MMC projects employ a set of relatively new skills in UK construction. In this blog, we examine the need for greater skills in estimating for MMC, and for a range of documented evidence of the benefits, to support the delivery of these new methods and the products used. “What is undeniable is that MMC projects are quicker, but this is not demonstrated sufficiently, because there is minimal benchmark data available.” Ian Dacre, Chartered Quantity Surveyor. Where does MMC fit in the UK today? The UK building industry is increasingly employing Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), evidenced by the growing number of build projects for residential, industrial, and public sector/commercial property. This growth is driven by the need to build more homes to address the housing crisis, for garden offices and emergency buildings generated by the Covid situation, and for more and extended public and private sector industrial/commercial buildings. Within the industry there are passionate advocates of modern offsite construction, using materials such as Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs); however, much work needs to be done to convince others, including at the time of writing, most architects, quantity surveyors and contractors, to shift, when it benefits the project, from traditional methods. About Ian Dacre One area where greater knowledge is needed is in the skill of estimating for MMC. Ian Dacre, a Partner at Rider Levett Bucknall in Bristol, a Chartered Quantity Surveyor with over 25 years’ experience and an Assessor for the RICS, talked to Hemsec about the complexities, and the need for greater skill in estimating. Ian has been involved with Constructing Excellence (CE) for several years and has undertaken research in · Defining Value · Supply Chain Integration · Knowledge Management · Performance Management with CE and the University of the West of England. What are the challenges of assessing the overall value of MMC projects? “There is limited data available; although there are many publications which discuss the pros and cons of MMC,” explains Ian, “there is nothing to date published on the commercial aspects. “So, it is a challenge, but there are some principles we can follow, so that we can start to create a bank of knowledge relating to the cost, value and performance of MMC projects: Value: In terms of assessing value, there are two aspects: capital value whole life value Whilst they are totally different; they should nonetheless be viewed as one, because it is critical to understand the full cost both of constructing and maintaining a building, if we are looking at the benefit of the whole project. It is impossible to do so by taking the capital value alone. Cost: We need to ask ourselves; how do we benchmark a quotation or programme-saving offered from an MMC provider? Performance: We must use the MMC providers’ information as there is no historic data available at present. “In conclusion, we need the experts – the MMC providers – to supply the information. Once it becomes widely available in the marketplace and everyone can access it, this will enable us to benchmark projects – it will be a major step forward.” How can an assessor accurately estimate the total costs? For example, the impact of greater construction speed? “There are tools available. Programme management can demonstrate the time efficiency savings, but at the moment, we also need to factor lead in times. One of the problems we have is that sites cannot manage the speed of MMC,” says Ian. It would appear that sites are not set up for how quickly materials arrive and are installed; this leads to sites not being ready, tradespeople not being in place and other delays. This is where education in process is needed, so that programme management works properly. “Whole Life Cost (WLC) models can generate the occupancy costs over a period of time, but again, as with any kind of research data, we need several MMC projects to be built and monitored over time to see the overall effects,” Ian asserts. What data is needed and how does the industry get it? “Unfortunately, the amount of current data is minimal and is not widely available. Generally, most is based on a historic project people are familiar with but which is not documented. “Cost data for capital expenditure is not readily available in the marketplace when compared to other materials and structural solutions, which have been used and documented for many years. “There are many reports, papers and magazine articles that bestow the benefits of MMC and possibly things to watch out for, but nothing as yet on cost and whole life value. “It is possible to obtain information on lead-in times, delivery times and erection times from MMC suppliers, but it is difficult to get accurate cost information,” Ian says. What are the ‘hidden costs’ in estimating for traditional methods that get overlooked when comparing them with MMC? “The hidden costs include waste, and redoing things on site, both of which stem from a lack of understanding. One could also argue that there are possible inefficiencies due to the external environment in which people are working, such as weather. These are not really hidden, but are inherent in the programme where the main construction process takes place outdoors.” Hemsec team members have seen costs being added where firms have used unnecessary materials, because they don’t understand the way SIPs work. For example, people use them for cladding inside a wall, roof or ceiling made from different materials, not realising that the SIP itself is structural and is a full supporting wall with insulation built in. “What is undeniable is that MMC projects are quicker, but this is not demonstrated sufficiently, because there is minimal benchmark data available,” says Ian. How do we persuade professionals such as architects and QS to recognise this when comparing with MMC? “When it comes to the perceived lack of understanding; when someone does not understand something or it has not been demonstrated sufficiently or proven, a risk factor may be applied (both