Industrialized Building System (IBS) Q3

Barriers
The availability of cheap foreign labour which offset the cost benefit of using IBS is a root cause of the slow adoption.

It also relates to sheer cost of investment and the inadequacy of market size. Small contractors are already familiar with the conventional system and for them the technology suit well with small scale projects and therefore not willing to switch to mechanised based system.

Furthermore, small contractors lack financial backup and are not able to set up their own manufacturing plants as it involves very intensive capital investment (Rahman and Omar, 2006).

It was highlighted by many that the idealism, processes and management and skill sets behind IBS is differs from the traditional method. Lack of knowledge in IBS construction technology is equally important. There are cases, where building projects are awarded and constructed using IBS system but were contribute to the project delays and bad qualities. This has leaves the industry with a noticeable difficulties when using IBS. As a result, the industry is reluctant to embrace in IBS unless it is required by the clients.

A wider understanding on the characteristics and what is involved in IBS is needed. There is a critical need to manage the design and manufacturing differently from the traditional way as IBS is different and needs a different mindset along with the right environment.

Rethinking the old processes is now critical if the industry is to move forward. There are consensuses of opinions that IBS best handled as a holistic process rather than just a collection of technological solutions. The approach requires total synchronisation on construction, manufacturing and design processes. It needs emphasis on rationalisation, standardisation, repetition, collaboration, supply chain partnering and more effective planning and project management.

Clearly, the benefits offered by IBS are immense and plausible. It has been six years since the launching of the IBS Roadmap 2003 and is about the end of the mission of industrialising construction. The construction industry‟s stakeholders are little bit sceptical on using IBS product. It is pertinent to examine the progress and how close to the completion of the mission to date. More importantly, it is imperative to evaluate whether the implementation of the roadmap has met the market response to the IBS programme so far. Most policy issues have been resolved and implemented, while all relevant documents required to support the programme have been developed. In particular activities under the charge of CIDB are all meeting their datelines. Notwithstanding these achievements a number of implementation snags were identified as being potential hurdles to the implementation of the roadmap.

Warszawski (1999) pointed out some of the barriers in implementing industrialisation in construction industry. There are decline in demand and volatile of building market make an investment in IBS more risky compared to conventional labour intensive method. Prefabrication elements are considered inflexible with respect to changes with may required over its life span. At university level student are less exposed to technology, organization and design of industrialised building system. An adaptation of standardization requires a tremendous education and training effort. Standardization of building elements face resistance from construction industry due to aesthetics reservation and economic reasons (Kampempool et al, 1986).

Trikha (1999) cited the hindrance to the use of IBS due to lack of assessment criteria set by the approving authorities to urge the developers to use IBS. Poor response from the construction players to modular coordination despite heavy promotions and incentives from the government is also a hindrance to the successive implementation of IBS in Malaysia. As a result, partial introduction of IBS such as lintels and staircase has not been successful compare to the traditional cast in situ design.

Meanwhile, Lim (2006) also highlighted ICT issues, which are concern with the data and information available to the system, users, clients, establishment of manufacturing layout and process, as well as allocation of resources and materials. Transportation of panels and modules is much more difficult than transporting the sum of their part. A 20 percent damage rate is not unusual during the first couple of years in IBS project.

Thanoon et. al. (2003) also highlighted cheap labour cost is the main barriers to the expedition of IBS. There are wide swing in house demands, whereas mainly caused by the high interest rate and low performance in economical factor. He also pointed out lack of skilled construction workforce which severe the situation. The nature characteristics of construction project which are fragmented, diverse and involve many parties. There lack of local R&D and novel building system that use local material, which makes IBS often relies to imported technology from other countries. There are also insufficient incentive and promotion from the government to use IBS.

Rationality of IBS depend on many factors; design, standard, volume and consistency (Payne, 1977). The government of Malaysia still feels that the usage of IBS is still low despite the plausible potential. From the survey conducted by CIDB Malaysia in 2003, the usage level of IBS in local construction industry stands at 15 percent (CIDB, 2003b). Zuihairi et al (2008) reported that most of locally developed products are based on traditional materials such as reinforced concrete and the most innovative materials are based on imported technology. There is no mandatory requirement on any certification or accreditation of components, companies or installers in place.

Rahman et al (2006) pointed out the hurdles in IBS implementation, which reflected that the transport and joining skill cannot overcome inadequate in volume, fixed cost of machinery and structure can push unit cost up if demand is insufficient, which often is the case of absence of public sector support. If considered the additional management and sales cost, the total amount of savings by adopting IBS would be less than 10 percent. Installation of heavier and more complex components would further raise the capital costs, volume requirements and uncertainty.

IBS cannot save the overall labour cost by spending more lighter-weight component, which warrants more labour cost. Any reported larger saving was not due to increase of efficiency of IBS, but mainly due to reduction of quality or to use less land, where this is not the true intention of IBS. Low labour cost of the clay- brick industry using rudimentary technique and unskilled labour has made labour intensive methods able to compete successfully with a production process.

More serious is the problem of making joints, locking, gluing, welding, hammering or snapping components together which need time and experience for perfection and reduced wastage. Performance of high quality components is often offset by patchwork or poor fits and by early cracks. Moreover, the method itself involving mechanized system and skilled worker introduces demand of precision not needed in other method. A country cannot afford to build large volume of dwelling or close the housing deficit fast regardless of time saving if these are to be built with imported mould and cranes. Speed of construction converted to monetary saving is very small.

Rahman et al (2006) further added to the list of challenges to adopt IBS in Malaysian construction industry is that the term IBS is often misinterpreted with negative meaning linked with 1960‟s industrial building. These building are normally associated with low quality of building and unpleasant architecture appearance. The industry is lack of knowledge and exposure to IBS technology and design. There is lack of local design feasible of IBS system in the market to fulfil the requirements. This has something to deal with the lack of general awareness among construction players themselves.

Hussein (2007) also highlighted the barriers in implementation of IBS are mainly the mindset problem towards achieving acceptance by the construction community. The costs of using IBS exceed the conventional method of construction given the ease of securing cheap immigrant labour. IBS design concept is not being taken into consideration at the onset of the project Designers will not design using components as they not find the components in the market, whilst producers will not produce components as they do not see design using components .He also pointed out that there are unenthusiastic acceptance of IBS among designers and developers especially from private sectors.

Lim (2006) stated the following shortcoming in his research to IBS implementation in Malaysia. He also pointed out the structure of construction industry is considered fragmented where the whole supply chain get their own strategy and agenda. The problems faced by the construction industry are also due to inconsistency of policy guideline implementation and support from the government.

The industry is uncompetitive due to lack of open collaboration. Contractors in Malaysia are obligate to close system and getting supply from the same manufacture throughout the construction. IBS need mass production to achieve economic viability. However, in Malaysia there is no assurance of continuity in the production of components. Local authorities are unlikely to make change in local building regulations that require a lot of time and cost to establish legislative economic condition Contractors are keen on conventional method because they are familiar with the method. Changing method or trade will need more investment to train the workers, least or buy machinery. As a result small contractors are not interested in IBS.

Realising the implementation of IBS is still to make headway, CIDB through its research arm, Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM) has taken the initiative from the problem identified earlier and continued to conduct three series of IBS workshops session with the industry between 2006 and 2007. After a lengthy deliberation with the stakeholders, it was concluded that the factors contributing to the delays of IBS implementation and other issues related to IBS are lack of push factor for authorities and responsible government bodies by laws and regulations. The professionals in Malaysia are lack of technical knowledge about IBS components.

IBS require onsite specialized skills for assembly and erection of components, where there are lack of these supportive specialists. There is also lack of special equipments and machinery which hampered work. The mismatch between readiness of industries with IBS targets by the government prone to be crucial. Participation from Bumiputera contractors as an erectors or manufactures was also insufficient. There is lack of building projects for contractors to secure project in construction.

The main reasons for the low adoption of IBS in Malaysia as stated in Construction Industry Master Plan (CIMP 2006-2015) are lack of integration in design stage and poor knowledge. IBS manufacturers are currently involved only after design stage. This lack of integration among relevant players in design stage has resultant in need for plan redesign and additional cost to be incurred if IBS is adopted. Client and approving authorities have poor knowledge of IBS compared to architects and engineers. Familiarity with IBS concept and its benefits is vital to its success because IBS requires different approach in construction.

The barriers of IBS implementation in Malaysia can be summarised and categorised in several themes, which are standardisation and quality issues, issues in consumer perception, issues in professional perception, process and supply chain, technology, training and education, finance and costing, incentive and communication issues.