It has been a while since I defended my PhD thesis—an experience that now feels like both yesterday and a distant dream. The days following the defence were swallowed by a web of administrative requirements, final submissions, and the strange emotional vacuum that comes once the adrenaline wears off.Since then, I’ve been asked one particular question countless times: “How did you manage to complete your PhD in three years?” Well, in fact, a bit less than three years. And while I always try to give an honest answer, I find that the question itself deserves a bit more unpacking. Because, simply put: yes, it is entirely possible to complete a PhD in three years. However, whether one should focus on that specific timeframe is an entirely different argument. So, in this highly personal reflection, I want to talk about the realities—both subtle and stark—of doing a PhD on a fast timeline. Not as a how-to guide, but as a window into what it meant for me, and why I think the timeframe is something we need to talk about more openly.   The Myth of the Three-Year PhD   There’s a kind of unspoken mystique around finishing a PhD “on time,” especially in the UK where three years is often considered the standard. People hear "three years" and assume a kind of academic sprint—where discipline, brilliance, and planning align perfectly to cross the finish line. But in practice, finishing within that window depends on a complex interplay of factors: institutional support, supervision quality, personal motivation, life circumstances, research feasibility, and yes, luck. In my case, one of the most decisive factors was the unwavering support and guidance of my supervisors: Professor Karim Hadjri and Dr. Krzysztof Nawratek. They weren’t just academic mentors—they were allies throughout the process. Their feedback was consistently sharp, constructive, and timely, allowing me to stay on track without the prolonged silences that many doctoral researchers unfortunately experience. They understood the rhythm of the PhD journey, and they respected the intensity of the path I chose to take. I should also acknowledge the significant role of the RE-DWELL project consortium in providing comprehensive support. For example, I didn’t worry too much about data collection, as secondments were already integrated into the project. I always knew there were highly specialised contributors I could consult and ask for help when needed. I was also given the freedom to develop my own ideas while being guided by researchers who genuinely cared about both the research and the researcher. That made a huge difference—not just in finishing on time, but in emerging from the PhD with confidence and clarity. But I want to be very clear: none of this made it easy, nor should it suggest that a PhD should be limited to a three-year timeframe.   What It Actually Feels Like – My Strategy for a Sustained Rhythm   If I were to sum it up, it feels like constantly living in the tension between focus and exhaustion. On the one hand, there’s a deep satisfaction in watching your work come together in a concentrated period of time. There’s clarity that comes from momentum—a rhythm that can carry you forward through difficult patches. On the other hand, it’s intense. The emotional and intellectual toll of sustaining deep engagement with one topic for nearly three years—without long breaks, without fully detaching—is not insignificant. Burnout is a real risk. There were months where writing consumed my weekends, and weeks where I didn’t sleep well because a paragraph or argument just wouldn’t settle. You get to the end, yes—but sometimes, you're not sure which version of you has actually arrived. Balancing both my doctoral work and the demands of the RE-DWELL project required more than just time management—it required clarity. Out of this necessity, I developed a simple but effective framework I now refer to as CPA: Categorise, Prioritise, Act. C – Categorise: I began by classifying my activities into core areas — such as research, teaching, writing, and public engagement. This helped me see the broader picture, rather than drowning in a long, unstructured to-do list. P – Prioritise: I then assigned levels of urgency to each task — immediate, high, medium, or low. This allowed me to be realistic about what needed attention now and what could wait without consequence. A – Act: Finally, I allocated time and energy to each task based on both its urgency and its relevance. I learned to distinguish between what was critical and what was simply noise. Not everything needed to be done right away — and not everything needed to be done by me. CPA became more than a productivity tool. It was a mindset that helped me navigate a high-pressure environment with competing demands. Most importantly, it gave me permission to be selective — to stay focused without feeling guilty for not doing everything, all the time.   Why the Timeframe Matters   Some might ask, “Why not just take longer and reduce the pressure?” And that’s a fair question. But the answer isn’t always so simple. For many of us, time is a structural constraint. Funding runs out. Visas expire. Life commitments press in. The pressure to finish "on time" isn’t just internal—it’s embedded in the system. And yet, I believe we should stop treating the three-year finish line as the gold standard of a successful PhD. It's a milestone, yes, but not a measure of academic worth. Some of the most thoughtful, nuanced, and field-defining PhDs I’ve read were written over four or even five years. Some needed time to mature, to pivot, to deal with life. So when people ask me how I did it, I answer honestly. But I also try to reframe the conversation: “It’s not about how fast you go. It’s about what kind of researcher you become along the way.”   Final Thoughts: It's a Journey, Not a Deadline   Completing a PhD in under three years was a massive achievement, and I’m proud of it. But I’m also aware that it came at a cost. There were things I had to say no to. Moments of rest I had to postpone. Conferences I couldn’t attend, and connections I didn’t build. Would I do it the same way again? Honestly, I’m not sure.  What I do know is this: speed should never be the only lens through which we measure doctoral success. Let’s talk more openly about the different paths through a PhD. Let’s make room for the slow thinkers, the deep feelers, the ones who need time. And for those who choose or need to finish quickly: I see you too. I hope you’re taking care of yourself after the storm.

Spending a month at Casais, a leader in industrialised construction, was an enlightening chapter in my academic journey. This secondment offered a unique opportunity to deepen my understanding on multi-family housing projects built with industrialised methods and explore ways to integrate customisation strategies within their processes. From semi-structured interviews with diverse practitioners to factory and site visits, the experience provided rich insights into both the potential and challenges of industrialised construction.   The cornerstone of my secondment was the series of interviews I conducted with key professionals across Casais and Blufab, its manufacturing division. Engaging with individuals like Miguel Pires, Technical Director, and Filipa Rocha, Project Coordinator, helped me appreciate the transdisciplinary collaboration integral to their operations. These conversations revealed how industrialised construction can optimise time, reduce waste, and enhance environmental sustainability through precision and digitisation.   Highlights included discussions on how prefabricated components, built in controlled environments, become traceable material banks that reduce lifecycle costs. Equally interesting were the efficiency gains from high levels of digitisation, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), and collaborative tools like a Common Data Environment (CDE). These enable effective coordination, clash control, and integration of learning loops to refine fabrication processes.   However, the interviews also shed light on significant barriers to customisation. A major challenge is the mismatch between traditional design approaches and industrialised systems like CREE or Blufab. Often, projects arriving at Casais are not designed with these systems and their constraints in mind, leading to inefficiencies when attempting to "industrialise" them post-design. Economic limitations and low digitisation further restrict flexibility, highlighting the need for early decision-making and client commitment to reap the full benefits of industrialised methods.   Factory visit to Blufab: Precision and Potential   At Blufab, I observed the production of bathroom pods—a fascinating glimpse into how standardisation and customisation could intersect. Each pod's light steel frame is pre-cut, labelled with unique codes, and mechanically assembled, ensuring both precision and future disassembly potential. Additionally, a Kanban system tracks assembly progress digitally, allowing managers to address delays promptly.   The potential for customisation in Casais’ assembly line lies in a catalogue of standard wall dimensions that enable variability while maintaining efficiency. However, introducing greater diversity in panel sizes can slow production, a challenge that could be addressed with increased automation. Sustainable innovations, such as replacing concrete bases with lightweight solutions and transitioning to horizontal tile installation, demonstrate how Casais continually refines its processes.   On-site at Valença   My visit to a student housing project in Valença offered a firsthand view of industrialised assembly. The structure and façade, built with the CREE system, and 3D bathroom pods exemplified just-in-time delivery and reduced on-site storage needs. Observing the interplay between traditional construction elements and prefabricated components highlighted the importance of understanding tolerances and sequencing for seamless assembly. Furthermore, analysing interconnected systems as a whole, rather than in isolation, proved vital for understanding the complex dynamics of industrialised construction.   Although the project’s standardised design suited its purpose as student housing, it highlighted the trade-offs between flexibility and efficiency. Insights from this visit will inform strategies for balancing standardisation and customisation in more varied housing typologies.   Towards a platform approach   One of the most promising takeaways from my secondment was recognising the potential of the platform approach. Unlike the current focus on standardising entire buildings, standardising individual components, its fabrication processes, controlling its supply chain and storing the company’s expertise, could enable greater flexibility and scalability. This shift could support customisation while maintaining efficiency, allowing  Casais to improve its housing solutions.   Reflections for my research   The secondment built on methodologies I developed during my earlier placements at La Salle and TU Delft. It allowed me to evaluate the industrialisation degree of a multi-family housing case study and identify barriers and enablers to implement mass customisation. By engaging with the professionals at Casais, I gained a deeper understanding of transdisciplinary collaboration’s role in fostering innovation.   These insights will nurture the study I am developing, outlining short-, medium-, and long-term strategies to integrate flexibility into industrialised housing projects. This approach aligns with Casais' broader goals of improving efficiency, sustainability, and adaptability in their construction systems.   All in all, my time at Casais reinforced the importance of bridging traditional construction mindsets with innovative approaches. By fostering collaboration and leveraging digital technologies, we can unlock the full potential of industrialised construction to create more resilient, adaptable housing solutions for the future.

The housing crisis in Catalonia, as in much of Europe, has left many people struggling to access stable and affordable homes, as recently evidenced by the recent massive housing demonstrations. This reflects growing public frustration with raising rents and a speculative housing market that prioritizes profit over people. In this context, Sostre Civic has emerged as a key advocate for alternative housing models, challenging the dominance of speculative and profit-driven approaches. During my secondment with Sostre Civic, I had the opportunity to visit several projects, engage with residents, participate in activities organized by the cooperative and its various groups, and deepen my understanding of this alternative housing model.   A Democratic Approach to Housing Founded in 2004, Sostre Civic is a non-profit cooperative that serves as an umbrella organization to support housing cooperative groups. Over the past decade, the organization has significantly scaled up, creating and supporting a diverse range of housing projects. These initiatives offer varied typologies, tenure models, group compositions, and approaches to accessing land, achieving the diversification of the housing landscape. Membership in Sostre Cívic is open to everyone, allowing individuals to contribute to the collective governance of the organization and shape its mission. Decisions are made collectively, ensuring that the cooperative remains grounded in the values and needs of its members. Cooperative housing projects are not independent initiatives within Sostre Civic; they are integral to the organization as a whole. This means that residents are members of Sostre Cívic and must meet social housing criteria. Currently Sostre Civic has: 25 housing projects, spanning urban and rural contexts. A growing membership of over 1500 members. Numerous groups in the process of forming new housing initiatives. Projects have spread from the city of Barcelona to the rest of Catalonia This expansion reflects the increasing demand for non-speculative, people-centered housing solutions.   Housing Through the Right-of-Use Model Central to Sostre Cívic’s mission is the right-of-use model, which moves away from traditional ownership and rental systems. This model operates based on key principles: Collective Ownership: The property is either retained by the cooperative or held publicly, ensuring it remains permanently outside speculative markets and serves as a long-term resource for affordable housing. Residents manage their project collectively and enjoy indefinite rights to live in the building. Affordability: Members pay an initial entry fee and a monthly fee, both of which are designed to be significantly lower than market rates. These fees are directly tied to the costs of the project and are not influenced by real estate market fluctuations. In this direction, Sostre Civic has created the first cooperative construction company in Catalonia. Stability and Flexibility: Residents have long-term housing security while retaining the option to transfer their right of use if they choose to leave, ensuring flexibility and accessibility for new members. This model not only provides housing security but also safeguards affordability for future generations, creating a sustainable alternative to speculative property markets.   Advocacy for Systemic Change In addition to developing and supporting housing projects, Sostre Cívic is also advocating for systemic change in housing policy. The organization tries to address structural barriers and promote cooperative housing as a viable solution to the housing crisis. Their advocacy efforts include: Promoting access to public land for cooperative housing projects, ensuring land serves social purposes rather than speculative interests. Simplifying bureaucratic processes to facilitate the creation and expansion of non-speculative housing. Developing financing mechanisms to access private land and support new projects, making cooperative housing accessible to a wider and more diverse population. Raising public awareness of cooperative housing as a scalable and effective solution to the housing crisis. Through these efforts, Sostre Civic works to embed cooperative housing into broader housing policies, ensuring the long-term viability and growth of this model.   By studying the cases of Sostre Civic, I had the opportunity to witness that alternative approaches to housing provision and ways of dwelling are possible. While challenges remain, the grant-of-use model has been evolving, providing valuable experimentation and insights into creating more equitable and sustainable ways to address housing needs.