Back to Esr

Carolina Martín

ESR14

Carolina Martin is an experienced Architect with strong interests in affordable housing, adaptability and digital fabrication. She holds a Bachelor and Master degree in Architecture from the Polytechnic University of Valencia (2014) and a Master of Advanced Studies in Collective Housing from the Polytechnic University of Madrid and ETH Zürich (2019). Her final thesis “Coworking en el Cabanyal” was awarded with the Eduardo Torroja Award 2014 for its structural and constructive complexity, reinterpreting the traditional use of materials and repairing the city's urban fabric.

She has worked in several international offices in Valencia, London and Rotterdam, gaining professional experience in residential, office and mixed-use developments in different cultural backgrounds such as London, Japan or Taiwan. Her expertise in BIM has been an essential tool to design in an efficient, precise and agile way, especially in the technical and construction stages.

She believes that architecture should be a tool at the service of people, with the capacity to regenerate the city and help solve the current needs in society. Through the use of innovation, knowledge, research and addressing contemporary needs with the current digital tools, architecture should provide mass-customized solutions at a low cost and in a sustainable framework. She is confident that creating tailor-made dwellings and promoting circularity and adaptability will enhance a resilient and affordable housing stock.

Research topic

Updated sumaries

June, 23, 2023

May, 19, 2022

February, 28, 2022

Mass customisation of multi-family housing through affordable and sustainable industrialised construction

 

Mass Customisation (MC) is a broad term that has been in constant evolution since it was first suggested in 1987.  MC is a process by which a company approaches its production in a customer-centric manner, developing products and services according to the needs and requirements of each individual customer, keeping costs near to mass production. This concept is strongly linked to the Open Building theory that emerged during the 80s influenced by Habraken’s ideas which enabled dwellings to be in a continuous evolution by grouping its elements into different control levels, allowing participation and freedom of choice. Industrialised Construction (IC) methods have the potential to leverage mass production techniques, optimising processes, standardising components, and achieving economies of scale.

 

The existing housing stock does not respond to the varied needs of the current households, nor is resilient enough to adapt to the future ones. Promoting mass customised housing involving all stakeholders in the process would result in a much more valuable, adaptable, and sustainable built environment. This flexibility can support long-term affordability by allowing homeowners to modify their homes rather than moving or undertaking costly renovations. It can also contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing waste and promoting an efficient use of resources. While mass customisation is a practice that has been implemented in other manufacturing industries and in the single-family housing market, it has not yet been implemented into multi-family housing. There is a lack of research on how to develop a product platform that aligns the variety of products to the variety of needs, based on different degrees of customisation. This is partly due to the lack of component standardisation, the slow digital integration, and the shortsighted strategies of the construction industry.

 

During the last decade there have been multiple attempts to find the right balance between the level of variety offered versus the need to standardise and adopt an economy of scale. Setting up the correct product platform is one of the operational challenges for a company to establish as a mass customiser. Many studies have examined how the location of the decoupling point in the value chain will have a decisive role in defining the level of customisation offered and consequently the manufacturing strategy of a product platform. Additionally, it has been detected that one of the elements hindering the optimisation of processes is the stratification and segregation between the different disciplines in de industry. Therefore, the product platform should be the result of a fruitful ongoing communication between the user’s needs, the internal capabilities of the IC company and all the stakeholders involved in the process.

 

This project will investigate the implementation of MC in multi-family housing through product platforms, identifying the design strategies, IC methods, biggest challenges and best practices.

Through a comparative case-study of the multi-family projects nominated to the EU Mies awards in the XXIst century, the research will develop a combined assessment methodology that integrates a taxonomic classification of the building components and the design strategies implemented at each building layer in conjunction with the degrees of customisation it holds, identifying level of customisation achieved. Subsequently, the research will select four multi-family housing projects from the European context with different levels customisation. Through an in-depth case study comparative analysis, it will evaluate the design flexibility, manufacturing efficiency and construction resiliency through a holistic framework, highlighting the major challenges in the design and construction processes, and evaluating its kit-of-parts. Finally, a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method would be used to evaluate and propose improvement strategies to implement mass customisation in an affordable housing project at Grupo Casais. Focus groups integrating different stakeholders will be used to evaluate the transferability of knowledge between disciplines and validating the improvement strategies proposed.

 

The proposed outputs will include a framework and guidelines to support multidisciplinary decision making when opting for industrialised systems of construction to effectively develop a product platform to allow mass customisation of internal layouts in affordable and sustainable multi-family housing.

Democratising housing design through Mass Customisation

A framework to implement mass customisation using industrialised methods of construction to deliver affordable and sustainable housing

 

Mass Customisation (MC) is a broad term that has been in continuous evolution since it was first suggested in 1987.  MC is a process by which a company approaches its production in a customer-centric manner, developing products and services according to the needs and requirements of each individual customer, keeping costs near to mass production. This concept is strongly linked to the Open Building theory that emerged during the 80s influenced by Habraken’s ideas which enabled dwellings to be in a continuous evolution by grouping its elements into different control levels, allowing participation and freedom of choice. Today, MC is increasingly demanded in multiple manufacturing industries, it is paramount to make use of the latest digital tools and industrialised methods of construction to implement it into the housebuilding industry.

 

The existing housing stock does not respond to the varied needs of the current households, nor is resilient enough to adapt to the future ones. Promoting mass-customised housing involving all stakeholders in the process would result in a much more valuable, adaptable, and sustainable built environment. During the last decade there have been multiple attempts to find the right balance between the level of variety offered versus the need to standardise and adopt an economy of scale. Several studies have drawn their attention into how users prioritise their customisation needs and the way these could be integrated in the Industrial Construction business strategy. Setting up the correct solution space is one of the operational challenges for a company to establish as a mass customiser. Many studies have examined how the location of the decoupling point in the value chain will have a decisive role in defining the level of customisation offered and consequently the solution space. Additionally, it has been detected that one of the elements hindering the optimisation of processes is the stratification and segregation between the different disciplines in de industry. Therefore, the solution space should be the result of a fruitful ongoing communication between the user’s needs, the internal capabilities of the IC company and all the stakeholder involved in the process. Despite its importance for the integration of MC in the delivery of housing, there is little research about it.

 

This project will investigate the implementation of MC in the housebuilding industry through a transdisciplinary approach, using industrial and sustainable building methods and incorporating ICTs such as BIM. The research will select three case studies from the European context that have been completed with different levels of industrialisation. Through a cross-case study comparative method, it will evaluate to what extent the systems have an impact on the customisation possibilities, the role of the diverse actors in the construction process, and the implications on optimisation and scalability. A research through design method will be used to compile all the gained knowledge into a tool that will be tested by industry partners as Grupo Casais and other stakeholders to evaluate the transferability of knowledge between disciplines and showcase the relationship between the levels of industrialisation and the types of customisation.

 

The proposed outputs will include a framework and guidelines to develop a solution space using industrialised methods of construction to deliver mass-customised affordable and sustainable housing.

Reference documents

Icon document

Key topics diagram

View

A framework to implement mass-customization in industrial construction companies to deliver affordable and sustainable housing 

 

Mass Customization (MC) is a broad term that has been in continuous evolution since it was first suggested in 1987.  MC is a process by which a company approaches its production in a customer-centric manner, developing products and services according to needs and requirements of each individual customer, keeping costs near to mass production. This concept is strongly linked to the Open Building (OB) theory that emerged during the 80s influenced by Habraken’s ideas which enabled dwellings to be in a continuous evolution by grouping its elements into different control levels, allowing participation and freedom of choice. Today, MC is increasingly demanded in multiple manufacturing industries, it is paramount to make use of the latest ICT tools to implement it into the housebuilding industry.

 

Currently, most of the affordable housing developers invest in efficient and profitable mass dwellings, reducing the typologies to the bare minimum for the sake of higher economical revenue and therefore not responding to contemporary varied family structures and necessities. Promoting mass-customized housing involving all stakeholders in the process would result in much more valuable, resilient and sustainable buildings. During the last decade there have been multiple attempts to find the right balance between the level of variety offered versus the need to standardize and adopt an economy of scale. Several studies have drawn their attention into how users prioritize their customization needs in order to integrate them in the Industrial Construction (IC) business strategy. Setting up the correct solution space is one of the operational challenges for a company to become mass customizer of affordable and sustainable housing.  The solution space should be the result of a fruitful ongoing communication between the user’s needs and the internal capabilities of the company. Despite its importance, there is little research about it.

 

This project will investigate the implementation of mass customization in the housebuilding industry through a transdisciplinary approach, using industrial and sustainable building methods and incorporating ICTs such as BIM. Through a qualitative methodology approach, the thesis will analyze current industrial building methods in collaboration with Casais, to assess the flexibility and constraints of the different levels of industrialization in order to define the optimal workflow to develop a system capable of providing adaptable units. The research will assess the sustainability of the system based on multiple factors, such as the fulfilment of the user’s needs, the reduction of construction waste and the implementation of the shearing layers of change, supported by case studies of the OB concept. The proposed outputs will include a framework and guidelines to develop a solution space utilizing BIM for an IC company to deliver mass-customized affordable and sustainable housing.

Blog

Recent activity

Icon towards-flexible-and-industrialised-housing-solutions

Towards flexible and industrialised housing solutions

Posted on 24-02-2023

Near the end of 2022 I had the chance to complete my first secondment of two months at La Salle, in Barcelona. This was a great opportunity to understand how the municipality of Barcelona, architecture firms and industry partners are developing more flexible and sustainable housing solutions that can accommodate new family structures and different ways of habitation.  Furthermore, it became the perfect occasion to reconnect with the state of the industry in my home country, increase my network of contacts and work hand-in-hand with my co-supervisor Nuria Martí.      Within the Spanish territory, Barcelona is the city leading change with innovative housing solutions, promoting the creation of non-hierarchical and resilient distributions, and incentivising the use of industrialised construction through public competitions. This change of paradigm is not only increasing the current affordable housing stock, but is integrating new actors in the decision-making process through participatory practices.    The main goal of my secondment was to develop a case study assessment methodology that would combine a taxonomical classification of the building systems and highlight the design strategies for each of the building layers (structure, façade, access and circulation, services and internal dividing elements). Ultimately, correlating these criteria with the type of customisation offered in the domestic space. Besides helping me establish the parameters to compare and classify the housing case studies, the interviews to practitioners also shed some light on some of the challenges ahead.   Support and infill   Habraken’s (1961) critical response to mass housing proposed an approach in which a dwelling should encourage adaptation and become an instrument to empower the user. This approach took into account different needs and time horizons dividing the building into 2 groups: the long-life components that constitute the communal structure, and the short-life components that respond to individual needs and can be modified without hindering the overall integrity of the system. This concept is strongly related to what Steward Brand (1995) proposed with his ‘Shearing layers of change’, which emphasized these layers to be differentiated according to their particular lifespans. Building upon the mentioned authors, Bernard Leupen (2006) suggested that it is precisely the permanence of the frame (known as support in the Open Building movement) that enables the generic space to be altered, extended or used in a variety of ways. More recently, Jeremy Till and Tatjana Schneider (2007) conveyed the idea that “the most productive approach to prefabrication for flexible housing is probably not one that invents new systems from scratch, but one that assembles existing prefabricated elements in an adaptable manner.”   My research is therefore using a set of case studies to analyse the design strategies, construction system and level of industrialisation per building layer, identifying those that belong to the support, and defining the type and degree of customisation offered to the infill.   Non-hierarchical spaces   Due to the increasing variety of family structures and the pressing need to design resilient dwellings that can be adapted to future needs, recent housing developments in Barcelona are proposing non-hierarchical distributions. Spatial polyvalence is essential to enable the flexibility for user customisation (Hertzberger, 1991). Flexibility has become a prerequisite for today’s collective housing solutions and, moreover, it is a strategy that promotes gender equality in distributions. Gender equality seeks to break with the traditional role division in the domestic space and promotes the involvement of all family members in the household tasks, for example by bringing the kitchen to a visible and central position as opposed to secluded and closed-off (Montaner et al., 2019).   An example of a non-hierarchical, flexible and gender-equal solution is the award-winning 85 social housing units in Cornellà by Peris + Toral Arquitectes which proposes a matrix of connected rooms that allow the user to inhabit the space in multiple ways. The 3.6 x 3.6 module promotes porous distributions, non-linear circulation, and adaptability throughout time. This is also the case in the Illa Glòries by Cierto Estudio, which I was lucky enough to interview while on my secondment. Aiming to create versatile homes that can be adapted to the tenant’s changing needs in a simple and reversible way, the connections between adjacent spaces are multiplied while the corridors are removed. A central room ‘rótula’, makes it possible to create diagonal visual connections and increase the circulation possibilities while conferring independence to the surrounding rooms. This matrix of non-hierarchical rooms creates a dynamic housing aggregation system, where the limits of the flats have the potential to vary and different layouts are possible.   Industrialised public housing   In order to promote the use of industrialised construction methods, the IMHAB (Institut Municipal de l’Habitatge I Rehabilitació de Barcelona) has created several public housing competitions where the architect, the consultants and the construction company had to work collaboratively from the early stages of the design. Some of the objectives the IMHAB sought to achieve through these public competitions were the acceleration of the production processes, the reduction of the carbon footprint, the increase of the quality of the buildings and shortening the execution time. The resolution of the proposals shows a growing interest in the use of engineered timber components such as CLT or glulam. The design teams highlighted several benefits in using this material as the reduction of the embodied emissions, the lower costs of foundations due to a lighter structure, or the increased precision when prefabricating components with computerised numerical control (CNC). Additionally, companies as 011h are collaborating with design teams to digitalise their kit of parts in such way that the data can be utilised throughout the entire process of design, manufacturing and assembly. This high level of digitisation requires a greater coordination between stakeholders on early stages of the design and could become a tool to provide mass-customised dwellings at an affordable price.   However, the slow adoption of digital technologies, limited wood suppliers, and the strict Fire Safety and Acoustic regulations in Spain, have become major barriers when using engineered timber in housing. To comply with the regulations, most of the projects had to incorporate wet screeds after the dry construction, hindering the possibility to disassemble the components for future reuse or recycling.   Flexible housing solutions   Flexibility is necessary to allow for the customisation of housing in the short term and ensure the adaptability in the long term. The way architects and industry professionals define the built environment impacts enormously on the transformation capacity that housing has to incorporate different needs over time. This flexibility is tightly linked to dimensions, design strategies and construction systems, and can contribute to a democratisation of design by integrating new voices in the process. Barcelona turned out to be an extremely useful secondment to understand how some of these strategies and construction systems are implemented in practice.     References   Brand, S. (1995). How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. Penguin Books.   Habraken, N. J. (1961). Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003014713   Herman Hertzberger. (1991). Lessons for Students in Architecture. 010 Publishers.   Leupen, B. (2006). Frame and Generic Space. 010 Publishers.   Montaner, J. M., Buron, J., Mira, A., Valiño, V., Prats, M., Font, G., Ventura, N., & Palay, J. (2019). Flexibilidad e igualdad de  género en la vivienda.   Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2007). Flexible housing. Elsevier.

Secondments

Read more ->
Icon rebuild-2022-madrid-the-foundations-are-set-for-a-promising-construction-industry

Rebuild 2022 Madrid | The foundations are set for a promising construction industry

Posted on 03-05-2022

In a rapidly changing world where the world’s urban population is increasing by 200,000 people per day and the global carbon emissions of the construction sector are 30%, there is a pressing need to provide an affordable and sustainable housebuilding industry. The integration of modern innovative techniques in the construction sector can allow the rise of productivity and a higher democratisation of the built environment, having a direct impact on global economic, environmental, and societal issues. The Rebuild 2022 Conference that took in Madrid was an exciting event centred in how to boost the construction industry through innovation, circularity, and private-public investment. I found interesting to see the varied perspectives from different stakeholders of the construction business from construction companies, suppliers and fabricators to public entities, developers, architects, and software designers. All of them showed their particular response to the challenges the sector is undergoing from their own experience. Nevertheless, their different approaches converged in the necessity to increase the optimisation of processes, the required collaboration between all stakeholders and the need to embrace a full digitisation of the construction industry. The main topics discussed during the three-day conference were industrialisation, digitisation, and sustainability.   Industrialisation In order to meet the demand that the construction industry requires, we cannot continue building in a traditional way. An industrialisation of the business is needed to achieve the scalability of solutions and the adoption of lean construction methods. It is necessary to unify the architecture design with the constructive process from the initial stages. The selection of the MMC (Modern Method of Construction) and the logistics will have an influence on the design. Therefore, it is essential to invite the contractor, engineers and fabricators to collaborate with the developer and design team from the beginning to allow for an integrated project delivery and to optimise the manufacturing process. Most of the companies working in the housebuilding industry agreed that a system based on 2D components prefabricated off-site was the most effective currently, as it allowed for greater flexibility while at the same time reduced the construction time and minimised errors, keeping the transportation costs lower than with 3D elements. A few companies advocated that the use of 3D elements was beneficial when the room was a very compact one (e.g. bathrooms) and there were a high number of identical instances (e.g. hospitality industry).   Digitisation The fourth industrial revolution has accelerated dramatically the productivity in other industrial sectors, as the automotive, naval or aerospace, while in the construction sector the levels of automation are generally still low. In these industries, the use of the digital twin is the main driver of development and continuous learning. Several industry professionals pointed out that the lack of digital implementation in the construction industry has been one of the reasons why industrialised construction has not been broadly implemented in multi-family housing yet in Spain. Construction has always been a collaborative practice but without an adequate digitisation, it will remain fragmented. New innovations in technology should be implemented into the housebuilding industry as an added value to the sector and to the user. Some examples that could help in the digitisation of the industry would be the use of digital twins, allowing for traceability and monitoring throughout the design and construction process, increasing precision and minimising waste; the use of BIM as a design tool, data collector and collaborative environment, being able to give precise quantities and pricing from initial design stages, avoiding important price variations; or the introduction of automation and robotics to substitute manual labour in repetitive and dangerous activities.   Sustainability Decarbonization, net-zero buildings, and the use of wood as a circular material were some of the hot topics on the sustainability agenda. Likewise, the evaluation of LCCA (Life Cycle Cost Analysis)  and LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) have become vital to be able to make the right choices from the beggining. Sustainability, innovation, and technology are essential to overcome obsolescence, but to do so it is necessary to monitor the consumption throughout the entire building’s lifespan. In the race against climate change, wood is gaining greater support in the Spanish construction industry. A sector that has been for decades strongly defined by its concrete production, is starting to become aware of the advantages of building with circular materials. The industry has not only recognized that wood is a renewable material that retains heat, absorbs CO2, lasts longer, and can be recycled, but as well that it has a positive effect on the user’s physical and mental health, improving their wellbeing. Important housing developers are planning to reduce the CO2 emissions by 80% in their ongoing projects by using hybrid construction in wood, by increasing their level of industrialisation, and by improving their digitisation. Construtech companies are offering end-to-end services using platforms that integrate through technology all the stakeholders in a sustainable supply chain.   The construction sector has opened their eyes to realize what architects have been pursuing for a century. A user-centric approach where the wellbeing, passive design criteria and the planet are key in the decision-making. With the difference that today we have the technology and innovation to accept these challenges in an efficient way, monitoring and measuring our progress to take firm steps towards a more environmental, societal, and economic sustainability.   The Rebuild 2022 Conference showcased that the construction sector is in an exciting moment of transformation. The industry has laid the foundations to progress into a more industrialised, collaborative, efficient, and technological sector, to be able to offer sustainable and democratic quality housing at an affordable price.

Conferences

Read more ->

Case library

Contributions to the case library

Vocabulary

Contributions to the vocabulary

Flexibility

Industrialised Construction

Mass Customisation

Open Building

Product Platform

Area: Design, planning and building

Flexibility is defined as the ability and potential of a building to change, adapt, and rearrange itself in response to evolving needs and patterns, both in social and technological terms (Schneider & Till, 2007). Additionally, a flexible building can maximise its value throughout its lifecycle, reducing the need for demolition and new construction by becoming resilient to market demands (Schmidt III et al., 2010). When applied to housing, flexibility ensures that homes can respond to the volatility of dwelling needs. Changes in household occupancy impact space requirements, but these changes, such as variations in family size, structure, or lifestyle, are unpredictable and uncontrollable. Only a flexible housing system can effectively respond to both foreseeable and unforeseeable changes (Estaji, 2017). The concept of flexibility emerged during the modern movement, linked to the idea of the 'open plan,' which was stimulated by new construction technologies in the 1920s (Montaner et al., 2019). Decades later, theories about building flexibility and transformation by John Habraken and Yona Friedman encouraged the theory of supports and the experimentation with growing megastructures. The idea of Open Building is tightly linked to the concept of flexibility, as it advocates that everything except the structure and some circulation elements can be transformable through differentiating levels of intervention, distributing control, and encouraging user participation (Habraken, 1961). Many architects have argued that buildings should outlast their initial functions, emphasising the importance of flexibility to meet new housing demands. More recently, the works of Lacaton & Vassal highlight that flexibility should be achieved through the generosity of space. They believe that confined spaces for living, working, studying, or leisure inhibit freedom of use and movement, preventing any potential for evolution. Therefore, they are in favour of  providing much larger spaces, which through their flexibility, can be appropriated for various uses in private, public, and intermediate contexts (Lacaton & Vassal, 2017). The term flexibility should not be confused with adaptability, although they are often used synonymously in literature. Flexibility is the capability to allow different physical arrangements, while adaptability implies the capacity of a space to accommodate different social uses (Groak, 1996). Adaptability is attained by designing rooms or units to serve multiple purposes without making physical changes. This is achieved through the organisation of rooms, the indeterminate designation of spaces, and the design of circulation patterns, providing spatial polyvalency as seen in the Diagoon Houses by Herman Hertzberger. This de-hierarchisation of spaces allows the dwelling to serve various purposes without needing alterations to its original construction. More recently, this approach has facilitated the development of gender-neutral housing solutions, as seen in the 85 dwellings in Cornellà by Peris + Toral Arquitectes or the 110 Rooms by MAIO, making domestic tasks visible and encouraging the participation of all household members. Flexibility, on the other hand, is achieved by modifying the building's physical components, such as combining rooms or units, often using sliding or folding walls and furniture. A paradigmatic example of this flexibility is the Schröder House by Gerrit Thomas Rietveld in 1924. These changes can be either temporary or permanent, allowing the same space to meet different needs. Embedded flexibility in a building would allow for the partitionability, multi-functionality, and extendibility of spatial units in a simple way, meeting additional user demands (Geraedts, 2008). In relation to affordable and sustainable housing, flexibility plays a key role. “A sustainable building is not one that must last forever, but one that can easily adapt to change” (Graham, 2005). Implementing flexibility strategies can lead to efficient use of resources by designing housing that can be reconfigured as needs change, minimising the environmental footprint in the long term by avoiding early demolition. Incorporating Design for Disassembly practices would ease the adaptation of spaces and the circularity of building components, improving the building’s lifespan (Crowther, 2005). This approach also facilitates the incorporation of energy-efficient technologies and sustainable materials, reducing the operational costs of housing and enhancing affordability. Nevertheless, regulatory and societal challenges remain. Overcoming strict building standards, which often dictate room sizes and follow a hierarchical distribution of dwellings, has proven to be a significant challenge for the development of alternative and more flexible housing solutions. However, transdisciplinary collaboration among housing authorities, developers, architects, and users has shown to be highly effective in achieving high degrees of flexibility in both technical and regulatory aspects, as demonstrated in Patch 22 in Amsterdam.

Created on 19-06-2024

Author: C.Martín (ESR14)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Industrialised Construction, also referred to as Modern Methods of Construction in the UK (Ministry of Housing, 2019) and Conceptueel Bouwen (Conceptual Building) in the Netherlands (NCB, n.d.), is a broad and dynamic term encompassing innovative techniques and processes that are transforming the construction industry (Lessing, 2006; Smith & Quale, 2017). It is a product-based approach that reinforces continuous improvement, rather than a project-based one, and emphasises the use of standardised components and systems to improve build quality and achieve sustainability goals (Kieran & Timberlake, 2004).  Industrialised Construction can be based on using a kit-of parts and is often likened to a LEGO set, as well as the automotive industry's assembly line and lean production. Industrialisation in the construction sector presents a paradigm shift, driven by advancements in technology (Bock & Linner, 2015). It involves both off-site and on-site processes, with a significant portion occurring in factory-controlled conditions (Andersson & Lessing, 2017). Off-site construction entails the prefabrication of building components manufactured using a combination of two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D), and hybrid methods, where traditional construction techniques meet cutting-edge technologies such as robotic automation. Industrialised construction is not limited to off-site production, it also encompasses on-site production, including the emerging use of 3D printing or the deployment of temporary or mobile factories. Industrialised Construction increasingly leverages digital and industry 4.0 technologies, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), Internet of Things, big data, and predictive analysis (Qi et al., 2021). These processes and digital tools enable accurate planning, simulation, and optimisation of construction processes, resulting in enhanced productivity, quality, and resource management. It is important to stress that Industrialised Construction is not only about the physical construction methods, but also the intangible processes involved in the design and delivery of buildings. Industrialised construction offers several benefits across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. From an economic perspective, it reduces construction time and costs in comparison to traditional methods, while providing safer working conditions and eliminates delays due to adverse weather. By employing standardisation and efficient manufacturing processes, it enables affordable and social housing projects to be delivered in a shorter timeframe through economies of scale (Frandsen, 2017). On the social front, Industrialised Construction can enable mass customisation and customer-centric approaches, to provide more flexible solutions while maintaining economic feasibility (Piller, 2004). From an environmental standpoint, industrialised construction minimises waste generation during production by optimising material usage and facilitates the incorporation of Design for Disassembly (Crowther, 2005) and the potential reusability of building elements, promoting both flexibility and a Circular Economy (EC, 2020). This capability aligns with the principles of cradle-to-cradle design, wherein materials and components are continuously repurposed to reduce resource depletion and waste accumulation. Challenges remain in terms of overcoming misconceptions and gaining social acceptance, the slow digital transformation of the construction industry, high factory set-up costs, the lack of interdisciplinary integration of stakeholders from the initial stages, and adapting to unconventional workflows. However, Industrialised Construction will undoubtedly shape the future of the built environment, providing solutions for the increasing demand for sustainable and affordable housing (Bertram et al., 2019).

Created on 09-11-2023

Author: C.Martín (ESR14), A.Davis (ESR1)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Mass customisation (MC) is a process by which a company approaches its production in a customer-centric manner, developing products and services according to the needs and requirements of each individual customer, while keeping costs near to mass production (Piller, 2004). MC establishes a new relationship between producers and customers which becomes crucial in product development  (Khalili-Araghi & Kolarevic, 2016). Alvin Toffler (1970, 1980) was the first to refer to the MC concept in his books “Future shock”  and “The third wave”. Stanley Davis (1987) later cemented the term in his book “Future Perfect”. But it was not until 1993, when Joseph Pine  developed its practical application to business, that the concept started gaining greater importance in research and practice (Pine, 1993; Brandão et al., 2017; Piller et al., 2005). Nowadays, MC is understood as a multidimensional process embracing a combination of mass production, user-driven technologies, big data, e-commerce and e-business, digital design, and manufacturing technologies (Brandão et al., 2017). In the last twenty years, almost every sector of the economy, from industrial production to consumer products and services, has been influenced by mass customisation. The difference between mass customisation and massive customisation is the ability to relate the contextual features to the product features. This means that a random generation of design alternatives would not be sufficient; these alternatives should be derived from the cultural, technological, environmental and social context, as well as from the individual context of the user (Kolarevic & Duarte, 2019). As a business paradigm,  MC provides an attractive added value by addressing customer needs while using resources efficiently and avoiding an increase in operational costs (Piller & Tseng, 2009). It seeks to incorporate customer co-design processes into the innovation and strategic planning of the business, approaching economies of integration (Piller et al., 2005). As a result, the profitability of MC is achieved through product variety in volume-related economies (Baranauskas et al., 2020; Duray et al., 2000). The space in which it is possible to meet a variety of needs through a mass customisation offering is finite (Piller, 2004). This solution space represents the variety of different customisation units and encompasses the rules to combine them, limiting the set of possibilities in the search of a balance between productivity and flexibility (Salvador et al., 2009). The designer’s responsibility would be to meet the heterogeneities of the users in an efficient way, by setting a solution space and defining the degrees of freedom for the customer within a manufacturer’s production system (Hippel, 2001). Therefore, an important challenge for a company that aims at becoming a mass customizer is to find the right balance between what is determined by the designer and what is left for the user to decide (Kolarevic & Duarte, 2019). Value creation within a stable solution space is one of the major differences between traditional customisation. While a traditional customizer produces unique products and processes, a mass customizer uses stable processes to provide a high range of variety among their products and services (Pine, 1993). This would enable a mass customizer to achieve “near mass production efficiency” but would also mean that the customisation alternatives are limited to certain product features (Pine, 1995). As opposed to the industrial output of mass production, in which the customer selects from options produced by the industry, MC facilitates cultural production, the personalisation of mass products in accordance with individual beliefs. This means that the customer contributes to defining the processes, components, and features that will be involved in the flow of the design and manufacturing process (Kieran & Timberlake, 2004). Products or services that are co-designed by the customer may provide social benefits, resulting in tailor-made, fitting, and resilient outcomes (Piller et al., 2005). Thanks to parametric design and digital fabrication it is now viable to mass-produce non-standard, custom-made products, from tableware and shoes to furniture and building components. These are often customizable through interactive websites (Kolarevic & Duarte, 2019). The incorporation of MC into the housebuilding industry, through supporting, guiding, and informing the user via interactive interfaces (Madrazo et al., 2010), can contribute to a democratisation of housing design, allowing for an empowering, social, and cultural enrichment of our built environment. Our current housing stock is largely homogeneous, while customer demands are increasingly heterogeneous. Implementing MC in the housing industry could address the diverse consumer needs in an affordable and effective way, by creating stable solution spaces that could make good quality housing accessible to more dwellers. Stability and responsiveness are key in the production of highly customised housing. Stability can be achieved through product modularity, defining and producing a set of components that can be combined in the maximum possible ways, attaining responsiveness to different requests while reducing the complexity of product variation. This creates customisation alternatives within the solution space which require a smooth flow of information and effective collaboration between customers, designers, and manufacturers (Khalili-Araghi & Kolarevic, 2018). ICT technologies can help to effectively materialise this multidimensional and interdisciplinary challenge in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry, as showcased in the Sato PlusHome multifamily block in Finland[1]. Nowadays, there are companies that have integrated a systematic methodology to produce mass customised single-family homes using prefabrication methods, such as Modern Modular[2]. On the other hand, platforms such as BIM that act as collaborative environments for all stakeholders have demonstrated that building performance can be increased and precision improved while reducing construction time. These digital twins offer a basis for fabricated components and enable early cooperation between different disciplines. Parametric tools have the potential to help customisation comply with the manufacturing rules and regulations, and increase the ability to sustainably meet customer requirements, using fewer resources and shorter lead times (Piroozfar et al., 2019). In summary, a mass customisable housing industry could be achieved if the products and services are parametrically defined (i.e., specifying the dimensions, constraints, and relationships between the various components), interactively designed (via a website or an app), digitally fabricated, visualised and evaluated to automatically generate production and assembly data (Kolarevic, 2015). However, for MC to be integrated effectively in the AEC industry, several challenges remain that range from cultural, behavioural and management changes, to technological such as the use of ICTs or those directly applied to the manufacturing process, as for example automating the production and assembly methods, the use of product configurators or managing the variety through the product supply chain (Piroozfar et al., 2019).   [1] Sato PlusHome. ArkOpen / Esko Kahri, Petri Viita and Juhani Väisänen (http://www.open-building.org/conference2011/Project_PlusHome.pdf) [2] The Modern Modular. Resolution: 4 Architecture (https://www.re4a.com/the-modern-modular)

Created on 06-07-2022

Author: C.Martín (ESR14)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Open Building is a term that was coined in the mid-1980s but is rooted in ideas from some twenty years earlier, when John Habraken first introduced the Support/Infill concept as a response to the rigidity and uniformity of the post-war mass-housing produced in the Netherlands (Habraken, 1961). Its fundamental principle involves separating the supporting structure of a building, considered a collective resource designed for durability, from the infill components, such as the walls and partitions that can be easily adapted to individual preferences and changing needs. This design approach places a strong emphasis on flexibility and adaptability, allowing buildings to evolve over time and be effortlessly modified or renovated to meet changing requirements. Furthermore, it encourages the participation of building occupants in the design and management of their homes, and it emphasizes the importance of creating buildings that are well-suited to their local context (Kendall, 2021). The Open Building concept introduces a holistic approach to enhancing the adaptability of the built environment, considering social, technical, and organizational aspects (Cuperus, 2001). From a social perspective, Open Building advocates for an open architecture that empowers users to customize their living spaces according to their needs and preferences, accommodating unforeseen changes in the future. On an organisational level, it proposes a redistribution of the design control, enabling top-down decisions to establish a framework within which bottom-up processes can thrive. Lastly, from a technical perspective, it pursues a systematisation of building that allows for the installation, upgrading, or removal of industrialized sub-systems with minimal implications for the overall stability of the building. This approach addresses some of the pressing challenges of the construction industry, offering the potential to enhance housing affordability and sustainability. By allowing greater flexibility in interior design and layouts, spaces can be easily reconfigured to meet changing needs, encouraging a shift towards long-term planning and fostering adaptable, future-ready living environments. Moreover, this strategy reduces the need for costly renovations and discourages demolitions, thus improving construction resilience and facilitating the seamless integration of new technologies. It successfully aligns the diverse objectives of multiple stakeholders, providing builders with a consistent support system, offering developers the freedom to experiment with layouts and ensure long-term functional performance, and granting users the possibility to make personalized choices. For decades, this inherent adaptability has been successfully applied in diverse building types, including shopping centres, office buildings, and hospitals. These buildings necessitate facilities that are 'change-ready', capable of accommodating changes over time, with a focus on long-term adaptability rather than short-term design adequacy (Kendall, 2017; Leupen, 2004). Open Building promotes environmental sustainability through its ‘levels concept’, acknowledging that building components have varying lifespans. The disentanglement and clarity of these hierarchical levels and their interfaces promotes the longevity of infrastructures while enabling incremental renewal and innovation, an increasingly common need in the construction sector. Higher levels provide a framework for the lower levels, setting the overall parameters and constraints in which the lower ones can operate (Habraken, 1998). Additionally, Open Building encourages the separation of building elements into the ‘Shearing layers of change’ articulated by Steward Brand in 1994 (Brand, 1994). These layers provide flexibility and adaptability to the buildings as they can be designed, built, and maintained independently from each other, facilitating design for disassembly practices. Additionally, through a modular coordination of standardised components, not only it is possible to increase the collaboration in the design and construction process of housing, but also to encourage a proliferation of technical subsystems that can be continuously upgraded and scaled-up within an open framework (Kendall & Dale, 2023b). In the housing realm, a key difference between traditional design and the Open Building approach is their underlying methods. Traditional design examines diverse household types and lifestyles from an anthropologic perspective, suggesting various typologies. In contrast, Open Building focuses on creating an open system with no predefined designs. Instead, it operates with a framework of rules, zones and categories to enable the customisation of each dwelling by the user (Habraken, 1976). The adoption of Open Building was a response to the rigidity and waste caused by continued adherence to functionalism where buildings were designed according to the “form-follows-function” principle and became obsolete or impractical for the coming generations and costly to maintain. On the other hand, open architecture can cater to local and cultural demands, embracing the complexity of the built environment by acknowledging that it cannot be fully controlled or shaped by a single agent (Kendall, 2013; Kendall & Dale, 2023a; Paulichen et al., 2019). This encourages community involvement in the design and construction process, creating a sense of ownership and fostering inclusivity. There are many examples across Europe of residential Open Building such as Gleis 21 in Austria, R50 Cohousing in Germany, or Stories in Netherlands. Other cases have been developed as open systems rather than individual projects, replicated and adapted to diverse locations but following the same strategy, as for example the Superlofts by Mark Koehler Architects, which since 2016 has built seven projects in the Netherlands out of this system. Determining whether a project is an Open Building and the degree of flexibility it offers can be measured through a classification chart developed by the Open Building Collective, which is based in the principles showcased in their Manifesto. The dissemination of these exemplary projects through publications (Schneider & Till, 2007), awards, conferences and the Open Building Collective, has stimulated the exchange of knowledge between researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders, spreading the interest in this concept and its practical implementation. Despite its potential benefits, the implementation of Open Building in multi-family housing faces challenges due to entrenched traditional practices, regulatory barriers favouring fixed layouts, and the short-term perspectives among developers, investors, and clients (De Paris & Lopes, 2018; Montaner et al., 2015). However, successful Open Building projects around the globe demonstrate that its capacity to address holistically the social, technical, and organizational aspects of a changing society. It encourages the space appropriation at the infill level while ensuring resilience and robustness in the support level, fostering enduring and inclusive buildings that allow diverse households to coexist and evolve over time (Kendall, 2022).

Created on 14-11-2023

Author: C.Martín (ESR14)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

  Product platforms are a set of standardised components, processes, and knowledge used to create a variety of products and services. Borrowed from the software and manufacturing industries, this concept supports rapid innovation and growth by leveraging shared elements to achieve economies of scale and production flexibility (Lessing, 2006).  A product platform is closely related to the concept of solution space, highlighted by many authors as being one of the fundamental capabilities to implement mass customisation strategies (Salvador et al., 2009). A solution space refers to the range of potential designs or configurations that can be generated within the constraints of a given product platform. It encompasses all the possible variations and customisations that can be achieved using the standardised components and processes defined by the platform (Piller, 2004). Therefore, the product platform provides the kit-of-parts, production processes and knowledge, while the solution space defines the extent to which those elements can be varied to meet specific needs and preferences. Product platforms are central to the development of customised and industrialised housing solutions. By sharing standardised components across various housing products, companies can achieve significant cost reductions while allowing for customisation to meet specific market demands. This balance enhances the ability to provide affordable and tailored housing without sacrificing quality or functionality. Other industries, such as automotive and electronics, have demonstrated the efficiency benefits of product platforms by streamlining production processes, reducing costs, and quickly adapting to market changes. Adopting a similar approach in housing can accelerate innovation and reduce overall costs in the construction sector. Product platforms provide a structure for predefined technical solutions, requiring thorough documentation and continuous improvements, and serving as a backbone for technical information and related processes in a company and its supply chain (Jansson et al., 2014). Robertson and Ulrich (1998) identified four elements that constitute a product platform: components, processes, knowledge, people and relationships. These platforms must integrate common elements and technologies across a range of products, considering manufacturing capabilities and constraints early in the process. This integration ensures that the product platform is not only flexible in the early definition of a housing solution but is also practical and efficient to produce. Flexibility is both key to the success of a product platform in housing and a challenge for scaling manufacturing. It is crucial to find the right balance between standardisation and customisation to meet customer demands efficiently. Therefore, it is vital to integrate customer focus in product-oriented house-building processes (Barlow et al., 2003) and to define the Customer Order Decoupling Point (CODP) in the production process – the point in which the product will be customised to meet specific needs. The CODP determines the production strategy of a product platform, which will consequently affect its inventory management, lead times, and overall supply chain strategy. The production strategy defines the boundaries and degrees of customisation within a product platform, classified into four levels: Made-to-Stock (MTS), Assembled-to-Stock (ATS), Made-to-Order (MTO) or Engineered-to-Order (ETO) (Barlow, 1998; Smith, 2019). Product platforms allow us to understand a building in a systematic way, as a group of components or smaller subsystems that can be designed independently yet function together as a whole. This approach enables continuous improvement of the platform, as insights from one project can drive more efficient use of components in subsequent projects, creating learning loops that enhance overall productivity and innovation. Additionally, a product platform developed with Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) and Design for Disassembly (DfD) principles can significantly contribute to a circular economy. Standardised components can be easily repurposed or reconfigured, reducing waste and promoting environmental sustainability. This flexibility ensures that buildings can adapt to changing needs over time, extending their lifespan and minimising the environmental impact of demolition and new construction. Finally, there are four principles that should be considered when developing product platforms for the delivery of housing: (1) Modularity:  Product modularity enables a manufacturer to absorb changes in customer needs by reconfiguring and adapting modules based on a set of parameters within a defined solution space.  (2) Automation: Integrating digital workflows to automate repetitive tasks such as manufacturing instructions, building reports or a bill of quantities would ease the development of a variety of housing solutions in an efficient way. (3) Platform rules: The rules and relationships between platform components would have to be properly defined to ensure that consistency in quality and performance are maintained even when designs are customised or scaled. (4) Parametric software tools: The success of a product platform relies on how data generated in the manufacturing and assembly phases is encapsulated within the components and incorporated into the early stages and project planning. Parametric software can facilitate the iteration of options without leaving the product platform’s solution space, optimising the design based on performance data, environmental parameters, or user feedback.

Created on 19-06-2024

Author: C.Martín (ESR14)

Read more ->

Publications

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts