an analytical framework is
generated; Secondly, a literature review is conducted on DfMA in general, and DfMA-like
concepts in the AEC industry; The third step is to compare DfMA with related concepts. This
study reveals that DfMA as a philosophy is hardly new in construction, and the empirical
implementation of many DfMA guidelines has begun in the AEC industry. The findings
suggested that DfMA is a new and mixed ‘cocktail’ of opportunities and challenges to
improve construction productivity with the advancement of construction materials, production
and assembly technologies, and ever-strengthened logistics and supply chain management.
This study sheds light on three research directions: DfMA implementation and guidance
strategies, DfMA frameworks and blueprints, and applications in cast in-situ or intermediate
prefabrication construction. Our research findings provide a synopsis of DfMA research and
development in construction. This paper can also serve as a point of departure for future
theoretical and empirical explorations.
Keywords: Design for manufacture and assembly; Construction Industrialization;
Prefabrication; Construction

29

Professor, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, e-mail:
wilsonlu@hku.hk;
2
PhD Student, Corresponding Author, The Bartlett School of Construction & Project Management, University College
London, London, e-mail: tan.tan.17@ucl.ac.uk, Tel.: +44(0) 77 1614 8651;
3
PhD Candidate, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, e-mail:
jinyingxu@connect.hku.hk;
4
PhD Candidate, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, e-mail:
jingww@connect.hku.hk;
5
Associate Professor, Department of Construction Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, e-mail:
chenkecm@hust.edu.cn;
6
Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia, e-mail:
shang.gao@unimelb.edu.au;
7
Assistant Professor, Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, e-mail:
xuef@hku.hk;
1

1

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

1. INTRODUCTION
Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) is an emerging approach in the global
architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) landscape. In 2013, the Royal Institute of
British Architects (RIBA) published a Plan of Work for DfMA implementation. In 2016,
Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority (BCA) issued an official guide facilitating
DfMA and its incorporation with Building Information Modeling (BIM). In 2018, the UK
government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority published a revised National Infrastructure
and Construction Pipeline detailing its preference for the Platform Method for Manufacturing
and Assembly Design. The report also publicized its use for prefabrication and other offsite
construction methods in public projects. The Hong Kong government’s 2018 document
Construction 2.0 also emphasises the importance of DfMA. In the research realm, the DfMA
literature is growing, while industry leaders such as O’Rourke (2013) and Balfour Beatty (2018)
consider DfMA to be the future of construction.
But is DfMA merely old wine in a new bottle? According to Boothroyd (2005), DfMA
evaluates and improves product design by considering the downstream processes of
manufacturing and assembly. Similar if not identical concepts have been introduced to improve
AEC productivity and efficiency. For example, buildability assesses designs from the
perspective of those who will manufacture and install components and carry out the
construction work (Lam and Wong, 2009); lean construction adapts the concept of lean
production/manufacturing to the AEC industry with a view to maximising value and
minimizing waste (Koskela, 1992; Alarcón, 1997). Value management (VM) focuses on the
early design stage and advocates achieving value for money by deliberating over functions and
costs (Kelly et al., 2004; Shen and Liu, 2004), with downstream manufacturing and assembly
within the critical scope of the exercise.
This paper aims to clarify the concept of DfMA in the AEC industry. First, we review
the literature on its history in the manufacturing industry and current DfMA developments in
construction. The research then goes on to compare DfMA with the concepts mentioned above
to find their similarities and differences. Based on the review and comparisons, this study
further provides prospects and challenges for DfMA. The remainder of the paper is organized
as follows. Section 2 is a detailed description of the research methodology. Section 3 is an indepth analysis of the DfMA research, while Section 4 compares DfMA with similar concepts
with a view to answering the key question of this study. Section 5 articulates the prospects and
challenges of DfMA, while conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2. METHODOLOGY
A multi-step research method consisting of brainstorming, literature review and in-depth
comparative analyses is adopted in this study. First, given the long history of DfMA
development, an analytical framework is required to demarcate a reasonable research boundary
and guide the analyses. Since DfMA has only recently been popularized in construction, this
research includes DfMA-like construction concepts (e.g., fabrication-aware design) to allow it
to be fully investigated. Brainstorming, as a creative training method, can find a set of practical
solutions through objective and continuous analysis of the issues discussed (Rawlinson, 2017).
To establish the analytical framework for this study, an hour-long brainstorming session was
held. Six researchers from different disciplines participated, all with at least six years’ research
experience in the AEC industry and two with around 10 years’ experience in engaging with
construction prefabrication in China and Hong Kong. Taking into account the possible bias of
brainstorming, this step is only used to determine the scope of the discussion without having a
conclusive effect on the outcome of the discussion. As a result of the session, the scope of the
study was limited to seven broad DfMA-related categories: origins, definition, processes,

2

79
80

guidelines, comparisons, prospects, and challenges. The analytic framework developed is
shown in Figure 1.

81

82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116

Figure 1 DfMA in construction: an analytic framework
Second, guided by this framework, a search was conducted for the relevant literature on
DfMA in general, as well as DfMA-like concepts in the AEC industry specifically, using the
bibliographic database Google Scholar. Keywords used in article selection included ‘design for
manufacture and assembly’, ‘design for manufacture’, ‘design for assembly’, ‘DfMA’,
‘fabrication-aware design’, ‘architectural geometry’, ‘architectural design’, ‘construction’,
‘assembly’, ‘construction industry’, and ‘AEC’. These keywords were adopted to reflect usages
across research disciplines and countries. For example, architecture researchers prefer
‘fabrication’, while in engineering ‘manufacture’ is used to describe the building production
process. Mathematicians try to use architectural geometry to bridge the gap between complex
architectural design and applicable construction. Year of publication was limited to the period
2009 to 2019 to capture the latest DfMA research and trends in AEC. A total of 1979 results
were generated from the initial search. Then, the strict filtered process was conducted to narrow
down the scope of target articles. Articles that included related key terms in the
title/summary/keyword were considered for review, and only journal articles were selected to
ensure that all retrieved articles could be analyzed by using the same analytical structure as their
research objectives and methods. A snowball technique (Lecy and Beatty, 2012) involving
checking the references of the selected papers was applied to find relevant papers that may not
have been included. Finally, 30 publications highly related to the DfMA in the construction
were derived for the analysis of DfMA definition and research trend.
The third step was to develop an in-depth understanding of DfMA by comparing it with
similar concepts, such as buildability, value management, lean construction and
prefabrication/Modular integrated Construction (MiC). The literature on these concepts was
extracted and reviewed for the comparative study which mainly focused on the connotations,
extensions, and applications of the concepts and DfMA and analyzed their similarities,
differences, and linkages. These comparisons were triangulated with the past experience of the
authors involved in BIM and offsite construction in Hong Kong, China, and the UK.
3. DFMA: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS QUO
3.1 Historical development of DfMA
DfMA originated during World War II when Ford and Chrysler applied it as a principle in their
weapon production processes. At first, it was used in manufacturing industry. Formal
approaches to design for manufacture (DfM) and design for assembly (DfA) emerged in the
3

117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

late 1960s and early 1970s, reflected in UK standards published in 1975 on the management of
design for economic production. The academic exploration of DfMA also began in the 1970s
with the practice and research of Boothroyd and Dewhurst. Since then, there has been much
development of DfMA within the manufacturing industry.
According to Boothroyd (2005), DfMA provides a methodology for evaluating and
improving product design by considering the downstream processes of manufacturing and
assembly. It thereby signifies a shift from traditional, sequential design thinking to a non-linear
methodology. The implementation of DfA and DfM has the potential to bring considerable
benefits, including reducing assembly and manufacturing costs, improving quality, and
shortening production time by simplifying products. But these are only considerations of
production efficiency. Due to the requirements of sustainability, some scholars have begun to
consider the consideration of disassembly and recycling during the design phase. Researchers
are beginning to focus on the design of the environment, recyclability, life cycle, etc. These
studies are sometimes referred to as Design for excellence (DfX) (Kuo et al., 2001). DfX is a
related methodology, where the ‘X’ refers to excellence in aspects including testability,
compliance, reliability, manufacturability, inspection (DfI), variability (DfV), and cost (DfC).
DfX in general aims to provide a standard philosophy, methodologies, and tools to optimize a
design (Gatenby and Foo, 1990; Kuo et al., 2001; Eastman, 2012). For example, DfX techniques
can improve quality, efficiency, productivity and design flexibility, and decrease life-cycle
costs using concurrent design concepts (Maskell 1991). DfX research emphasizes the
consideration of all design goals and related constraints in the early design stage (Kuo et al.,
2001). Huang (2012) describes two streams of ‘X’, one with emphasis on a particular business
process and the other on a performance metric. DfA falls into the former since it focuses on the
assembly process while using multiple performance measures (inspectability, compatibility,
recyclability, serviceability, etc.). Design for modularity, on the other hand, is an example of
the latter since it looks into modularity across several business processes from manufacturing
to assembly, installation, distribution, and operation. DfMA falls into the business process
stream, while both the manufacturing and the assembly processes serve as focal issues. Since
the late 1990s, hundreds of papers have been published on the application of DfX in
manufacturing. However, this phenomenon has not happened in the construction industry. This
makes it difficult to find all the information needed to apply DfX in the construction industry.

148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

3.2 DfMA processes and guidelines
Researchers such as Swift and Brown (2013), Bogue (2012), and Emmatty and Sarmah (2012)
have developed some guidelines for the application of DfMA, as shown in Table 1. It is a
systematic procedure that helps companies make the fullest use of manufacturing and assembly
processes, e.g., through emphasizing the ease of manufacture and assembly by minimizing the
number of parts (Kuo et al., 2001; Eastman, 2012; Bogue, 2012). DfMA aims to determine the
cost impact of those materials and processes, and finds the most efficient use of the component
design (Ashley, 1995).
Table 1. A non-exhaustive list of DfMA guidelines
1
2
3
4

Guidelines
Aim for mistake-proof design
Design for ease of fabrication
Design for simple part
orientation and handling
Design with predetermined
assembly techniques in mind

Benefits
Avoid unnecessary re-work, improve quality, and reduce time and
costs.
Reduce time and costs by eliminating complex fixtures and tooling.
Reduce time and costs by avoiding non-value adding manual effort.
Reduce time and costs when assembling.

4

5
6

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186

Consider modular designs
Reduce time and costs due to simplified design and assembly.
Consider design for
Improve assembly efficiency, quality and security.
mechanized or automated
assembly
7
Use standard and off-the-shelf Reduce purchasing lead time and costs.
components
8
Use as similar materials as
Reduce time with fewer manufacture processes and simplified
possible
jointing.
9
Use as environmentally
Reduce harm to the environment.
friendly materials as possible
10 Minimize precast component
Reduce time and costs with simplified design, manufacture, and
types
assembly.
11 Minimize connector types and Reduce time and costs with simplified design, manufacture,
quantity
assembly, repair and maintenance.
12 Minimize the use of fragile
Reduce costs due to fewer part failures, and easier handling and
parts
assembly.
13 Do not over-specify tolerances Reduce costs with easier manufacture.
or surface finish
Sources: Swift and Brown (2013); Bogue (2012); and Emmatty and Sarmah (2012)

However, current DfMA practices in construction still, by and large, follow DfMA
guidelines developed in a manufacturing context without sufficiently considering the
differences between construction and manufacturing. For example, DfMA procedures in
Boothroyd (2005) consider DfA and DfM but not the downstream logistics and supply chain
(LSC), which plays a critical role in offsite prefabrication construction. Some construction
DfMA guidelines proposed, e.g., Gbadamosi et al., (2019), Kim et al., (2016), and Banks et al.
(2018), originate more or less from manufacturing-oriented guidelines. While inspiring, some
of these guidelines are not necessarily a good fit with construction’s characteristics, leading to
an inability to improve manufacturing and assembly. Some guidelines are proposed in a
fragmented fashion without necessarily forming an organic whole, leading to a lack of
comprehensiveness, or “easy to use” throughout the building process. The RIBA, in recognizing
the potential of DfMA in construction, added an overlay of DfMA to its time-honored Plan of
Work. Following RIBA’s vision (2013, p. 24), much “soft-landing” work remains to implement
DfMA in construction.
Connecting general DfMA guidelines (Table 1) with the heterogeneities of the AEC
industry to develop DfMA examples could inspire and encourage practitioners. Our stakeholder
engagement with the industry has revealed that practitioners including clients, designers,
contractors, and suppliers do explore such examples from the perspective of their separate
companies. An industry-wide database of DfMA examples could increase its application.
Another observation from the literature analysis and industry engagement is that we need to
develop DfMA strategies operable in terms of scope, policy, procedure, and so on at company,
even industry, level. RIBA’s plan of work and various published DfMA blueprints are certainly
meaningful points of departure. To embrace DfMA, individual companies need to work with
researchers to devise such operable strategies. Frameworks and guidelines that can link general
guidelines with company-specific requirements are highly desired.

187
188
189
190
191
192

3.3 Cross-sectoral learning
When looking at the history of DfMA in construction, scholars often cite the pioneering
modernist architect Le Corbusier who, in his influential book Towards a New Architecture
(1923), advocated industrialization of construction and proposed the famous maxim, ‘A house
is a machine to live in.’ However, the popularity of DfMA in construction is a recent
5

193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216

phenomenon. Unlike manufactured products which are designed in-house, mass-produced, and
sold to end users, construction products (e.g., housing, buildings, and infrastructure) are
bespoke (Fox et al., 2001). Every construction product is contextualized within the geotechnical conditions of the site and its surroundings, the planned socio-economic function, and
many other factors. There can be no ‘standard’, ‘one-size-fit-for-all’ design for mass production.
It would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible for an architect, like his/her counterparts in
manufacturing, to conceptualize, optimize, prototype, and select a design to mass construct. In
addition, the orthodoxy dislikes the tedium of ‘standard’ architecture design. Thus, the ‘oneoff’ project as an organization form has been adopted in the construction industry to organize
works (Wang et al., 2018). Put simply, the construction industry looks at projects while other
industries are concerned with products.
While construction materializes our built environment and is linked to cultural identity
and civic pride (Pearce, 2003), it has long been criticized for e.g., its nuisance, poor quality
(Baloi and Price, 2003), and recently, alleged low productivity (The Economist, 2017). Crosssectoral learning has been exhorted for construction (Kao et al., 2009) but the authors of this
paper incline to attribute the learning to the industry’s self-introspection and humble
characteristics. The construction industry has been reinventing itself through production theory
(Koskela 1992), especially through integration of design, manufacture, and assembly
(Bridgewater, 1993) and lean concepts and tools for making site assembly more efficient
(Tommelein, 1998). In the 2010s, government and industry documents began to include DfMA
in their development plans and to illustrate its detailed definition and application in the industry.
In these plans, DfMA is advocated to combine architectural design, manufacturing and on-site
installation organically. The introduction of DfMA to construction industry can be understood
against this cross-sectoral learning and transformation background.

217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233

3.4 Status quo of DfMA in construction
The Sankey diagram shown in Figure 2 illustrates some of the research trends relating to DfMA
in construction drawn from the 30 selected articles. The width of the arrows is proportional to
the flow rate. The volume of this research has gradually increased over the past decade.
Regarding research trends, architectural design journals tend to focus on the conceptual design
stage, while engineering and construction journals focus more on the detailed design phase or
the entire project life cycle. There are more articles on DfM than DfA. This may be because all
types of construction involve a manufacturing process. However, assembly problems often
occur in prefabricated buildings. In some architectural practices that do not fully adopt
prefabrication, the idea of DfMA is nonetheless used. So although prefabrication, offsite
construction, and MiC provide ideal scenarios in which to explore DfMA (Yuan et al., 2018),
its applications are not constrained to these areas. DfMA can be applied in traditional cast insitu construction. It can even be implemented as part of an on-site construction design or offsite
prefabricated design (Lu et al., 2018). The degree of implementation may be the entire building,
an apartment, or just a component, reflecting the emphasis of DfMA on consideration of
downstream processes in order to minimize costs and maximize overall value.

6

234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247

Figure 2 Sankey diagram of DfMA research in the AEC industry
A few empirical studies have begun to investigate the implementation of DfMA, mainly
in offsite prefabrication and modular construction projects. As summarized in Table 2, DfMA
principles have been applied to various types of construction projects for various components.
For example, Kim et al. (2016) reported the use of DfMA in the selection of suitable precast
beams for a highway bridge in the UK; Gerth et al. (2013) reported its application in detailing
the design of light walls for two four-story houses in Sweden. These studies reveal common
practices in applying DfMA, such as identifying its driver, developing criteria for
‘manufacturability’ and ‘assemblability’, investigating specific difficulties to address in design,
involving different professionals in the design group, and optimizing design through various
principles.
Table 2. A summary of construction projects applying DfMA principles
Studies
Gerth et al. (2013)

Project type
four-storey houses

Related components
light wall

Kim et al. (2016)

highway bridge

precast beam

Chen and Lu (2018)

high-rise
commercial
building
high-rise
residential and
commercial tower
new solar tower

curtain wall system

Banks et al. (2018)
Peterseim et al.
(2016)
Ramaji et al. (2017)
Machado et al.,
(2016)

student dormitory

modularized facade,
MEP system,
structure, etc.
modules of cablestayed solar tower
modules

student
accommodation

fittings
furnishings

and

DfMA strategies
• detail the joint design
• minimize assembly operation
• minimize the number of parts
• simplify the operation
• choose material and components
• coordinate the design of LED
tubes and electric wires in the
curtain wall system
• coordinate the facade, MEP
system, and structure
• select optimal components and

materials

• optimize the size and geometry of

parts

• implement BIM as a catalyst for a

lean transformation, streamlining
process and operations

248

7

249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284

Previous studies have suggested different strategies for implementing DfMA, such as
detailed design, minimization/simplification, and design evaluation. Detailed design entails
careful planning to pre-empt issues in the manufacture and assembly stages through choice of
materials/components (Kim et al, 2016), integrating different disciplines in design, such as
coordinating the modular structure, façade, and mechanical, electrical and pumping (MEP)
system in a high-rise building (Banks et al., 2018), or designing the LED tubing and electric
wiring for a curtain wall system (Chen and Lu, 2018). Minimization/simplification emphasizes
ease of manufacture and assembly through minimizing the number of parts (Kim, et al., 2016),
simplifying the geometry and reducing weights of parts (Ramaji, 2017), or decreasing
complexity in operations (Gerth, 2013). These strategies can directly reduce cost, time, and
waste in both manufacture and assembly. In addition, evaluating engineering choices and
design alternatives is also a main strategy of DfMA. Significant in this state of the art review is
DfMA use for building façades (Montali et al., 2018; Montali et al., 2019; Giuda et al., 2019;
Başarır and Altun, 2018), weatherproof seals (Orlowski et al., 2018), and modular components
(Rausch et al., 2016). Few studies focus on design optimization of the whole built project,
although some such as Yuan et al., (2018) have established a process information model for
DfMA-oriented prefabricated buildings. Apart from these studies mentioned DfMA in their
research, some DfMA-like concepts were studied for the improvement of manufacturability and
assemblability by focusing on the design stage. For example, many studies in architecture use
fabrication-aware design to represent the same idea of DfMA. Pottmann (2009; 2010; 2013)
proposed architectural geometry as a design fabrication-aware design knowledge to bridge the
gap between design and construction. Tepavčević et al., (2017) established a fabrication-aware
design method that can be easily manufactured and assembled. These DfMA-like concepts,
including fabrication-aware design and architectural geometry, also enhance manufacturability
and assemblability through the early architectural design stage.
The construction industry has benefited from DfMA research and development in other
industries. The automotive industry has explored reduction in number of parts in the assembly
process. With such reduction comes decline in associated assembly operations, saving parts and
operations costs (Boothroyd, 2012). When this strategy was applied in selected Swedish
companies, half enjoyed up to a 33% reduction in development time and cost (Trygg, 1993). In
construction, the same logic is applied in MiC, reducing parts in prefabricated modules for
assembly. Another commonly adopted DfMA strategy is to establish a concurrent engineering
environment. This encourages teamwork between designers, suppliers, manufacturing
engineers, and any other relevant representatives in reviewing the current product
manufacturing and future product design to increase productivity and reduce lead time in
bringing a new product to market (Boothroyd, 2012).

285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297

4. OVERLAPS BETWEEN DFMA AND OTHER CONCEPTS
4.1 DfMA and Buildability
The concept of buildability can be traced back to the 1980s (Moore, 1996). It is defined by
CIRIA (1983) as ‘the extent to which the design of a building facilitates ease of construction,
subject to the overall requirements for the completed building.’ Buildability is measured on a
scale from good to bad and is a criterion on which to judge the design of a building project
(Wong et al., 2008. Bringing together the technical experience of builders and the design
experience of architects at the design stage, it reflects architects’ awareness of construction
method in the architectural design (Hyde, 1995; Wong et al., 2011). Buildable designs have
improved quality and safety performance, as well as higher productivity levels, and mitigate
the risks of unforeseen problems (Lam and Wong, 2011). The achievement of good buildability
8

298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315

depends upon both designers and builders being able to see the whole construction process
through each other's eyes.
In design for buildability, external factors such as geotechnical condition, access and
circulation at the site, and availability of resources, skills and technology, are firstly considered
to determine the most appropriate system to be used (Mbamali et al., 2005). Then, the principle
of standardization, simplicity and integration or prefabrication are applied to achieve the desired
level of buildability (BCA, 2000; Wong and Lam, 2008). Table 3 presents some example
features of these principles. Lam and Wong (2011) further summarize nine factors of
buildability: (1) allowing economic use of contractor’s resources; (2) enabling design
requirements to be easily visualized and coordinated by site staff; (3) enabling contractors to
develop and adopt alternative construction details; (4) enabling contractors to overcome
restrictive site conditions; (5) enabling standardization and repetition; (6) enabling freedom of
choice between prefabricated and onsite works; (7) enabling simplification of construction
details in case of non-repetitive elements; (8) minimizing the impact of adverse weather by
enabling a more flexible construction program; and (9) allowing design to achieve a safe
construction sequence on site.
Table 3. Principles of buildability and their example features
Principle

316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332

Example feature
° Repetition of grids, floor layouts, component sizes, etc.;
° Modularization of grids, concrete beams, slabs, etc.;
Standardization
° Standardization of windows, doors, structural components, services
cores, etc.
° Flat floor slabs, pre-stressed concrete flat slabs;
Simplicity
° Simple connection details;
° Simplicity in detailing.
° Precast components such as slabs, columns, beams, façade panels,
Integration/Prefabrication
window frames, staircases, etc.;
° Integrated roof system.
Sources: Mbamali et al. (2005); Wong and Lam (2008)

There are perceivable similarities and differences between buildability and DfMA. First,
both attempt to consider the building/manufacturing processes from the early design stage in
order to ease them, as well as improve quality, cost, productivity, and safety performance.
Second, both follow the standardization principle for the design of grids, layouts, structural
components, doors and windows etc. Third, both encourage integration and prefabrication.
However, to meet the requirement of simplicity in buildability, diversity and variability may be
sacrificed; DfMA would not change or downgrade the design intentions at the cost of building
particularity. Buildability can be enhanced with the implementation of DfMA, prefabrication,
and virtual and automated construction technologies. DfMA is the practical implementation and
optimization of quantitative and parametric design, which presents all entities in the form of
components (Harik and Sahmrani, 2010; Yuan et al., 2018), and can improve buildability with
the use of offsite prefabricated standardized components such as façades, bathrooms, and
staircases (Gao et al., 2018). DfMA can not only focus on the design evaluation like buildability,
but also implement this evaluation in the two links of manufacturing and assembly, which is
especially applicable to the rise of off-site manufacturing and on-site assembly.

333
334
335
336
337

4.2 DfMA and Value Management (VM)
VM aims to an optimal balance of performance, cost, and time through a structured, disciplined,
and team-centric problem-solving approach (Kelly et al., 2004). It has been increasingly
described as the entire process to improve the value of the project from the concept stage to the
9

338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370

operation stage (Ashworth and Hogg, 2014). Both VM and DfMA have their origins in the
manufacturing industry. Whereas DfMA was popularized in construction only recently, VM
has been readily applied to construction for a longer period of time. In common with DfMA,
VM is conducted through the integration and cooperation among multidisciplinary team
members.
The differences between VM and DfMA are obvious. Firstly, they have different
objectives. DfMA focuses on two main functionality of buildings in terms of manufacturability
and assemblability whilst that of VM cares about the optimal balance and solution of all
functionality and finance, not just manufacturability and assemblability. Secondly, the methods
to achieve their respective goals are different. VM derives its power from being a team-based,
process-driven methodology using function analysis to examine and deliver a project at
optimized whole life performance and cost without detriment to quality (Male et al., 2007). A
range of VM methods, such as pre-workshop info gathering, group workshop tools (e.g. Fast
Diagramming, VM / design charrette), post-workshop tools and so on, is applied step by step
within the context of changing project environment (Kelly and Male, 2003; Shen and Liu, 2004).
In contrast, DfMA uses a series of design strategies under its guidelines and principles to
achieve better manufacturability and assemblability. The main idea is to simplify and optimize
the building components, connections and processes without damaging or subsiding the
originally formulated functionality (Gao et al., 2019; Chen and Lu, 2018). For example,
applying a digitally-designed set of components across a range of government construction
programmes and projects to enhance standardization and productivity. Thus, DfMA dedicates
to the improvements in the specific tectonics details of the building, such as component size,
building materials and connection method, but VM starts from the perspective of architectural
function and adopts a series of management methods.
As an optimal design philosophy, DfMA regarded as a value improvement tool can be
adopted by VM. DfMA can earn value in project costs, completion time, accordance to function
requirements, satisfaction of post-occupancy evaluation, and ease of maintenance (Omigbodun,
2001; Newton et al., 2018). As a function-review method for optimal design, VM can be applied
together with DfMA execution to enhance its cost efficiency, functionality, quality and reduce
possible risks. Essentially, these two approaches differ in their focuses and methods on
construction because they hold different perspectives. VM represents a project management
perspective while DfMA focuses more on a product design perspective. However, they can
work together to achieve more efficient construction practices.

371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387

4.3 DfMA and Lean Construction
Lean construction is ‘a method to design production systems to minimize the waste of materials,
time and efforts in order to generate the maximum possible amount of value’ (Koskela et al.,
2002). It is closely linked to VM. Lean principles have their roots in Japanese manufacturing,
where the supply chain was planned and optimized to reduce time, cost, and waste. Lean
principles were later adapted to the construction industry with the aim of eliminating waste
(Koskela, 1992) by considering the particular characteristics of construction works, such as
uniqueness, complexity, and ‘one-off’ project-based production processes. Today, the focal
points of lean construction are diverse, including waste elimination, strong user focus, value for
money, high-quality management of projects and supply chains, and improved communications
(OGC, 2000).
The principles of lean construction and DfMA are interrelated and mutually supportive.
On the one hand, DfMA can help lean construction practices focus on reducing waste (Ohno,
1988), also known as ‘non-value adding’ activities in the lean context (Koskela, 1992). It does
so by assisting designers to understand what kinds of inefficient motions and operations are
associated with manufacturing and assembly. This is in line with key DfMA principles, i.e.,
10

388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404

minimizing the number of parts, and maximizing ease of handling and assembly (Gerth et al.,
2013). Similarly, the work done by Gbadamosi et al. (2018) provides empirical evidence on
how DfMA can facilitate the lean process. On the other hand, lean construction thinking can be
embedded in DfMA philosophy. For example, Banks et al. (2018) considered lean supply chain
management when detailing high-rise building design, while Ramaji et al. (2017) reduced the
amount of assembly parts and optimized the geometry design of each part for a dormitory
project. DfMA and lean principles can bring common benefits to the AEC industry, aligned to
achieve maximum shared value such as reducing construction cost and efforts, and increasing
construction productivity (Ogunbiyi et al., 2014).
The two principles, still, are conceptually different with different working scopes and
focuses. Lean construction aims to eliminate construction waste, effort, and time by designing
a proper production and delivery system over a supply chain. For example, flexible workforce
and just-in-time are critical lean principles for preventing overstock and accelerating cash flow.
Comparatively, DfMA principles work on improving ease of manufacturing and assembly from
the early stage of design (Lam et al., 2009). This involves a series of measures to optimize
design, but workforce flexibility and warehousing level are not as heavily involved as in lean
construction.

405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437

4.4 DfMA and Prefabrication/MiC
DfMA is often discussed together with prefabrication or MiC in the literature. In Gibb’s (2001)
widely accepted taxonomy of prefabrication adoption, Level 0 means a project does not use any
form prefabrication at all, e.g. fully cast-in-situ; Level 1: Component and sub-assembly (e.g.
lintels); Level 2: Non-volumetric assembly (e.g. 2-dimensional precast concrete wall panels,
precast components with no usage space enclosed); Level 3: Volumetric assembly (e.g.
volumetric bathrooms, kitchens with usable space enclosed); and Level 4: Modular building
(e.g. 3- dimensional modules which form the fabric of the building structure). According to
Tatum (1987), prefabrication shifts the conventional cast in-situ, or a part of it, to offsite
specialized facilities (e.g., a precast yard) where the raw materials are used to form a component
or module of the final installation. Prefabrication can be achieved by carefully designing,
manufacturing, transporting and installing the construction components (Mao et al., 2013). MiC
represents one specific type where free-standing integrated modules with finishes, fixtures and
fittings are manufactured in a prefabrication factory and then transported to site for installation
(CIC, 2019). Compared to traditional construction methods, prefabrication/MiC is competitive
in reducing cost, time, and waste generated in the construction phase (Yuan et al., 2018; Tam
et al., 2007).
The resurgence of prefabrication and construction industrialization is a response to
increasing housing and construction demand around the globe. It is also an ideal scenario for
promotion of DfMA. In this scenario, construction works, traditionally organized as projects,
are more akin to production in the manufacturing industry. The design of prefabricated
components or integrated modules generally requires more attention to make these components
appropriate for offsite manufacturing and on-site assembly. DfMA can address many issues and
limitations in the current construction practice. For example, in current designer-centric practice,
architects may lack sufficient expertise or interest in considering problems arising at the
subsequent manufacture, transportation and assembly of prefabricated components. Such
expertise is usually tacit and embedded in the manufacturer’s experience. Problems may include
insufficient detail in prefabricated components or their connections, inappropriate split of
prefabricated components, or complex component design, making reiterative design
improvements in the manufacture phase difficult (Yuan et al., 2018; Jensen et al., 2008). In
DfMA-oriented design, these problems can be addressed by involving manufacturers and
technicians in the upfront stage (i.e., design) and carefully considering problems in subsequent
11

438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479

manufacture and assembly. Therefore, DfMA is considered as one of the most important steps
in prefabrication/MIC (Jensen et al., 2008).
5. PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES OF DFMA
5.1 Prospects of DfMA
DfMA is expected to have a wide range of applications, from one-off small-scale to large-scale
construction projects, and can benefit both cast in-situ and prefabricated construction methods.
However, its most widespread adoption is foreseen in prefabrication/MiC projects. Some
empirical studies have begun to investigate the process of using DfMA guidelines for
prefabrication/MiC. DfMA-oriented designs have been reported in various types of
prefabrication/MiC projects around the globe. DfMA has also been applied to
prefabrication/MiC using advanced information technologies such BIM (Yuan et al., 2018).
Although focusing on different scenarios, these studies share some common practices in
applying DfMA guidelines, e.g., forming a DfMA-oriented design team by including architects,
engineers, manufacturers and contractors, identifying design problems that need to be tackled
for ease of manufacture and assembly, and optimizing building design using DfMA principles.
The popularity of DfMA will increase with increasing demand for more integrated
methods of project delivery and value creation. VM and integrated project delivery (IPD) seek
to align the objectives and practices of stakeholders so that their insights can be harnessed to
optimize project performance. The collaboration of stakeholders, such as designers, engineers,
suppliers, and contractors at the early design stage means that more detailed information
becomes available earlier than in the traditional design process. Such collaboration thus can
help identify and address potential risks in the manufacturing and construction stages based on
DfMA principles.
Another trend is the integration of DfMA and virtual design and construction (VDC)
technologies like BIM. A building information model is the digital representation of a building
with all building components represented by parametric objects (Eastman et al., 2011). BIM
can facilitate DfMA implementation from two perspectives. First, DfMA requires an analysis
platform for identifying opportunities for improving manufacturing and assembly processes
through the design. BIM provides such a platform because BIM objects can have rich
information on the actual building components. The information can be used to analyze how
the components will be produced and constructed, and whether DfMA principles can be applied
to make the design more appropriate for production and construction. Secondly, BIM enables
a seamless collaboration environment. Designers, engineers, suppliers, and constructors can use
the digital model to exchange ideas and share knowledge with each other (Zhong et al., 2017;
Chen et al., 2017). After the design is consolidated, the BIM model can be directly sent to the
suppliers or manufacturers for mass production.
To sum up, DfMA is expected to be adopted in the AEC industry in order to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the project delivery. Smooth deployment of DfMA principles in
construction projects can be achieved with the support of new project management and delivery
methods (e.g., IPD) and VDC technologies (e.g., BIM).

480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487

5.2 Challenges Ahead
The first challenge facing DfMA application in construction is lack of a suitable ecosystem that
enables its widespread adoption. An ecosystem includes guidelines, standards, and affordable
technologies. Guidelines and standards are important for stakeholders, especially those with
less experience, to govern its procedures of DfMA applications. Additionally, a report
published by O’Rourke (2013) indicates that the gross capital cost of DfMA assembly, at the
early adoption stage, is comparable to that of traditional construction methods. However, if new
12

488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537

technologies were required to support DfMA applications, extra investment might be needed,
making DfMA less competitive. These challenges necessitate a robust ecosystem enabling wide
acceptance of DfMA.
Another challenge is associated with the new processes brought about by DfMA
applications. DfMA requires stakeholders to shift their paradigm from conventional means of
design, production, and construction (Chen and Lu, 2018; Yuan et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019).
However, it is not always easy for stakeholders to adjust to new processes. For example,
designers might not be willing to accept manufacturing or construction input in their designs.
The resistance to change could be considerably overwhelming. Therefore, additional efforts are
necessary to manage the change, for instance, by increasing stakeholder awareness of the
advantages of DfMA.
Furthermore, there are few cases of DfMA application in actual projects, perhaps owing
to insufficient hands-on training and re-training arranged for different stakeholders to
implement DfMA. Some stakeholders might choose to wait and see whether competitors
implementing DfMA can receive actual benefits. Currently, a few large companies have begun
to use DfMA in their projects. More successful DfMA application cases will encourage the
diffusion of DfMA in the AEC industry.
6. CONCLUSION
Originating from production industries, DfMA has been hyped as a panacea for chronic
problems in the AEC industry such as high cost, long delivery time, and low productivity. This
paper aims to demystify the concept in AEC, which is well known for its project-based nature.
Many features of AEC, e.g., bespoke requirements, ‘one-off’ endeavors, contextual
embeddedness, and prolonged manufacturing and assembly lines seem to have stifled the
widespread application of DfMA. Our review of the historical development of DfMA, reasons
for its popularization, and its status quo development in construction, reveals that DfMA as a
philosophy is hardly new in construction, and the empirical implementation of many DfMA
guidelines has begun in the AEC industry.
A deeper look at DfMA and its similar concepts including buildability evaluation, value
management, lean construction, and prefabrication/offsite construction, reveals that the DfMA
philosophy is reflected in various construction practices. It further substantiated the above
argument that DfMA is not entirely new in construction. Adjusting the metaphor used in our
original question, however, we would argue that DfMA is a ‘new cocktail in a new bottle’.
Bearing a set of well-developed DfMA guidelines, it embraces a variety of tools and techniques,
such as BIM, VDC, MiC, prefabrication, IoTs, and smart construction, to help designers
optimize design, manufacturing, and assembly. It is also compatible with prevailing concepts
in construction, such as integrated procurement models (e.g., design and building, IPD), preoccupational evaluation, value management, and lean construction to enhance value in the AEC
industry.
Nevertheless, DfMA in construction is still in its infancy. Current research and practice
of DfMA in the construction industry largely follow some guidance and strategies of the
manufacturing industry, without fully considering their differences. Some of these strategies,
frameworks, and applications are inadequate for the construction industry, especially in projects
with varying degrees of prefabrication. Practitioners need to be inspired and encouraged by
successful DfMA examples, for which a sharing platform across the globe is required. The
limited examples reported in the literature give the impression that DfMA serves
prefabrication/MiC only. More research studies on its applications in cast in-situ, or
intermediate prefabrication construction are recommended. In addition to encouraging DfMA
frameworks and blueprints already developed in various countries, operable strategies are
needed to guide interested stakeholders in implementing DfMA in their respective businesses.
13

538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587

REFERENCES
Alarcón, L. (1997). Lean construction. CRC Press.
Ashley, S. (1995). Cutting costs and time with DfMA. Mechanical Engineering, 117(3), 74.
Ashworth, A., & Hogg, K. (2014). Added value in design and construction. Routledge.
Baloi, D., & Price, A. D. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance. International journal of project management, 21(4), 261-269.
Balfour Beatty (2018). Streamlined construction: Seven steps to offsite and modular building.
Banks, C., Kotecha, R., Curtis, J., Dee, C., Pitt, N., & Papworth, R. (2018). Enhancing highrise residential construction through design for manufacture and assembly–a UK case
study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and
Law, 171(4), 164-175.
Başarır, B., & Altun, C. M. (2018). A Redesign Procedure to Manufacture Adaptive Façades
with Standard Products. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 6(3), 77-100.
BCA (2000). Code of practice on buildable design. Building and Construction Authority,
Singapore.
BCA (2016). BIM for DfMA Essential Guide. Building and Construction Authority, Singapore.
Bogue, R. (2012). Design for manufacture and assembly: background, capabilities and
applications. Assembly Automation, 32(2), 112-118.
Boothroyd, G. (2005). Assembly automation and product design. CRC Press.
Boothroyd, G (2012). Design For Manufacture And Assembly: The Boothroyd-Dewhurst
Experience. In Eastman, C. M. (Ed.). Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives.
(pp. 19-40). Springer Science & Business Media.
Bridgewater, C. (1993). Principles of design for automation applied to construction
tasks. Automation in Construction, 2(1), 57-64.
Chen, K., & Lu, W. (2018). Design for manufacture and assembly oriented design approach to
a curtain wall system: A case study of a commercial building in Wuhan,
China. Sustainability, 10(7), 2211.
Chen, K., Xu, G., Xue, F., Zhong, R. Y., Liu, D., & Lu, W. (2017). A physical Internetenabled BIM system for prefabricated construction. International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing. 31(4-5), https://bit.ly/2PLRAM3.
Construction Industry Council (CIC) (2019). What is CIC? Available at https://bit.ly/2vBWLVI.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (1983). Buildability: an
assessment. London: CIRIA.
Di Giuda, G. M., Giana, P. E., Masera, G., Seghezzi, E., & Villa, V. (2019). A BIM-based
approach to façade cladding optimization: geometrical, economic, and production-control
in a DfMA perspective. In 2019 European Conference on Computing in Construction
(Vol. 1, pp. 324-331). European Council on Computing in Construction.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building
information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors. John
Wiley & Sons.
Eastman, C. M. (2012). Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Emmatty, F. J., & Sarmah, S. P. (2012). Modular product development through platform-based
design and DfMA. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(9), 696-714.
Fox, S., Marsh, L., & Cockerham, G. (2001). Design for manufacture: a strategy for successful
application to buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 19(5), 493-502.
Gao, S., Low, S. P., & Nair, K. (2018). Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA): a
preliminary study of factors influencing its adoption in Singapore. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 14(6), 440-456.
14

588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636

Gao, S., Jin, R., & Lu, W. (2019). Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: a
review. Building Research & Information, 1-13.
Gatenby, D. A., & Foo, G. (1990). Design for X (DFX): Key to competitive, profitable
products. AT&T Technical Journal, 69(3), 2-13.
Gbadamosi, A. Q., Mahamadu, A. M., Manu, P., Akinade, O., Sierra, F., Lam, T. T., &
Alzaatreh, A. (2018). A BIM based approach for optimization of construction and
assembly through material selection. In: Skibniewski, M. and Hajdu, M., eds. Creative
Construction Conference 2018 (CCC 2018), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 30 June - 3 July 2018.
Gerth, R., Boqvist, A., Bjelkemyr, M., & Lindberg, B. (2013). Design for construction: utilizing
production experiences in development. Construction Management and Economics,
31(2), 135-150.
Gibb, A. G. (2001). Standardization and pre-assembly-distinguishing myth from reality using
case study research. Construction Management and Economics, 19(3), 307-315.
Harik, R. F., & Sahmrani, N. (2010). DFMA+, a quantitative DFMA methodology. ComputerAided Design and Applications, 7(5), 701-709.
Huang, G. Q. (2012). Introduction. In Eastman, C. M. (Ed.). Design for X: concurrent
engineering imperatives. (1-18). Springer Science & Business Media.
Hyde, R. (1995). Buildability as a design concept for architects: a case study of laboratory
buildings. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2(1), 45-56.
Infrastructure and Projects Authority (2018). National infrastructure and construction pipeline.
Available at https://bit.ly/2QoJxYn.
Jensen, P., Olofsson, T., Sandberg, M., & Malmgren, L. (2008). Reducing complexity of
customized prefabricated buildings through modularization and IT support.
In International Conference on Information Technology in Construction: 15/07/200817/07/2008 (429-437). Universidad de Talca.
Kao, C. C., Green, S. D., & Larsen, G. D. (2009). Emergent discourses of construction
competitiveness: localized learning and embeddedness. Construction Management and
Economics, 27(10), 1005-1017.
Kelly, J., Male, S., Graham, D., Male, S., & Graham, D. (2004). Value management of
Construction Projects (pp. 9-19). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Kelly, J., & Male, S. (2003). Value management in design and construction. Routledge.
Kim, M. K., McGovern, S., Belsky, M., Middleton, C., & Brilakis, I. (2016). A suitability
analysis of precast components for standardized bridge construction in the United
Kingdom. Procedia Engineering, 164, 188-195.
Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction (Vol. 72).
Stanford: Stanford University.
Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of lean
construction. Design and construction: Building in Value, 291, 211-226.
Kuo, T. C., Huang, S. H., & Zhang, H. C. (2001). Design for manufacture and design for ‘X’:
concepts, applications, and perspectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 41(3),
241-260.
Lam, P. T., & Wong, F. W. (2009). Improving building project performance: how buildability
benchmarking can help. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 41-52.
Lam, P. T., & Wong, F. W. (2011). A comparative study of buildability perspectives between
clients, consultants and contractors. Construction Innovation, 11(3), 305-320.
Lecy, J. D., & Beatty, K. E. (2012). Representative literature reviews using constrained
snowball sampling and citation network analysis. Available at SSRN 1992601.
Lu, W., Chen, K., Xue, F., & Pan, W. (2018). Searching for an optimal level of prefabrication
in construction: An analytical framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 236-245.

15

637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686

Machado, M., Underwood, J., & Fleming, A. (2016). Implementing BIM to streamline a design,
manufacture, and fitting workflow: a case study on a fit-out SME in the UK. International
Journal of 3-D Information Modeling (IJ3DIM), 5(3), 31-46.
Male, S., Kelly, J., Gronqvist, M., & Graham, D. (2007). Managing value as a management
style for projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(2), 107-114.
Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L., & Tang, L. (2013). Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions
between offsite prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies
of residential projects. Energy and Buildings, 66, 165-176.
Maskell, B. H. (1991). Performance measurement for world class manufacturing: A model for
American companies. CRC press.
Mbamali, I., Aiyetan, O. A., & Kehinde, J. O. (2005). Building design for buildability: an
investigation of the current practice in Nigeria. Building and Environment, 40(9), 12671274.
Montali, J., Overend, M., Pelken, P. M., & Sauchelli, M. (2018). Knowledge-Based
Engineering in the design for manufacture of prefabricated façades: current gaps and
future trends. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(1-2), 78-94.
Montali, J., Sauchelli, M., Jin, Q., & Overend, M. (2019). Knowledge-rich optimisation of
prefabricated façades to support conceptual design. Automation in Construction, 97, 192204.
Moore, D. (1996). Buildability assessment and the development of an automated design aid for
managing the transfer of construction process knowledge. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 3(1/2), 29-46.
Newton, C., Backhouse, S., Aibinu, A., Cleveland, B., Crawford, R., Holzer, D., ... & Kvan, T.
(2018). Plug n Play: Future Prefab for Smart Green Schools. Buildings, 8(7), 88.
OGC (2000), Achieving Sustainability in Construction Procurement, Produced by the
Sustainability Action Group of the Government Construction Clients’ Panel (GCCP),
available
at:
www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/Sustainability_in_Construction_
Procurement.pdf
Ogunbiyi, O., Goulding, J. S., & Oladapo, A. (2014). An empirical study of the impact of lean
construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Construction
Innovation, 14(1), 88-107.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. crc Press.
Omigbodun, A. (2001). Value engineering and optimal building projects. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, 7(2), 40-43.
Orlowski, K., Shanaka, K., & Mendis, P. (2018). Design and Development of Weatherproof
Seals for Prefabricated Construction: A Methodological Approach. Buildings, 8(9), 117.
O’Rourke, L. (2013). The future of DfMA is the future of construction. Engineering Excellence
Journal (2013), 77.
Pearce, D. W. (2003). The Social and Economic Value of Construction: The Construction
Industry's Contribution to Sustainable Development, 2003. Construction Industry
Research and Innovation Strategy Panel.
Peterseim, J. H., White, S., & Hellwig, U. (2016). Novel solar tower structure to lower plant
cost and construction risk. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 1734(1), p. 070025). AIP
Publishing.
Pottman, H. (2009). Geometry and new and future spatial patterns. Architectural Design, 79(6),
60-65.
Pottmann, H. (2010). Architectural geometry as design knowledge. Architectural Design, 80(4),
72-77.
Pottmann, H. (2013). Architectural geometry and fabrication-aware design. Nexus Network
Journal, 15(2), 195-208.
16

687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725

Ramaji, I. J., Memari, A. M., & Messner, J. I. (2017). Product-oriented information delivery
framework for multistory modular building projects. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, 31(4), 04017001.
Rawlinson, J. G. (2017). Creative Thinking and Brainstorming. Routledge.
Royal Institute of British Architects. (2013), RIBA Plan of Work 2013. RIBA Publishing.
Shen, Q., & Liu, G. (2004). Applications of value management in the construction industry in
China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(1), 9-19.
Swift, K. G, & Brown, N. J. (2013). Implementation strategies for design for manufacture
methodologies, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part B: Journal
of Engineering Manufacture, 217(6), 827–833.
Tam, V. W., Tam, C. M., Zeng, S. X., & Ng, W. C. (2007). Towards adoption of prefabrication
in construction. Building and Environment, 42(10), 3642-3654.
Tatum, C. B., Vanegas, J. A., & Williams, J. M. (1987). Constructability improvement using
prefabrication, preassembly, and modularization. Austin, TX, USA: Bureau of
Engineering Research, University of Texas at Austin.
Tepavčević, B., Stojaković, V., Mitov, D., Bajšanski, I., & Jovanović, M. (2017). Design to
fabrication method of thin shell structures based on a friction-fit connection system.
Automation in Construction, 84, 207-213.
The Economist (2017). The construction industry’s productivity problem [Electronic Version].
The Economist. https://econ.st/2RzMkLW, retrieved on April 03, 2019.
The Government of Hong Kong SAR Development Bureau. (2018). Construction 2.0.
Available at https://www.hkc2.hk/booklet/Construction-2-0-en.pdf
Tommelein, I. D. (1998). Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: Simulation of lean
construction technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(4),
279-288.
Trygg, L. (1993). Concurrent engineering practices in selected Swedish companies: a
movement or an activity of the few?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(5),
403-415.
Wong, F. W., & Lam, P. T. (2008). Benchmarking of buildability and construction performance
in Singapore: is there a case for Hong Kong?. International Journal of Construction
Management, 8(1), 1-27.
Wang, H.D. Lu, W., Sönderland, J., & Chen, K. (2018). The interplay between formal and
informal institutions in projects: A social network analysis. Project Management Journal,
49(4) 20–35.
Yuan, Z., Sun, C., & Wang, Y. (2018). Design for Manufacture and Assembly-oriented
parametric design of prefabricated buildings. Automation in Construction, 88, 13-22.
Zhong, R., Peng, Y., Xue, F., Fang, J., Zou, W., Luo, H., Ng. S.T., Lu, W.S., Shen, Q.P., and
Huang, G.Q. (2017). Prefabricated construction enabled by the Internet-ofThings. Automation in Construction, 76(4), 59–70.

726

17