Construction Technology

The construction industry has continually shown low productivity levels and some degree of

resistance, to the construction of buildings in more innovative and potentially efficient ways. This

reflection of the construction sector, has been highlighted in numerous industry wide reports over a

number of years. Most recently Farmer (2016) in his report “Modernise or Die” outlined that the

current pace and nature of technological change and innovation is such. That unless, the

construction industry embraces this trend at scale, it will miss the greatest single opportunity to

improve productivity and efficiency.

In this respect, you have been procured as a construction consultant, to prepare a technical report

for a progressive client, who wishes to utilise a modern method of construction [MMC], in the

development of a new 420 unit student accommodation block – “Corner Place” at the identified city

centre site in London. The development will comprise of a staggered block arrangement rising to 15

storeys.

The report requires you to critically compare two methods of MMC, either of which could be

employed for this project. Demonstrating critical thinking and analysis of the merits and limitations

of the two methods being considered. This undertaking should evaluate both technical and

resource issues, which could address such items as:

• Dimensional planning
• Stability and structural performance
• Acoustic , thermal and fire resisting capabilities
• External enclosure [cladding] detailing options
• Sustainability
• Logistics / resources /cost

You should, as part of your conclusions, provide a recommendation of the MMC methodology best

suited to be implemented for this project.

The report should be a maximum of 2,750 words (10% either way is allowable) and significant

emphasis is placed on your ability to source and evaluate a wide range of sources covering the topic

and in your ability to synthesis and draw your own conclusions. It is important that the report is well

structured, easy to read, and demonstrates a good level of background research with emphasis

placed on your own analysis. You do not need to include your references, diagrams and tables in the

word count, only the main body of the text and you must state the word count at the end of the

report.

—

The submission requires to be in report format and should follow the breakdown below:

• Front page: a standard sheet which identifies you, the module concerned, etc.
• Table of Contents: This should break the report down into sections, starting at Section 1: Introduction – through to Section 5: List of References. You may also what to add below your table of contents a numerically ordered list of figures and tables if relevant. Remember to include the page numbers relevant.
• Introduction: This is an important part to your submission worth 5% of your total mark and should include:
• A brief outline of the relevance of MMC to the current situation, including an example reference to highlight an issue.
• An explanation of the context of the submission – this is to help the reader understand the role that you are playing in the preparation of the submission – ie – consultant asked to provide this report.
• Actual project – short outline of the development.
• Outline of the objectives to be addressed by the submission
• Review of the evolution of MMC to the current point: This section does not require any descriptions of actual MMC systems, but needs to focus on explaining synoptically the development of MMC and the drivers of change that have facilitated this up to the present day situation, focusing more on where we are at the moment and highlighting construction sector issues that MMC could/can address. This section will be worth 20% of your total mark, therefore break up your word count on this basis. Additionally it requires evidence [references] to justify the commentary you are making, this is not your thoughts but evidence based.
• Analysis of Two identified MMC methods: Analysis of Two identified MMC methods – This is the main section of your submission worth 50% of your total mark. It’s expected that you will identify the two methods of MMC that you are going to compare. Using 3+ comparison issues to form the basis of this, i.e speed of construction, fire performance/resistance, and cost of construction – for both MMCs. Other issues to consider: stability/structural performance, acoustic/thermal performance & services integration. A key part in all of this will be the depth of analysis against your identified issues, this can only be addressed by suitable technical/ data/information references to highlight the capabilities of the MMC in the context of the issue being considered. It’s strongly recommended you refer to text /tables/figures. IMPORTANT: You do not need to explain the MMC systems themselves – focus only on their capabilities in the issues you have identified for comparison – make good use of the word count. Always state the primary document not the weblink. Make sure you cross –reference any table/figure you show back into your text discussion.
• Conclusion/Recommendations: You should then, based on the evidence shown in your previous section, make conclusions about what the pro’s and con’s of each MMC system are and make a recommendation to the client based on this. You should not introduce any new information at this stage, all of this relates to what previously been discussed. This is worth 20% of your total mark, therefore make sure this is suitably addressed.
• List of References

—

The two MMCs to consider:

• Pre-fabricated Cross-wall/Crosswall concrete MMC system (Bison is older version)

AND

• Modular shipping container MMC system OR

2)    Cross laminated timber (CLT) MMC system

—

HARVARD BRITISH STANDARD REFERENCING