This article was downloaded by: [14.1.193.

92]
On: 20 August 2013, At: 06:36
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and Economics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Improving ecological performance of industrialized

building systems in Malaysia
a

Riduan Yunus & Jay Yang

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering , Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia ,
Batu Pahat , Malaysia
b

Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment , Queensland University of

Technology , Brisbane , Australia
Published online: 20 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Construction Management and Economics (2013): Improving ecological performance of industrialized
building systems in Malaysia, Construction Management and Economics, DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2013.825373
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.825373

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Construction Management and Economics, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.825373

Improving ecological performance of industrialized

building systems in Malaysia
RIDUAN YUNUS1* and JAY YANG2
1

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Malaysia
Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Received 12 December 2012; accepted 28 June 2013

For construction stakeholders to fully embrace sustainability, its long-term benefits and associated risks
need to be identified through holistic approaches. Consensus among key stakeholders is very important to
the improvement of the ecological performance of industrialized building systems (IBS), a building
construction method gaining momentum in Malaysia. A questionnaire survey examines the relative significance of 16 potentially important sustainability factors for IBS applications. To present possible solutions,
semi-structured interviews solicit views from experienced IBS practitioners, representing the professions
involved. Three most critical factors agreed by key stakeholders are material consumption, waste generation and
waste disposal. Using SWOT analysis, the positive and negative aspects of these factors are investigated, with
action plans formulated for IBS design practitioners. The SWOT analysis based guidelines have the potential
to become part of IBS design briefing documents against which sustainability solutions are contemplated,
selected and implemented. Existing knowledge on ecological performance issues is extended by considering
the unique characteristics of IBS and identifying not only the benefits, but also the potential risks and
challenges of pursuing sustainability. This is largely missing in previous research efforts. Findings to date
focus on providing much-needed assistance to IBS designers, who are at the forefront of decision-making
with a significant level of project influence. Ongoing work will be directed towards other project
development phases and consider the inherent linkage between design decisions and subsequent
sustainability deliverables in the project life cycle.
Keywords: Industrialized Building System, decision support, ecological, Malaysia, sustainability.

Introduction
Industrialized building systems (IBS), also known as
prefabrication, employ a combination of ready-made
components in the construction of buildings. IBS
applications can improve the quality of production,
simplify construction processes and minimize waste
generation (Construction Industry Development
Board Malaysia, 2005; Blismas et al., 2006; Shen
et al., 2009). The unique characteristics of the IBS
method, such as offsite production and standardization of components and design using modular coordination, have great potential to enhance construction
sustainability (Jaillon and Poon, 2008; Hamid
and Kamar, 2012). It will also help improve work

productivity, which has been a longstanding concern

in the building industry. The Malaysian government
is urging the building industry to shift from traditional
practices to IBS-based construction. Charting the
future directions of local industry, the Construction
Industry Master Plan (CIMP) of Malaysia specifically
highlights government strategies for IBS implementation (Construction Industry Development Board
Malaysia, 2006). To assess IBS-related issues at the
project level, the IBS Centre was set up in January
2007.
Despite top-level advocacy, the take-up rate of IBS
in the Malaysian construction industry is still low
compared to developed countries such as the United
Kingdom, Germany, the United States of America

*Author for correspondence. E-mail: riduan@uthm.edu.my

2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

2
and Japan. Previous literature reported the percentages of IBS usage in Malaysia at only 1015% of the
overall volume of work during 2003 and 2006, while
other countries are easily double that (Hamid et al.,
2008; Kamar et al., 2009; Nawi et al., 2011). Polat
(2010) observed that the level of IBS implementation
is very low in developing countries because of the
technological dependency. Moreover, the majority of
key stakeholders in Malaysia may have limited understanding and perhaps misconceptions on the potential
of IBS. They are often poorly informed on IBS
design, unable to foresee its benefits and unaware of
its relevance to sustainability (Yunus and Yang,
2012). Current IBS practices also exhibit an apparent
lack of focus and linking to sustainability. This needs
to be rectified to achieve the full potential of IBS.
Sustainability considerations have expanded the
concerns of people in the construction industry by
setting a higher expectation in delivering building and
infrastructure projects. An integrated approach with a
broader perspective is vital to encourage cooperation
of the key stakeholders in delivering a building with
limited resource consumption, carbon reduction and
biodiversity targets in mind (Yang, 2012). Moreover,
environmental concerns are best addressed on a community scale which involves industry players at the
project level (Cole, 2011). Sustainability initiatives
also require early collaboration among stakeholders
(Horman et al., 2006; Yang and Lim, 2008; Jaillon
and Poon, 2010). Therefore, a consensus among key
stakeholders in setting the mutual prospective and
agreeable targets of sustainability prior to schematic
design, is crucial for sustainable IBS delivery.
Cole (2004) stated that conventional methods of
evaluating environmental performance need to adopt
new approaches that employ a broader range of considerations, while being respectful of simplicity and
practicality to make them more widely accessible.
Decision tools that are capable of encapsulating sustainability principles, including environmental performance in the IBS design stage, will help optimize
building components and ensure they perform the
intended functions. Luo et al. (2006) highlighted that
inconsistent, inappropriate and wrong decisions will
affect the performance of IBS buildings. Effective
decision-making is mandatory in eliminating construction problems such as change orders, delays in production or construction and budget overrun, during
IBS implementation (Chen et al., 2010a).
In light of the findings of an ongoing study aimed
at formulating decision-making guidelines that promote the ecological performance of IBS applications,
critical factors relating to sustainable construction and
operation of IBS building products are explored.
Using feedback from experienced practitioners in

Yunus and Yang

local industry, current industry concerns and critical
issues have been identified. Questionnaire surveys
focus on the exploration of potential factors affecting
IBS ecological performance during the design phase
of a project. Interview surveys and subsequent
statistical analysis established a consensus between
key stakeholders regarding their views on making
effective design decisions. A decision-making strategy
is then formulated using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis for the
identified factors and issues.

Literature review
Sustainable development is becoming an essential part
of human activity in terms of providing quality of life
while preserving resources for future generations. The
level of sustainability integration in built environment
activities is increasing because of rapid expansion in
information, technology and product development
(Jaafar et al., 2007; Yang, 2012). The construction
industry requires holistic decision-making and innovative solutions to enhance sustainability while realizing
mutually beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders.
With the support of information technology (IT),
integration strategies and approaches will help overcome industry fragmentation. However, the absence
of a common language and consensus among stakeholders is preventing full consideration of sustainability, especially from environmental perspectives.
Kibert (2008) highlighted the seven principles of
sustainable construction as (1) reduce consumption of
resources (reduce); (2) reuse resources (reuse); (3)
use recyclable resources (recycle); (4) protect nature
(nature); (5) eliminate toxics (toxics); (6) apply life
cycle costing (economics); and (7) focus on quality
(quality). These principles are provided as a
benchmark for creating a better world for future
generations.
Ecological performance is the promotion of any
attributes that will increase the ability of IBS construction to preserve natural resources and reduce
negative impacts on the environment. It is necessary
to ensure environment sustainability (Figge and
Hahn, 2004; Jaillon and Poon, 2008). For example,
improvements in IBS component quality will help
ensure consistent standards of insulation and reduce
operational energy. Moreover, IBS offers major
benefits in the environmental sphere, such as material
conservation and reductions in waste and air pollution. This has been proven by several researchers such
as Jaillon et al. (2009), Baldwin et al. (2009) and
Tam et al. (2007a). Many IBS components are locally
manufactured using local products in reusable

Ecological performance
Table 1 Potential of ecological performance factors in IBS
applications
No. Sustainability factors
1

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Burgan and Sansom (2006)

Richard (2006)
Jaillon and Poon (2008)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Teo and Loosemore (2003)
Tam et al. (2007b)
Arif and Egbu (2010)
Ecology preservation
Adetunji et al. (2003)
Al-Yami and Price (2006)
Burgan and Sansom (2006)
Shen et al. (2007)
Soetanto et al. (2004)
Energy consumption in Holton (2006)
design and construction Abidin and Pasquire (2005)
Nelms et al. (2007)
Shen et al. (2007)
Burgan and Sansom (2006)
International Council for
Building Research and
Innovation (1999)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Embodied energy
Department of Trade and
Industry (2001)
Waste disposal

Health of occupants
(indoor air quality)

Material consumption

Recyclable/renewable
contents
Site disruption

10

No. Sustainability factors

Source

11

Land use

12
13

Reusable/recyclable
elements
Operational energy

Adetunji et al. (2003)

Al-Yami and Price (2006)
Burgan and Sansom (2006)
International Council for
Building Research and
Innovation (1999)
Shen et al. (2007)
Song et al. (2005)

14

Water consumption

15

Environment
administration
Pollution generation

Waste generation

Source

Table 1 (Continued)

Transportation and
lifting

Holton (2006)
Tam et al. (2007a)
Soetanto et al. (2004)
Al-Yami and Price (2006)
Gibberd (2008)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Gibberd (2008)
Holton (2006)
Luo et al. (2005)
Nelms et al. (2007)
Taher et al. (2009)
Jaillon and Poon (2008)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Burgan and Sansom (2006)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Gibb and Isack (2003)
Gorgolewski (2005)
Blismas and Wakefield (2009)
Department of Trade and
Industry (2001)
Luo et al. (2006)
Patzlaff et al. (2010)
Yee (2001)
Zhao and Riffat (2007)
Song et al. (2005)
Gorgolewski (2005)
(Continued)

16

Department of Trade and

Industry (2001)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Adetunji et al. (2003)
Al-Yami and Price (2006)
Gibberd (2008)
Holton (2006)
Nelms et al. (2007)
Chen et al. (2010a)
Adetunji et al. (2003)
Shen et al. (2007)
Shen et al. (2010)
Chen et al. (2010a)

mouldings or assembly lines. This significantly

reduces transportation costs and traffic congestion.
Moreover, construction waste can be minimized and
waste from offcuts is immediately recycled. By understanding the IBS potential in placing the environment
as a priority, designers and consultants will be able to
explore issues of significance to ecological degradation. Table 1 lists a total of 16 ecological performance
factors in IBS applications which have been identified
from the literature review.

Research gap
Most of the current IBS implementation isolates the
design and construction processes (Nawi et al., 2011).
The implementation is often design-oriented, costfocused and project-delivered without specific consideration of maximizing the advantages IBS brings. The
conventional approach in IBS applications can also
hinder cooperation among key stakeholders (Hamid
and Kamar, 2012; Nadim and Goulding, 2011; Nawi
et al., 2011). There is a lack of communication and
cooperation among the key stakeholders known as
over the wall syndrome (Evbuomwan and Anumba,
1998). In these conventional approaches, manufacturers and contractors can only become involved after

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

4
the design stage. The lack of integration will result in
problems for the supply chains such as delays, underor over-supply and constructability issues. The need
for subsequent re-design and re-planning will increase
project costs (Hamid et al., 2008). It is important to
allow each stakeholder to define issues and set sustainability goals prior to schematic design and then
continue through construction, operation and demolition of the building.
In addition, little attention has been given to
improving sustainability in the early stage of construction, especially when the designer prepares the drawings and specifications (Ding, 2008). Contrary to the
IBS implementation approaches, most of the available
assessment guidelines and tools are not designoriented. They were constructed to endorse or
disapprove a final design therefore cannot serve the
purpose for designers to contemplate alternatives
(Soebarto and Williamson, 2001). In Indonesia for
example, professional designers and contractors are
engaged in separate contracts, which means the
contractors only get involved after the designs are
completed (Trigunarsyah, 2004). This engagement
style leads to isolation and ignores opportunities in
optimizing project benefits such as cost savings and
speedy completion. Therefore, early involvement and
cooperation among stakeholders is also very important
to improve sustainable IBS construction.
Environmental issues and financial considerations
should be evaluated together in improving sustainability. Some assessment tools, such as the Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) and Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), do not include financial aspects in the evaluation framework (Ding,
2008). The other tools such as Green Star, Green
Mark, and Green Building Index also focus on the
evaluation of design against a set of environmental
criteria such as energy and water efficiency, indoor
environmental quality and sustainable site management. The considerations on the financial aspects are
neglected and may lead to a project that, while environmentally sound, would be very expensive to build.
The challenge for the construction industry is to deliver economic buildings that maintain or enhance the
quality of life, while at the same time reducing the
impact of the social, economic and environmental
burdens from the community.
Currently, the IBS Score System, which was developed by the Construction Industry Development
Board (CIDB) of Malaysia, is used to measure the
usage of IBS. This tool measures the percentage of
IBS usage in a consistent way with a systematic and
structured assessment system (Construction Industry
Development Board Malaysia, 2005). In Malaysia,

Yunus and Yang

the current assumption is that higher IBS scores mean
more sustainable construction. In a way, a higher
score can indeed reflect a reduction of site labour, an
improvement in quality, neater and safer construction
sites, faster project completion as well as lower total
construction cost (Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia, 2005). However, it does not
explicitly and directly represent sustainability attributes (e.g. environment, social and economy) for IBS
applications. The assessment scheme focuses on the
percentage of IBS components used in construction,
such as precast concrete, component repeatability and
design using modular coordination concepts.
Elsewhere, researchers considered IBS in assessment tools such as PPMOF (Prefabrication, Preassembly, Modularization and Offsite Fabrication),
IMMPREST (Interactive Method for Measuring
PRE-assembly and Standardization), PSSM (Prefabrication Strategy Selection Method) and CMSM
(Construction Method Selection Model). PPMOF
was a computerized tool developed to assist industry
practitioners in evaluating the applicability of IBS
components on their projects (Song et al., 2005). It
focused solely on strategic level analysis. Chen et al.
(2010b) stated that decisions might be biased because
the weight assigned to each category is subjective.
IMMPREST, which was developed in the United
Kingdom, attempted to include sustainability
elements for decision-making (Pasquire et al., 2005).
However, it has several shortcomings in comprehensively evaluating sustainability (Luo et al., 2006). The
most significant challenge in using this tool is the lack
of information at the early stage of a project (Chen
et al., 2010b). For successful early collaboration
between the design and construction teams, sufficient
information is required to facilitate better understanding and minimize misconception among teams. In the
United States, PSSM was developed to help a project
team find a suitable prefabrication strategy for a
building system. The solution was formulated through
understanding the synergies and issues with IBS strategies, building processes and building performance
early in the design phase, but it only focused on curtain wall systems, mechanical systems and wall frames
(Luo et al., 2006). The latest tool, CMSM was specifically designed for concrete building projects to select
and optimize IBS components (Chen et al., 2010b).
While these existing tools provide sound benchmarks in the selection of IBS, they are not able to
make effective recommendations on how to improve
sustainability based on the chosen options. As highlighted by Ofori and Kien (2004), the absence of relevant information to guide designers hinders the
incorporation of sustainability into holistic IBS
designs and delivery. This is the crux of the issue in

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Ecological performance
the application of IBS in Malaysia. It is important to
provide design professionals with appropriate guidance at the project level.
Blismas et al. (2006) stated that most of the decision tools for assessing IBS applications focus on economic issues. They often disregard softer issues
which are perceived as insignificant, such as life cycle
prediction, health and safety and the effects on energy
consumption. There is a need to establish holistic
methods of IBS selection by considering triple bottom
line (TBL) criteria and responding to institutional
implications in order to improve overall IBS implementation. As discussed in the previous section, IBS
applications tend to be linked with government projects primarily. As such, political scenarios and government support are very important aspects. This
research explores the environmental, economic and
social aspects of IBS and extends sustainability assessment to include technical quality and implementation and enforcement aspects. However, the focus is
on ecological performance in enhancing sustainability
for IBS applications.
Developing and developed countries may have different priorities in terms of IBS applications in terms
of the type of IBS, characteristics of local communities and available resources. IBS in Malaysia also consists of structural applications, such as timber and
steel, which exhibit unique characteristics for the
improvement of sustainable deliverables (Burgan and
Sansom, 2006). Most of the tools presented to date
only reflect scenarios of developed countries. Local
and regional characteristics and the physical environment are among the important elements to be considered when measuring the level of sustainability. With
the flexibility for adaptation, issues studied in developed countries are unlikely to be applicable or even
relevant to developing countries (Cohen, 2006).
Therefore, there is a need to identify critical issues
and provide solutions to local problems. Exploration
of the benefits, potential risks and challenges of pursuing sustainability can lead to a holistic view in decision-making. With unified views and agreements
between key stakeholders, a consensus in encapsulating sustainability strategies can be achieved.

Research approach
Creswell (2009) named four different views of
research paradigms as postpositivist, social constructivist, advocacy and participatory and pragmatic worldviews. Each view represents the cluster of
beliefs and perspectives a researcher should hold
within a scientific discipline (Bryman, 1992). This
research is oriented towards solving practical industry

5
problems and concerns on local sustainability development. The most applicable philosophical position
and orientation towards the inquiry for this research
is pragmatism. The focus of this approach is not the
theory, but the research problems. The solution can
be established by deriving knowledge regarding the
problem, which arises from actions, situations, and
consequences. Pragmatism often demands mixed
methods to solve research problems (Creswell, 2009).
Several research mechanisms are integrated to ensure
the success of this project, including questionnaire
surveys, semi-structured interviews, SWOT analysis
and the development of decision-making guidelines.
The unit of analysis refers to the type of unit a
researcher uses when measuring and the aggregation
level of data during subsequent analysis (Neuman,
2007). The common units of analysis are the
individual, the group (e.g. family, friendship group),
the organization (e.g. corporation, company), the
social category (social class, gender, race), the social
institution (e.g. religion, education) and the society
(e.g. nation, a tribe). In this study, the unit of analysis
used is the organization. Data were collected from different organizations such as contractors, designers
and manufacturers. These data were analysed by
comparison and synthesis to extract findings and
facilitate discussion on the subjects investigated.
From the literature review of existing decisionmaking tools, 16 potentials factors have been
identified as capable of improving the ecological performance in IBS applications (Table 1). These factors
were included in a questionnaire survey instrument
that was piloted before the main survey investigation.
It is important to compile survey questions into useable formats in describing responses, comprehensiveness and acceptability of the questionnaire (Fellows
and Liu, 2008). At first, the questionnaire is used to
identify critical factors in IBS applications that are
able to improve sustainability from environmental
dimensions. A consensus among key stakeholders is
achieved by statistically analysing the interrelationships between the investigated factors. Later, semistructured interviews were used to gather information
regarding agreeable strategies and practical solutions.
SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats) analysis was employed in this research.
SWOT can evaluate the internal and external conditions simultaneously by recording all of the possibilities and opportunities. As a result, through a
systematic approach, support for a decisive situation
can be achieved (Srivastava et al., 2005). This analysis
has an advantage in that it presents holistic, rather
than preferred, views regarding sustainable deliverables for IBS application. It also can provide a good
basis for the formulation of implementation strategies.

Yunus and Yang

During the questionnaire survey, a total of 300

questionnaires were distributed to potential respondents randomly selected using CIDB databases and
other listings of Malaysian construction industry organizations. To ensure a maximum level of response
rate, a combination of hard copy mail out, online survey, and face-to-face consultation was employed. As a
result, 115 valid questionnaires were received and
used in the analysis, representing a response rate of
38%. In the questionnaire, the respondents were
asked to assign an appropriate rating on a five-point
scale where 1 is very insignificant, 2 is insignificant,
3 is neutral, 4 is significant, and 5 is very significant. The formula used to calculate the mean score
rating is:

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Mean

1n1 2n2 3n3 4n4 5n5

;
n1 n2 n3 n4 n5
1

A t-test was used to identify the most significant factors among those selected. This method was previously proven by several researchers such as Ekanayake
and Ofori (2004) and Wong and Li (2006) in related
studies. In this research, the null hypothesis (factors
were neutral, insignificant, and very insignificant) is
accepted if the t-value is smaller than 1.6583 (the
critical t-value).
It is also important to consider the differing views
between each organization type regarding the factors
significant to improving the IBS ecological performance. Non-parametric testing was applied in this
study because the variables were measured by ordinal
scale and not in normal distribution. In order to
assess how different types of organizations rate these
factors, the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) proves to be the most appropriate for
the problem on hand (Wong and Li, 2006) therefore
was used. The chi-square (w2) was interpreted as
Kruskal-Wallis value representing the rating of sustainability factors across respondents organizations.
When the p-value is lower than 0.05, there will be significant differences between views of organizations.
In the interview study, 20 interviewees from different types of organizations participated. They were
identified through CIDB recommendation based on
their previous work, as well as from the questionnaire
study. All interviewees have more than 10 years of
experience in the Malaysian construction industry.
The variety in the respondents backgrounds allows
the authors to identify different professional perceptions in pursuing sustainability.
Flexibility in the semi-structured interviews allowed
the researchers to comprehensively investigate and
explore detailed information on each issue, while at

the same time maintaining focus on the research

objectives. Subsequently, SWOT analysis was used to
provide decision-making guidelines. The data from
the semi-structured interviews were organized and
transcribed before the data were keyed into QSR
NVivo version 9. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and potential action plans were
explored and interpreted from the available coding.
The interpretation process provided themes and
descriptions in formulating the SWOT based decision-making frameworks and guidelines.
Designers require lots of information to guide them
in making appropriate decisions, especially when integrating sustainability efforts (Ofori and Kien, 2004).
In project management, SWOT analysis is able to
help a decision-maker decide what risks they need to
take in order to see the expected return on investment
(Milosevic, 2010). Lu et al. (2009) adopted SWOT
analysis as the basic methodology to gain insight into
the internationalization of Chinas construction companies in the global market. In Vietnam, Luu et al.
(2008) proposed a framework that integrates the
balanced scorecard and a SWOT matrix to measure
the performance of construction firms in developing
countries. SWOT analysis is ideal for analysing the
situation each investigated factor presents. The
interrelated criteria also help to develop potential
strategies. Through such analysis, decision-makers
can exploit new opportunities by utilizing available
strengths, avoiding weaknesses and diagnosing any
possible threats in the examined issues. SWOT
analysis can present a framework capable of integrating potential sustainability factors into the equation
while not being inflexible and restrictive. It will be
able to loosely bind issues together and provide
adequate information within the context of the subject
matter for decision-making assistance. The outcomes
will then act as guidance documents for the
designers to consider and contemplate sustainable
solutions in IBS applications. Any other type of
framework will not suit the context of the examined
problems.
Further research work in this ongoing study will
utilize several case studies to assess the appropriateness and level of efficiency of the developed decision
tools.

Results and analysis

Sampling is important in this study because it is rarely
possible to examine an entire population, which is largely due to the resource restriction in most studies.
The objective of sampling is to provide a practical
means of enabling data collection and processing

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Ecological performance
components of research to be conducted while ensuring that the sample provides a good representation of
the population (Fellows and Liu, 2008). Based on the
nature of the research, cluster sampling was adopted
to investigate different perceptions from various
groups of respondents.
Seven groups of respondents were identified as the
key stakeholders in IBS application based on their
organization type. The organization types were
design/consultancy, contractors, manufacturing, user
or facility management, property development/client,
research/academic institution and government authority/agency. Using official professional listings (for
example, from the Construction and Industry Development Board, Industrialized Building System Centre, Green Building Index Malaysia) as a basis, the
respondents backgrounds were reviewed to assess
their suitability for participating in the survey. This
type of sampling is called purposive or judgmental
sampling (Neuman, 2007). It is used to select participants from the specialized population: in this case,
those with experience and knowledge in IBS implementation. Abidin and Pasquire (2005) also adopt
this strategy to select particular settings, persons or
events to study sustainability value chain problems.
The questionnaire consisted of four major parts.
Part 1 captured the respondents demographic details
such as their level of experience and background. Part
2 examined the level of significance of potential factors in enhancing sustainability deliverables for IBS
construction. Part 3 investigated the impact of those
potential sustainability factors in providing a better
future without neglecting present needs. In Part 4,

Table 2

Ranking sustainability factors categorized in the ecological performance criteria

Sustainability factors

1
2
3
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

the respondents were asked to give additional comments or suggestions. Finally, the respondents were
invited to participate in the subsequent investigation
phase of this research.
Analysis of the survey response data produced
mean significance values for the 16 ecological performance factors ranging from 3.78 to 4.50. Table 2
shows that 10 factors scored mean values greater than
4.0 and the remaining six factors scored between 3.78
and 3.99. The standard deviations for this analysis
show very good data accuracy as little variation exists
from the mean evaluated. Subsequently, a t-test was
used to help the authors to identify the most
significant factors. Three factors are therefore identified as the most significant in improving sustainability
in the ecology performance dimension. They are waste
generation, waste disposal and material consumption.
The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) reveals that there was no significant difference between various stakeholders for waste generation
(p value 0.215) and waste disposal (p value 0.215).
However, material consumption (p value 0.005) shows
slight differences across key stakeholders. A possible
reason for this may be that manufacturers and users
are typically involved only with the end product.
Unlike other groups, they are not certain about estimating material consumption, especially during the
construction stages.
Waste generation was ranked first in the survey analysis (Table 2: mean value 4.50). Burgan and Sansom
(2006) highlighted that since IBS employs offsite
manufacturing processes, it has the potential to
minimize waste through the entire building life cycle.

Waste generation
Waste disposal
Material consumption
Recyclable/renewable contents
Site disruption
Transportation and lifting
Reusable/recyclable elements
Ecology preservation
Water consumption
Embodied energy
Environment administration
Pollution generation
Health of occupants (indoor air quality)
Operational energy
Energy consumption in design and construction
Land use

Rank

Mean

Std. deviation

t-value

1
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
9
9
11
12
13
14
15
16

4.50
4.38
4.28
4.12
4.10
4.08
4.08
4.04
4.01
4.01
3.99
3.96
3.92
3.83
3.80
3.78

0.792
0.838
0.785
0.974
0.868
1.036
1.010
0.976
1.031
0.940
0.911
0.972
0.992
1.051
0.888
0.884

6.652
4.828
3.837
1.352
1.181
0.810
0.838
0.482
0.091
0.100
0.103
0.387
0.853
1.700
2.437
2.661

Waste disposal

Waste generation

IBS produce mini-

Material consumption

subcontractor (W3)

posal to different
types (S3)
reused (S4)

Lack of cooperation from

subcontractor (W3)

Easy to separate disposal to different

types (S3)
reused (S4)

Potential to be

tion for waste collection

(W2)

Need to design proper loca-

of wastage are required (W1)

Efforts to sort different types

and measurement for each

element (W2)

Required precise dimension

mass wastages (W1)

separation of waste
streams (S2)

Able to facilitate

mum waste (S1)

IBS produce mini-

delivered to site
(S3)

Exact elements are

Less debris (S2)

No waste (S1)
Ineffective planning causes

Lack of cooperation from

Easy to separate dis Potential to be

tion for waste collection

(W2)

Need to design proper loca-

of wastage are required (W1)

Efforts to sort different types

Weaknesses

separation of waste
streams (S2)

Able to facilitate

mum waste (S1)

Strengths

Sustainability factor

Table 3 SWOT analysis results on ecological performance criteria

struction waste is recycled for another

project (O2)

Less virgin materials are used when con-

improve recovery rates (O1)

Recycled waste (O5)

Usage of renewable materials can

materials in construction (O4)

Specify and use reclaimed or waste

minimize waste (O3)

Design with whole life cycle in mind to

(O2)

Prevent waste by proper maintenance

on site (O1)

Reduce wrapping for elements delivered

struction waste is recycled for another

project (O2)

Less virgin materials are used when con-

improve recovery rates (O1)

Usage of renewable materials can

Opportunities

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

are required (T2)

Proper planning and checklist

should be agreed during the

design stage (T1)

Waste minimization decision

Unfit problem (T3)

and handling (T2)

Damage during transportation

Require proper handling (T1)

are required (T2)

Proper planning and checklist

should be agreed during the

design stage (T1)

Waste minimization decision

Threats

8
Yunus and Yang

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Ecological performance
Jaillon et al. (2009) identified waste reduction as one
of the major benefits when using IBS compared with
conventional construction. Their analysis shows the
average wastage reduction level was approximately
52%. Therefore it is extremely important to minimize
the source of waste generation through IBS design
and construction and, at the same time, alleviate the
burden of waste management.
Waste disposal is ranked as the second most important factor (Table 2: mean value 4.38). The IBS manufacturing process allows for better management of
the waste stream (Gorgolewski, 2004, 2005). Many
offsite manufacturing plants have recycling facilities
and the integration of industrial ecological systems
allows waste from one production process to become
a resource for the next. In addition, effective design
will ensure that resources are consumed efficiently
and materials ordered strictly to standard sizes, thus
minimizing onsite processing and offcuts. Soetanto
et al. (2004) stated that the disposal (i.e. demolition
and site clearance) costs can be minimized when
adopting IBS applications.
The third most significant factor for ecological performance is material consumption (Table 2: mean value
4.28). In Malaysia, the expansion of urban and industrial areas has caused mineral resource sterilization
through the encroachment upon existing mines and
quarries, therefore preventing exploitation of and
access to new and undeveloped mineral resources
(Hezri and Hasan, 2006). Jaillon and Poon (2010)
stated that replacing conventional construction with
IBS applications will help reduce material consumption. Similar findings also highlighted by Tam et al.
(2005) confirmed that material consumption can be
significantly reduced through IBS construction. In
their study, savings achieved from plastering and
timber formwork alone counts to approximately
100% and 7487% respectively.
The three most significant factors were further
investigated through semi-structured interviews.
Interviews allow the authors to explore details of each
factor in depth and to identify solutions or action
plans to consider, encapsulate and improve sustainability in IBS applications. In this investigation,
SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats) analysis is used to present information and
encapsulate recommendations into a practical tool.
Twenty respondents participated in the interview
sessions. These respondents belonged to seven types
of organizations, namely designer/consultant companies, manufacturer companies, contractor companies,
user or facility management companies, client/developer companies, research/academic institutions and
authority/government agencies. With a minimum of
10 years of experience in real-world IBS applications,

they are considered the most knowledgeable and

authoritative to provide recommendations in enhancing sustainable deliverables. Table 3 presents the
SWOT analysis results on ecological performance
criteria.
The internal and external conditions are evaluated
simultaneously by recording all of the possibilities and
opportunities. In this research, group-wise analysis
was used in SWOT analysis. This methodology was
effective in providing factors and major objectives and
to clarify unclear issues by developing a consensus
among stakeholders (Srivastava et al., 2005). As
shown in Table 3, the significant strengths for material consumption were IBS produce minimum waste
(S1), able to facilitate separation of waste streams (S2),
easy to separate disposal to different types (S3) and potential to be reused (S4). These strengths were then linked
with the recommendation suggested in the semi-structured interviews. For example, S1 provides an idea
for stakeholders to adopt methods and technology
with less demand on materials for their project as one
of the action plans. 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle)
strategies can be a way forward to achieve sustainable
development in Malaysia (Hamid and Kamar, 2012).
Similar analysis was applied to both positive and negative considerations of all critical factors. Table 4
Table 4 Recommendations in improving sustainability in
IBS implementation
Sustainability
factors
Material
consumption

Recommendations: action plans

Promote recycle materials and

resources

Use local resources and materials

Examine the nature of the materials
used

Regulation to use sustainable

resources

Effective and optimum materials

handling

Waste generation

Waste disposal

Follow specification provided

Adopt less materials technology
Precision in size and dimension
Proper handling
Higher penalty and tax levies
Design for environmental impact
Plan efficiently
Stringent environmental regulations
Disposal management and requirements

Recycle and reuse approach

Team up with other builders to
recycle

10

Yunus and Yang

shows the recommendations based on the complete

analysis. The recommendations provide step-to step
actions for stakeholders at the project level for specific
sustainability challenges.

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Discussion
Building production in a controlled environment
offers numerous opportunities to improve sustainability, such as minimizing construction time, increasing
quality of buildings, enhancing occupational health
and safety and reducing construction waste. The three
most significant factors in IBS ecological performance
demonstrate the importance of managing resources
and waste. Effective planning for materials and waste
minimization is imperative.
IBS applications were proven to have the ability to
reduce waste for both design and construction phases
(Jaillon et al., 2009). The adoption of IBS applications contributes to both material conservation and
waste reduction (Jaillon and Poon, 2008). Early consideration in the design stage will contribute to waste
avoidance through efficient use of construction materials and the planning of production processes. It is
important for IBS component manufacturers to
improve operations by ordering material precisely and
on a just-in-time basis, considering appropriate
storage facilities and eliminating defects and damage.
Modular coordination of materials such as brick,
timber or steel components should be promoted to
standardize components and minimize double
handling and offcuts.
Victorias Environment Protection Act (1970, s.1I)
states that waste should be managed in accordance
with the following order of preference:

avoidance;
reuse;
recycling;
recovery of energy;
treatment;
containment;
disposal.

The identification of waste generation as the most

critical factor in improving IBS applications echoes
the notion that waste needs first to be avoided and its
generation process properly managed to achieve a sustainability objective.
The second most significant factor is waste disposal, also relating to the waste management process.
The factor is the least preferable solution in the above
waste hierarchy. However, this factor can contribute
to sustainability by encouraging IBS stakeholders to

develop efficient strategies to dispose of construction

materials. Schultmann and Sunke (2007) highlighted
that the reduction of waste through the establishment
of closed-loop material flows alleviates sustainable
development constraints. Methods and techniques in
waste disposal need to be strategized to allow stakeholders to take advantage of material recovery. IBS
applications allow systematic and coordinated dismantling of building components, which can be reused at
a different location. In this context, focus for the long
term should be on encouraging an effective waste disposal process. As shown in Table 3, cooperation
among the builders to promote recycling and reuse is
very important. Involvement from all participants at
the project level is vital to achieving such an objective.
In this study, local and regional characteristics and
physical environments are also among the important
elements to be considered.
A full understanding of the local resource availability and capacity is vital to ensuring that material consumption issues are properly considered in IBS
project delivery. The qualitative analysis of this study
has resulted in the recommendation of seven action
plans for material consumption, five action plans for
waste generation and four action plans for waste
disposal (Table 4). These action plans present the
main process and steps of working through each critical factor to improve sustainability. With these plans,
designers may follow consistent approaches while
responding to sustainability concerns from all stakeholders. Intensive evaluation of applicable materials
will help the government determine and control the
balance between import and export of construction
materials and minimize material price fluctuation.
Initiatives of using local materials and recycling can
serve as a catalyst for the local economy and close the
loop of resource regeneration. Technologies promoting reuse or long service life, such as durable mouldings and formwork, can contribute to material
consumption efficiency.

Conclusion
With proven benefits, industrialized building systems
(IBS) can provide the right ingredients for the
construction industrys response to sustainability challenges in Malaysia. Against rising interest, existing
IBS evaluation criteria and tools do not specifically
relate to sustainability. The improvement of IBS environmental performance needs to involve all participants such as developers, designers, contractors and
manufacturers to agree upon and prioritize issues and
to support design professionals as they exert a major
influence on the project outcome.

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Ecological performance
A systematic strategy to improve IBS ecological
performance through decision support to the design
phase is presented. Three critical factors are identified
to be material consumption, waste generation and waste
disposal. To provide a decision-making frame suited to
the subject matter yet conducive to brainstorming,
testing of alternatives, and contemplation of pros and
cons, SWOT analysis is used to present specific strategies for dealing with the critical factors and provide
practical guidelines for IBS designers. The research
process also helps raise the industrys general awareness of sustainability and highlights the need to make
existing evaluation tools capable of responding to new
issues. Issues unique to developing countries, through
the case of Malaysia, are also given due consideration.
We need a holistic approach to respond to
sustainability challenges in IBS implementation. The
approach should encompass the entire project development cycle. As the first step, research to date has
combined quantitative and qualitative analysis to
develop potential strategies for IBS design professionals to respond to, deal with, and maximize benefits
from the key factors of ecological performance. Ongoing work will validate and improve this decision
framework for design before moving to consider issues
in the construction and operational phases. It will be
interesting to find out the inherent linkages between
design decisions and actual sustainability deliverables
during other development stages.

References
Abidin, N.Z. and Pasquire, C.L. (2005) Delivering sustainability through value management: concept and performance view. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 12(2), 16880.
Adetunji, I., Price, A.D.F., Fleming, P. and Kemp, P.
(2003) Sustainability and the UK construction industry:
a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Engineering Sustainability, 156(4), 18599.
Al-Yami, A.M. and Price, A.D.F. (2006) A framework for
implementing sustainable construction in building briefing project. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual
ARCOM Conference, Birmingham, UK, 46 September.
Arif, M. and Egbu, C. (2010) Making a case for offsite construction in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(6), 53648.
Baldwin, A., Poon, C.S., Shen, L.Y., Austin, S. and Wong,
I. (2009) Designing out waste in high-rise residential
buildings: analysis of precasting methods and traditional
construction. Renewable Energy, 34(9), 206773.
Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R. (2009) Drivers, constraints
and the future of offsite manufacture in Australia. Construction Innovation, 9(1), 7283.

11
Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A. (2006) Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction. Construction
Management and Economics, 24(2), 12130.
Bryman, A. (1992) Quantity and Quality in Social Research,
Routledge, London.
Burgan, B.A. and Sansom, M.R. (2006) Sustainable steel
construction. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62
(11), 117883.
Chen, Y., Okudan, G.E. and Riley, D.R. (2010a)
Sustainable performance criteria for construction method
selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction,
19(2), 23544.
Chen, Y., Okudan, G.E. and Riley, D.R. (2010b) Decision
support for construction method selection in concrete
buildings: prefabrication adoption and optimization.
Automation in Construction, 19(6), 66575.
Cohen, B. (2006) Urbanization in developing countries:
current trends, future projections, and key challenges for
sustainability. Technology in Society, 28(12), 6380.
Cole, R.J. (2004) Changing context for environmental
knowledge. Building Research & Information, 32(2),
91109.
Cole, R.J. (2011) Environmental issues past, present and
future: changing priorities and responsibilities for building
design. Keynote on 40:40 Looking Back and Looking
Forward: 2011 World Conference on Sustainable
Building, 1821 October, Helsinki.
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (2005)
Manual for IBS Content Scoring System (IBS SCORE),
Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (2006)
Construction Industry Master Plan 20062015. Construction Industry Development Board, Kuala Lumpur.
Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Department of Trade and Industry (2001) Construction
Industry Directorate Project Report No. 203032: Current
Practice and Potential Uses of Prefabrication, BRE (Building
Research Establishment), Watford, UK.
Ding, G. (2008) Sustainable construction: the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental
Management, 86(3), 45164.
Ekanayake, L.L. and Ofori, G. (2004) Building waste
assessment score: design-based tool. Building and Environment, 39(7), 85161.
Evbuomwan, N.F.O. and Anumba, C.J. (1998) An integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design and construction. Advances in Engineering Software, 29(79),
58797.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2008) Research Methods for
Construction, 3rd edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004) Sustainable value added:
measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond
eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 17387.
Gibb, A. and Isack, F. (2003) Re-engineering through preassembly: client expectations and drivers. Building
Research & Information, 31(2), 14660.

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

12
Gibberd, J. (2008) Sustainable building assessment tool: integrating sustainability into current design and building processes, in Foliente, G., Luetzkendorf, T., Newton, P. and
Paevere, P. (eds.) World Sustainable Building Conference,
Melbourne, Australia, 2125 September, pp. 945950.
Gorgolewski, M.T. (2004) Housing in the natural city: the
role of prefabrication. Ekistics, 71(4246), 113117.
Gorgolewski, M.T. (2005) The potential for prefabrication
in UK housing to improve sustainability, in Yang, J.,
Brandon, P.S. and Sidwell, A.C. (eds.) Smart & Sustainable Built Environments, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1218.
Hamid, Z.A. and Kamar, K.A.M. (2012) Editorial: aspects
of off-site manufacturing application towards sustainable
construction in Malaysia. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 12(1), 410.
Hamid, Z.A., Kamar, K.A.M., Zain, M.Z.M., Ghani, M.K.
and Rahim, A.H.A. (2008) Industrialized Building
System (IBS) in Malaysia: the current state and R&D
initiatives. Malaysian Construction Research Journal
(MCRJ), 2(1), 111.
Hezri, A.A. and Hasan, M.N. (2006) Towards sustainable
development? The evolution of environmental policy in
Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum, 30(1), 3750.
Holton, I. (2006) Second Report on the Precast Industrys
Progress on Sustainability, Sustainability Matters, British
Precast, Leicester.
Holtan, I., Glass, J. and Price, A. (2008) Developing a
successful sector sustainability strategy: six lessons from
the UK construction products industry. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 2942.
Horman, M.J., Riley, D.R., Lapinski, A.R., Korkmaz, S.,
Pulaski, M.H., Magent, C.S., Luo, Y., Harding, N. and
Dahl, P.K. (2006) Delivering green buildings: process
improvements for sustainable construction. Journal of
Green Building, 1(1), 12340.
International Council for Building Research and Innovation
(1999) Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction, CIB Report
Publication 237, CIB, Rotterdam.
Jaafar, M., Ramayah, T., Abdul-Aziz, A.R. and Saad, B.
(2007) Technology readiness among managers of
Malaysian construction firms. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 14(2), 18091.
Jaillon, L. and Poon, C.S. (2008) Sustainable construction
aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Construction Management
and Economics, 26(9), 95366.
Jaillon, L. and Poon, C.S. (2010) Design issues of using
prefabrication in Hong Kong building construction. Construction Management and Economics, 28(10), 102542.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S. and Chiang, Y.H. (2009) Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication
in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Management, 29(1), 30920.
Kamar, K.A.M., Alshawi, M. and Hamid, Z. (2009) Industrialised building system: the critical success factors, in:
Ahmed, V., Alshawi, M., Egbu, C. and Sutrisna, M.
(eds.) Proceedings of the BUHU 9th International Postgraduate Research Conference, The Lowry, Salford Quays,
UK, 2930 January, pp. 485497.

Yunus and Yang

Kibert, C.J. (2008) Sustainable Construction, John Wiley &
Sons, New Jersey.
Lu, W., Li, H., Shen, L. and Huang, T. (2009) Strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis of Chinese
construction companies in the global market. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 25(4), 16676.
Luo, Y., Riley, D.R. and Horman, M.J. (2005) Lean principles for pre-fabrication in green design-build (GDB) projects. in: International Group for Lean Construction (eds.)
13th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, 1921 July, Sydney, Australia, pp. 539548.
Luo, Y., Riley, D.R., Horman, M.J. and. Kremer, G.O.
(2006) Decision support methodology for prefabrication
decisions on green building projects, in McDermott, P.
and Khalfan, M.M.A. (eds.) Symposium on Sustainability
and Value through Construction Procurement, University of
Salford, 29 November2 December, pp. 368377.
Luu, T.V., Kim, S.Y., Cao, H.L. and Park, Y.M. (2008)
Performance measurement of construction firms in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics,
26(4), 37386.
Milosevic, I.N. (2010) Practical application of SWOT analysis in the management of a construction project. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 10(2), 7886.
Nadim, W. and Goulding, J.S. (2011) Offsite production: a
model for building down barriers: a European construction industry perspective. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 18(1), 82101.
Nawi, M.N.M., Lee, A. and Nor, K.M. (2011) Barriers to
implementation of the industrialised building system
(IBS) in Malaysia. The Built & Human Environment
Review, 4, 2235.
Nelms, C.E., Russell, A.D. and Lence, B.J. (2007) Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies: a framework and its application. Building Research & Information,
35(3), 23751.
Neuman, W.L. (2007) Basics of Social Research, 2nd edn,
Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Ofori, G. and Kien, H.L. (2004) Translating Singapore
architects environmental awareness into decision making.
Building Research & Information, 32(1), 2737.
Pasquire, C., Gibb, A. and Blismas, N. (2005) What should
you really measure if you want to compare prefabrication
with traditional construction, in: International Group for
Lean Construction (eds.) 13th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, 1921 July,
Sydney, Australia, pp. 481491.
Patzlaff, J.O., Gonzalez, M.A.S. and Kern, A.P. (2010)
Assessment of building sustainability in micro and small
construction firms on southern Brazil, in: Barrett, P.,
Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Keraminiyage, K. and Pathirage, C. (eds.) CIB Working Commission W107 - Construction in Developing Countries: Papers and Postgraduate Papers
From the Special Track held at the CIB World Building
Congress, 1013 May, The Lowry, Salford Quays, UK,
pp. 5058.
Polat, G. (2010) Precast concrete systems in developing vs.
industrialized countries. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 16(1), 8594.

Downloaded by [14.1.193.92] at 06:36 20 August 2013

Ecological performance
Richard, R.B. (2006) Individualisation and industrialisation,
in: Scheublin, F. and Pronk, A. (eds) Proceedings of
Adaptables 2006: Joint CIB, Tensinet, IASS International
Conference on Adaptability in Design and Construction, Technical University Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 35 July.
Schultmann, F. and Sunke, N. (2007) Energy-oriented
deconstruction and recovery planning. Building Research
& Information, 35(6), 60215.
Shen, L.Y., Hao, J.L., Tam, V.W.Y. and Yao, H. (2007) A
checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 13(4), 27381.
Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W.Y. and Li, C.Y. (2009) Benefit analysis on replacing in situ concreting with precast slabs for
temporary construction works in pursuing sustainable
construction practice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(3), 1458.
Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, L. and Ji, Y.B. (2010) Project
feasibility study: the key to successful implementation of
sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(3), 2549.
Soebarto, V.I. and Williamson, T.J. (2001) Multicriteria assessment of building performance: theory and
implementation. Building and Environment, 36(6), 68190.
Soetanto, R., Dainty, A., Glass, J. and Price, A.D.F. (2004)
Criteria for assessing the potential performance of hybrid
concrete structural frames. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 11(6), 41424.
Song, J., Fagerlund, W.R., Haas, C.T., Tatum, C.B. and
Vanegas, J.A. (2005) Considering prework on industrial
projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(6), 72333.
Srivastava, P.K., Kulshreshtha, K., Mohanty, C.S., Pushpangadan, P. and Singh, A. (2005) Stakeholder-based
SWOT analysis for successful municipal solid waste management in Lucknow. India. Waste Management, 25(5),
5317.
Taher, A.M., Zakaria, R. and Zin, R.M. (2009) Criteria of
sustainable formwork system, Paper presented at the International Conference on Building Science and Engineering, 1415 December, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

13
Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., Chan, J.K.W. and Ng,
W.C.Y. (2005) Use of prefabrication to minimize
construction waste: a case study approach. International
Journal of Construction Management, 5(1), 91101.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X. and Ng, W.C.Y.
(2007a) Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Building and Environment, 42(10), 364254.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M. and Ng, W.C.Y. (2007b) On
prefabrication implementation for different project types
and procurement methods in Hong Kong. Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 5(1), 6880.
Teo, M. and Loosemore, M. (2003) Changing the environmental culture of the construction industry, in: Molenaar,
K.R. and Chinowsky, P. (eds) Proceedings of Construction Research Congress: Winds of Change: Integration
and Innovation. Construction Research Congress 2003,
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, 1921 March.
Trigunarsyah, B. (2004) Constructability practices among
construction contractors in Indonesia. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(5), 65669.
Wong, J. and Li, H. (2006) Development of a conceptual
model for the selection of intelligent building systems.
Building and Environment, 41(8), 110623.
Yang, J. (2012) Editorial: promoting integrated development for smart and sustainable built environment. Smart
and Sustainable Built Environment, 1(1), 413.
Yang, J. and Lim, S.K. (2008) Reality check: the
identification of sustainability perception and deliverables
for Australian road infrastructure projects. Paper presented
at the 3rd International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science, The New Zealand Society for Sustainability Engineering and Science, Auckland, New
Zealand, 912 December.
Yee, A.A. (2001) Social and environmental benefits of precast concrete technology. PCI Journal, 56, 1420.
Yunus, R. and Yang, J. (2012) Critical sustainability factors
in industrialised building systems. Construction Innovation:
Information, Process, Management, 12(4), 44763.
Zhao, X. and Riffat, S. (2007) Prefabrication in house
constructions. International Journal of Low Carbon
Technologies, 2(1), 4451.