Production Strategy

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology,
Dissertations No. 1892
Production Strategy in
Project Based
Production within a
House-Building
Context
Henric Jonsson
Norrköping 2018
Production Strategy in Project Based Manufacturing Within a
House-Building Context
Henric Jonsson
Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Dissertations, No. 1892
Copyright , Henric Jonsson, 2018, unless otherwise noted
ISBN 978-91-7685-401-3
ISSN 0345-7524
Linköping University
Department of Science and Technology
SE-601 74 Norrköping, Sweden
Printed in Sweden by LiU-Tryck, Linköping, Sweden, 2017

Abstract
A production strategy enables companies to effectively manage the different challenges

that the production function face in a competitive environment. A production strategy helps
a company to make operational and strategic decisions that follow a logical pattern and
supports the corporate strategy and the competitive priorities of the company. When no
strategy exists the decisions may be arbitrary and unpredictable leading to an under-
achieving production system. Production strategy involves decisions that shape the long
term capabilities of a producing company. For the traditional production industry there are
a number of production strategy frameworks that facilitates the process of designing
production systems. However, these frameworks typically leave project based production
out of the scope or treat project based production as one type of production system, when
in fact project based production systems can be multifaceted depending on product design
and market requirements.
This thesis focus on project based manufacturing in a house-building context. Houses can
be produced by different types of production systems, and depending on how the
production systems are designed they have strengths and weaknesses in different areas of
competition. To be able to meet the increasing demand for residential houses, and improve
performance in the house-building industry, the way houses are produced have to match
different market requirements in a more effective and efficient way. To do this a production
strategy has to exist. Typically there is a trade-off between productivity and flexibility,
hence a production system designed to meet customer requirements concerning product
design is probably not the best process choice if the customer thinks price and delivery time
are the most important. A production strategy helps a company to make decisions so that
the output of the production system meets customer requirements in the best possible way.
Due to the fact that project based production is typically left out of the scope in traditional
production strategy literature and that there is a lack of research concerning production
strategy in a house-building context, the purpose of this research is:
… to extend the production strategy body of knowledge concerning project based

production in a house-building context.
To fulfil the purpose the following four research questions are studied and answered:
RQ1: What aspects can be useful in a classification matrix contrasting different production
systems for house-building?
RQ2: Which competitive priorities are important to measure when evaluating different
production systems on a production strategy level in a house-building context, and how
can they quantitatively be measured?
RQ3: How does the characteristics of the production system, i.e. the process choice, affect
information exchange in a house-building context?
RQ4: How can a new production strategy be formulated and implemented in an

industrialised house-building context and what challenges are important to consider in that
process?
To answer RQ1 a classification matrix was developed that classify production systems
along two dimensions: a product dimension (degree of product standardisation) and a
process dimension (degree of off-site assembly). The two dimensions are related, for
example a high degree of standardisation should be matched with a high degree of off-site
assembly and consequently a low degree of product standardisation should be matched with
a low degree of off-suite assembly. A mismatch, e.g. high degree of off-site assembly and
low degree of standardisation, typically leads to poor performance and should hence be
avoided.
To be able to see how different types of production systems perform in different areas of
competition key performance indicators (KPIs) were developed. The KPIs presented in this
research can be used to measure quality, delivery (speed and dependability), cost (level and
dependability), and flexibility (volume and mix) at a production strategic level (RQ2).
Furthermore, to answer RQ3, a production strategy perspective was taken on information

exchange by relating information exchange to the design of the production system. The
results indicate that employing different types of production systems leads to different
approaches to information exchange. Employing a production systems using traditional
production methods on-site and a low degree of product standardisation lead to a traditional
approach to information exchange, e.g. project meetings, telephone and mail. Production
systems employing some degree of off-site assembly have less complex and more stable
supply chains and use ICT-solutions to a higher extent, which facilitates information
exchange. The findings also indicate that a high degree of product standardisation facilitates
the use of ICT-solutions such as ERP and BIM.
RQ4 concerns the production strategy process, i.e. formulation and implementation. Failure
in this processes can jeopardise the whole business. Based on a longitudinal case study of
an industrialised house-builder a suggested production strategy process was developed,
including both production strategy formulation and implementation. The study also
identified context specific challenges that have to be considered in an industrialised house-
building context, e.g. the complexity that comes with using two different production
processes (off-site and on-site) in the same production system.
The research is case based and a total number of eight different production systems have
been studied. Data has been collected through interviews, observations, and review of
company documents.
Populärvetenskaplig sammanfattning
I juni 2016 kom Boverket ut med en prognos över behovet av nya bostäder till år 2025.
Enligt den rapporten råder det idag brist på bostäder i majoriteten av Sveriges kommuner
och för att komma till rätta med det bedömer man att det kommer att behöva byggas
700 000 nya bostäder fram till år 2025. Det innebär att man behöver bygga omkring 88 000
nya bostäder per år. Som en jämförelse färdigställdes knappt 127 700 bostäder under
perioden 2012-2015. Byggbranschen står alltså inför en stor utmaning om man ska lyckas
tillgodose behovet av nya bostäder.
I denna avhandling är produktionsstrategi inom husbyggnation i fokus. Produktionsstrategi
handlar om att ta beslut om hur företagets produktionssystem ska utformas så att det möter
kraven från företagets kunder på bästa sätt. Avhandlingen kategoriserar och jämför olika
typer av produktionssystem för husbyggnation, exempelvis olika industriella
produktionssystem med förtillverkning i en fabrik och traditionell produktion på
byggarbetsplatsen. Avhandlingen beskriver och utvärderar också själva processen att rent
praktiskt formulera och implementera en produktionsstrategi. Ur ett praktiskt perspektiv
bidrar forskningen till att hjälpa byggföretag att utforma sitt produktionssystem så att de på
ett så effektivt sätt som möjligt kan tillgodose kraven från valt kundsegment. Tanken med
denna forskning är alltså att underlätta för byggföretag i deras arbete med
produktionsstrategi så att rätt typ av produktionssystem används för att bygga rätt typ av
hus. Om man gör det kommer husbyggnationen bli effektivare, vilket är en förutsättning
om dagens och framtidens efterfrågan på bostäder ska kunna tillgodoses.
För att på ett effektivt sätt kunna möta kraven från marknaden måste det finnas en koppling
mellan marknaden och företagets produktionsfunktion. Om kunden exempelvis efterfrågar
ett billigt hus och kort leveranstid måste produktionssystemet vara utformat för att
minimera produktionskostnad och ledtid. Tycker kunden däremot att kundanpassning och
produktdesign är viktigt så måste produktionssystemet vara flexibelt. Detta kan låta enkelt
och logiskt, men i praktiken kan det vara svårt att se kopplingen mellan olika
konkurrensfaktorer på marknaden (kostnad, kvalitet, leveranstid, flexibilitet) och de olika
beslut som måste tas för att utforma sitt produktionssystem (personal,
organisationsstruktur, materialförsörjning, val av produktionsprocess etc.) så att de möter
kundkraven på ett effektivt sätt. Denna avhandling kan hjälpa byggföretag att lyckas med
detta, vilket förhoppningsvis leder till att kundernas behov tillgodoses, vilket i sin tur ger
nöjda kunder samtidigt som verksamheten blir effektiv och lönsam.
Avhandlingen består av tre studier. I den första studien presenteras ett verktyg för att kunna
kategorisera och jämföra olika typer av produktionssystem för produktion av
flerbostadshus. Kopplat till det har nyckeltal (KPIer) tagits fram så man kan mäta olika
produktionssystems konkurrensförmåga inom områdena kvalitet, leveranstid,
leveranspålitlighet, kostnadsnivå, kostnadspålitlighet samt flexibilitet. Tanken med detta är
att underlätta valet av produktionsprocess för byggföretag så att de använder ett
produktionssystem som möter kraven från just deras kundsegment på bästa sätt.
I den andra studien har processvalets inverkan på informationsdelning inom byggföretaget
och med aktörer i försörjningskedjan studerats. Studien visar att industriella byggare har en
stabilare försörjningskedja med färre leverantörer och underentreprenörer jämfört med
traditionella byggare. Den visar också att industriella byggare använder sig av IT-verktyg i
större utsträckning än traditionella byggare. Detta i kombination med att industriella
byggare oftast standardiserar produkten i större utsträckning än traditionella byggare
underlättar arbetet med informationsdelning både inom det producerande företaget och i
försörjningskedjan.
I den tredje studien är produktionsstrategiprocessen i fokus. I den studien har själva
processen att formulera och implementera en produktionsstrategi för en industriell byggare
studerats. Förslag på hur man kan arbeta för att ta fram en ny produktionsstrategi samt hur
man kan göra för att implementera den har identifierats.
För att få en förankring i byggindustrin har alla studier gjorts i samarbete med byggföretag
som använder olika typer av produktionssystem. Information till de olika studierna har
samlats genom studiebesök, intervjuer och granskning av företagsspecifika dokument.
Totalt har åtta olika produktionssystem bidragit med information till forskningens olika
delar. Forskningens förankring i byggbranschen är viktig om dess resultat ska kunna
användas i byggföretagens produktionsstrategiarbete.
Foreword
The next few lines are dedicated to the persons that have supported me in my PhD-studies.
They have dedicated time and effort to help me and without them I would never have been
able to get to this point, where I am only a foreword from finalising my doctoral thesis. To
these persons I am forever grateful!
I want to start with thanking my supervisors Martin Rudberg and Anna Fredriksson. Martin
for being the best supervisor I could ever have wished for. Your dedication and
thoroughness seem to have no limits and I am so grateful for all the time and devotion you
have put in to help me as a PhD-student. Anna Fredriksson for broadening the perspectives,
your input has most definitely improved the quality of my research.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my colleagues (present and former) in the Construction
Logistics group for a great working environment, combining serious discussions with
humour (in varying quality). Thank you Micael Thunberg for taking the lead in the PhD-
process, it has made the practical issues a lot easier for me. Thank you Mats Janné, for
making everyday life at the office more fun.
Thirdly, I want to thank all my colleagues at the division of Communications- and

Transport Systems (CTS). Special thanks goes to Viveka Nilson, your help during my time
at the university has been invaluable, and to Elisabeth Andersson for all the practical help
concerning my stay in Cardiff. Finally I want to thank Ellen Grumert for all the discussions
about work and life during morgonkaffe. I have been very lucky to have you as my
colleague and friend throughout the PhD-studies.
Finally, I want to send all my love to my family, at the moment located in Norrköping,
Stockholm, and Örnsköldsvik. I know you always have my back and support me in every
part of my life. I may need it even more in the future now that I’m finally done with school
and, at the age of 34, will start working at a “real” job .
Therese, your love and support means everything to me. I could never have pulled this
through without you. I Love You, Arvid and Holger with all my heart!
Norrköping, November 2017
Henric Jonsson
Acknowledgement
There are a number of persons that have contributed to this research that I want to thank. I
am very grateful to Jesper Strandberg, Ola Dietrichson, Helena Lidelöw, Ola Magnusson,
Mikael Thorgren, Lars Eriksson, Roger Pettersson, Malin Nordgren, Mats Öberg, Sverker
Andreasson, Anton Lundholm, Magnus Lindskog, Refik Salievski, Henrik Johnsson,
Magnus Karlsson, Lars-Åke Lindvall, Lina Andersson, Markus Holmlund, and Morgan
Eriksson. Thank you all for great discussions and input to the research project. I also want
to thank Dr Jonathan Gosling and Professor Mohamed Naim for a warm welcome and great
discussions during my visit at Cardiff Business School. The research has been financed by
The Lars Erik Lundberg Foundation for Research and Education.
Thesis Outline
This thesis is of a compilation character (thesis by publication) comprising five articles;

three of them are published in academic journals: Construction Management & Economics,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, and Construction Innovation
respectively. One is a working paper based on a conference proceeding presented at the
24th EurOMA conference in Edinburgh 2017, and one is a working paper submitted to the
academic journal International Journal of Production Economics. The thesis is titled:
Production Strategy in Project Based Manufacturing within a House-Building Context and
consists of an introductory part that describes the background and purpose to the research,
explains the house-building context, clarifies the theoretical frame of reference, and
presents the research questions. After that the research process is described, the results are
presented and discussed and finally the main contributions of this research are presented.
The second part of the thesis includes the five papers that the research builds’ upon. The
papers are listed below:
Paper 1
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M. (2014). “Classification of production systems for
industrialized building: a production strategy perspective”. Construction management and
Economics, 32(1-2), 53–69.
Paper 2
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M. (2015). “Production System Classification Matrix:
Matching Product Standardization and Production System Design”. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol 141, Issue 6.
Paper 3
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M. (2017). “KPIs for Measuring Performance of Production
Systems for Residential Building”. Construction Innovation, Vol 17, No. 3, 381-403.
Paper 4
Jonsson, H. and Gosling, J. (2017). “Information exchange in house-building – a
production strategy perspective”. Working paper, based on proceedings from the 24th
EurOMA conference, 1 - 6th of June 2017, Edinburgh Scotland.
Paper 5
Jonsson, H. and Fredriksson, A. (2017). “Production strategy process – formulation and
implementation in an industrialised house-building context”. Working paper submitted to
International Journal of Production Economics.
“I’m (still) a lucky man, to count on both hands the ones I love”
Eddie Vedder (2009)

Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Scope and limitations 3
2. The house-building context 7
2.1 The house-building industry in Sweden today 7
2.2 House-building projects 8
2.3 Industrialised house-building 9
2.3.1 Process model of industrialised house-building 10
2.3.2 Classifying different types of house-building production systems 12
2.4 House-building supply chains and information exchange challenges 14
3. Production strategy 17
3.1 Overview and definition 17
3.2 Production strategy content 19
3.2.1 Competitive priorities 19
3.2.2 Decision categories 23
3.3 Production strategy process 29
3.3.1 Production strategy formulation 29
3.3.2 Production strategy implementation 30
3.4 Performance measurement 32
3.4.1 Key performance indicators (KPI) 34
4. Research questions 37
4.1 Research question 1 37
5. Research design 41
5.1 Overview of the research process 41
5.2 Study 1: Process choice and performance measurement 46
5.2.1 Research design and process Study 1 46
5.2.2 Method Study 1 48
5.3 Study 2: Information exchange in house-building 52
5.4 Study 3: Production strategy process 54
5.5 Research quality 56
5.5.1 Reliability 57
5.5.2 Construct validity 58
5.5.3 Internal validity 58
5.5.4 External validity 59
6. Results 61
6.1 Classification of production systems in house-building 61
6.2 Performance measurement 64
6.3 Information exchange in house-building 69
6.4 Formulation and implementation of production strategy in industrialised house-
building 72
7. Discussion and further research 75
7.1 Practical implications 75
7.1.1 Evaluating two different production systems 75
7.1.2 Performance measurement 77
7.1.3 Production systems off the diagonal 77
7.1.4 Information exchange in a house-building context 79
7.1.5 Redesigning a production system 80
7.2 Reflections and further research 81
8. Contribution 85
References 89
Paper 1 – Classification of production systems for industrialised building: A
production strategy perspective
Paper 2 – Production System Classification Matrix: Matching Production

Standardisation and Production-System design
Paper 3 – KPIs for measuring performance of production systems for residential

buildings: A production strategy perspective
Paper 4 – Information exchange in house-building: A production strategy

perspective
Paper 5 – Production strategy process: Formulation and Implementation in an

industrialised house-building context
1. Introduction
Focus in this thesis is the production of multi-family houses. The research highlights
strengths and weaknesses of typical production systems having different product and
process characteristics. The research also study how to measure performance at a
production strategy level, and how the design of the production system affects information
exchange. Finally the production strategy process is researched by studying production
strategy formulation and implementation in an industrialised house-building context.
1.1 Background
To be able to effectively manage the different challenges that the production function faces
a production strategy has to exist. A production strategy helps a company to make
operational and strategic decisions that follow a logical pattern that supports the corporate
strategy and the competitive priorities of the company (Hill and Hill, 2009). When no
strategy exists the decisions may be arbitrary and unpredictable (Miltenburg, 2005), leading
to an underachieving production system. Production strategy involves decisions that shape
the long term capabilities of a producing company, in order to be competitive in the
marketplace, by linking market requirements and production resources (Miltenburg, 2005,
Slack and Lewis, 2011). Since Skinner (1969) in his seminal work identified production as
the missing link in corporate strategy a number of structured production strategy
frameworks have been developed to facilitate the work with production strategy in the
production industry (see e.g. Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979, Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984,
Hill and Hill, 2009, Miltenburg, 2005, Slack and Lewis, 2011). These frameworks have
been shown useful for producing firms when designing new production systems, or when
improving already existing ones.
One of the more important decisions a producing company has to make concerns the
products and choosing a suitable production process by which to make them (Hill and Hill,
2009). To facilitate this, the so called process choice, Hayes and Wheelwright (1979)
introduced the product-process matrix (Figure 1). In that matrix the correlation between
different types of process layouts, e.g. continuous processing, line flow, batch flow, job
shop and project, and the product structure, i.e. production volume and degree of
standardisation (low/low to high/high) are visualised. However, in traditional production
strategy literature project based production (see top left corner of the product-process
matrix in Figure 1) is described in general terms as only one type of production system (see
e.g. Hill and Hill, 2009) or left out of the scope due to the unique characteristics of those
one-off products (see e.g. Miltenburg, 2005).
1
1. Introduction
research that classify different types of production systems for production of multi-family
houses (e.g. Barlow et al., 2003, Barlow and Ozaki, 2005, Halman et al., 2008) do not
explicitly treat the trade-off between productivity and flexibility and thereby neglect the
important link between market requirements and the design of the production system. To
be successful this link between the market (customers and competition) and production
must be taken into consideration. Strategic decisions concerning the design of the
production system must be taken so that the production system is aligned with the other
functions (e.g. marketing, design, finance etc.) in the company. A production strategy
framework, adapted to a house-building context, would help companies develop
competitive production systems designed to meet the targeted market in the most effective
way. Since construction related research typically do not take a production strategy
perspective on house-building and since traditional production strategy literature typically
do not treat project based manufacturing in detail:
The purpose of this research is to extend the production strategy body of knowledge
concerning project based production, in the context of house-building.
From a broader perspective it is important to extend the production strategy body of

knowledge in a house-building context since the house-building industry involves and
affects a large part of the society. In 2016 multi-family residences represented about 80%
of the total number of residences produced in Sweden (SCB, 2017). The reason for focusing
on the production of multi-family residences in this research is related to aspects such as
an increasing demand for both rental apartments and condominiums (Boverket, 2012), and
the fact that the relative amount of money a family spends on their accommodation
increases (Lind and Song, 2012). Producing houses in an effective and efficient way, using
a sound production strategy, should have a positive impact on the ability to meet future
demand for residential houses and offering affordable accommodation. Another issue is the
increasing production costs and decreased productivity highlighted in various reports
(Larsson et al., 2013). A sound production strategy should have a positive impact on house-
building companies and other stakeholders, e.g. clients, suppliers, sub-contractors and end
users, within the house-building industry. This research can help house-building companies
to successfully formulate and implement competitive production systems meeting market
requirements in the best possible way. The potential result is a more effective production
process, and in the end a more successful business. This can potentially lead to decreased
costs for the clients and in the end of the chain reduced rent for the end user or reduced fees
from the housing cooperatives.
The results presented in this thesis give researchers a deeper understanding of project based
production and house-building companies a tool to work with production strategy in a
structured way.
1.2 Scope and limitations

In this research the house-building industry is in focus. Different production systems, e.g.
with different degrees of off-site assembly, for production of multi-family houses are
3
1. Introduction
For the empirical part of this research case studies were chosen as the primary research
method. The companies used in this research are all firms operating in Sweden using
production systems with various degrees of off-site production. A production system using
some degree of off-site production is termed different in different literature. The terms in
use can be grouped, by affix, under four categories (Pan et al., 2012):
 Off-site (e.g. off-site construction, fabrication, manufacturing, production,

assembly),
 Pre- (e.g. pre-assembly, fabrication, work),
 Modern (e.g. modern methods of construction), and
 Building/house-building (e.g. industrialised building, industrialised house-
building, system building, non-traditional house-building).
In this thesis the terms above are used interchangeably but in most parts the terms
industrialised house-building and off-site production are used for consistency. Traditional
on-site production is considered as a baseline benchmark, and is treated as one concept
when in reality you can produce buildings on-site in different ways and adapting different
strategies within the concept depending on the prerequisites.
5
2. The house-building context
The theoretical base for the research is production strategy and it is important to understand
the context specific characteristics of the house-building industry to be able to extend
production strategy theory to include project based manufacturing. This chapter gives an
overview of the house-building industry and production of multifamily houses in Sweden.
2.1 The house-building industry in Sweden today

Today in Sweden there is lack of residential buildings. According to the Swedish
Construction Federation (Sveriges Byggindustrier), which represents construction industry
interests in Sweden, there is a lack of residential houses in 255 out of Sweden’s 290
municipalities. The pressure to produce residential buildings are now higher than ever
(Boverket, 2012) due to a number of factors, for example young people looking for their
first apartment, and the current situation in Europe concerning refugees that comes to
Sweden and must be provided with homes where they can feel safe and welcome. The
increased demand has also led to an increase in production of residential buildings.
Statistics (Statistics Sweden SCB, 2017) shows that the industry have not produced and
completed as many residential apartments as they did in 2016, since 1992. However, what
also is shown is that, if the goal to produce 700 000 residential houses in the next ten years
(Boverket, 2016) is to be reached, the annual production volume has to be even higher. The
largest challenge for the industry to meet this demand is a lack of personnel, both blue and
white collar workers. Seven out of ten companies, associated with the Swedish
Construction Federation, states that they have a hard time finding personnel to their
organisations (Sveriges Byggindustrier, 2017).
At the same time as the demand for residential houses are higher than ever, the house-
building industry is considered less progressive than other industries (Landin and Oberg,
2014). Various evaluation initiatives report about increasing production costs and
decreased productivity (Larsson et al., 2013), and that the relative amount of money a
family spends on their accommodation increases due to factors such as, e.g. high production
costs and a lack of residential apartments (Lind and Song, 2012). To be able to meet the
challenges of today and tomorrow houses have to be produced in a more effective and
efficient way. One suggested way to do this is to move some of the value adding activities
of the house-building project off-site, to a more industrial environment. This way of
producing houses can reduce production time and cost while improving quality, safety and
sustainability. By producing parts of the houses in a controlled, industrial environment a
company may also be able to remain competitive with a smaller, lower skilled, workforce
compared to traditional production on-site (Grosskopf et al., 2017).
7
2.2 House-building projects

A project can be defined as a series of activities that seeks to realise a unique and innovative
deliverable, e.g. a product or a service. A project has a defined start and end, and also
allocated recourses for the specific task that is the project (see e.g. Lessing et al., 2015,
Mesly, 2017). Simply described a house-building project can be divided into four main
phases, i.e. pre-project, pre-production, production and post-production (see e.g. Cooper et
al., 1998, Klinger and Susong, 2006). Activities within each phase can differ a bit from
project to project but for a, general contract, house-building project the following activities
are recognised, see Table 1:
Table 1 Phases in a general contract house-building project

Phase Relation to Activities Relevant
this research references
Pre-project Not included  Determining the need for the project (Cooper et al.,
 Securing financial authority to proceed with 1998)
the pre-production phase
Pre- Included,  Owners planning and budgeting (Al‐Reshaid et
production only partly  Determining clients need al., 2005, Klinger
considered  Design and Susong,
 Delivering approved production information 2006, Riley and
 Contractor selection Cotgrave, 2013)
Production Included,  Production of the project solution (Cooper et al.,
main focus  Hand over 1998, Riley and
Cotgrave, 2013)
Post- Not included  Use (Cooper et al.,
production  Monitor and manage maintenance needs of 1998, Klinger and
the constructed facility Susong, 2006)
In this research the main focus is on the production phase even though some parts of the
pre-production phase are considered, e.g. determining clients’ need and design. The pre-
project and post-production phases are also affected by the production strategy of the
company but left out of the scope in this research.
Riley and Cotgrave (2013) divide the production phase of a house-building project in to six
steps, see Figure 3.
1. Infrastructure 2. Prefab. off-site 3. Substructure

Road Structure Foundations
Services Elements Slabs
Modules Ground improvements
4. Superstructure 5. Roof 6. On-site fit-out

Structure Structure Services
Panels Cover Fixtures
Modules Finishing work
Building envelope
Figure 3 Steps in the production phase of a house-building project (Riley and Cotgrave, 2013)
8
The first step in a house-building project is to establish the infrastructure needed to be able
to build the house. Roads (permanent or temporary) have to be in place to access the
construction site. Services such as electricity, water, site huts, and temporary offices are
also part of establishing the construction site infrastructure.
The third step (Figure 3) is to set the substructure of the building. Proper ground
improvements have to be made, and a foundation has to be built. When the substructure is
in place the project continue with producing the superstructure in terms of structural
framework, panels, inner walls, floor structure etc., and after that the roof structure is built
and covered to seal the building. Finally the finishing work is put in to complete the house.
The second step, pre-fabrication off-site, is not applicable in all house-building projects
and how much of the building that is produced off-site varies from project to project.
However off-site production, i.e. producing parts of the house in an off-site facility, is
relatively common, and production systems using different degrees of off-site assembly
exists and compete on the house-building market today. Industrialised house-building
compared to traditional production methods on the construction site is central when making
the process choice in a house-building context, hence is important form a production
strategy perspective in a house-building context.
2.3 Industrialised house-building

In this thesis the following definition of industrialised house-building is used:
“Industrialised house-building is a thoroughly developed house-building process with a

well-suited organisation for efficient management, preparation and control of the included
activities, material flows, resources and results for which prefabricated components are
used in order to create maximum customer value” (Lessing, 2006 p. 93, Lidelöw et al.,
2015 p. 130).
As the definition is formulated it becomes clear that industrialised house-building is more

comprehensive than just using prefabricated components in the production process
(Lessing et al., 2015). This more comprehensive view of industrialised house-building can
be related to traditional production strategy literature and the use of prefabricated elements
can be seen as one, although important, decision amongst many decisions a company have
to make when designing their production system. As can be seen in the definition of the
production system (Figure 2), the production systems includes the production process(es)
and the suppliers and sub-contractors involved in it. Production strategy, i.e. the pattern of
decisions that form the production system, has a wider scope and involves different
functions in the organisation such as marketing, finance, engineering, etc. It also involves
other decisions that just the degree of prefabrication such as make or buy decisions,
capacity, facilities, process technology, organisation, etc. In production strategy literature
these are called decision categories and are described in more detail in chapter 3.
9
2.3.1 Process model of industrialised house-building

Pan et al. (2012) investigated strategies for integrating off-site production in house-
building. They related different stages in the project, i.e. land acquisition and design, pre-
site, on-site and post-site, to the opportunity for off-site integration. They concluded that
the best opportunity for off-site integration is early in the house-building project and that
the opportunity disappear at the end of the land acquisition stage, see Figure 4.
Stages of house- Land acquisition/design Pre-site On- Post-site

building site
Opportunity
for off-site Best opportunity for
off-site integration
integration
Opportunity
disappearing
Figure 4 Stages in a house-building project and timing of opportunity to integrate the use of off-
site production (Pan et al., 2012)
The decision to use off-site production as part of the production system is a strategic
decision that has to be taken early as it affect the competitiveness and the ability of a
specific production system to target a specific market.
Just as there are different types of production systems for traditional production there are
different ways of producing multi-family houses. Lessing (2006) introduced a process
model for industrialised house-building in which eight areas should be considered when
describing industrialised house-building. These eight areas can be categorised under four
different platforms (in this thesis the word platform is used only when describing the
process model for industrialised house-building and is not elaborated further), see Table 2.
Table 2 Areas defining industrialised house-building (Lessing, 2006)

Platform Areas to consider in industrialised house-building
Knowledge platform Performance measurement and knowledge transfer
Technical platform Technical systems
Off-site production
The use of ICT-solutions
Supply platform Logistics integrated in the building process
Long term relations
Process platform Customer focus
Planning and control of the process
A move towards industrialised house-building means a shift from strictly project based
production to a more process oriented production. Along with the eight areas of
industrialised house-building Lessing (2006) also presented a process model describing
how to work with the development and continuous improvements of the platforms related
to the house-building process (Figure 5). The houses are still produced in projects but the
projects are not isolated parts in the production system but rather integrated parts in a much
larger building process.
10
2.3.2 Classifying different types of house-building production systems

Kamar et al. (2011) made a comparison between different classifications of production
systems in construction and from that review they derived the following seven generic
production systems:
1. Frame system
2. Panellised system
3. On-site fabrication
4. Sub-assembly and components
5. Block work system
6. Hybrid system
7. Volumetric and modular system
In a list of different ways to classifying industrialised house-building systems presented in

Kamar et al. (2011) one can see that most classifications are based on how much of the
building is produced off-site. In a comparative study Azman et al. (2010) give examples of
how off-site production systems are categorized in different countries, see Table 3.
Table 3 Categorisation of production systems in different countries (Azman et al., 2010)

Country Categorisation of production system
US  Off-site pre-assembly
 Hybrid system
 Panellised system
 Modular building
UK  Component manufacture & sub-assembly
 Non-volumetric pre-assembly
 Volumetric pre-assembly
Australia  Non-volumetric pre-assembly
 Volumetric pre-assembly
Malaysia  Pre-cast concrete system
 Formworks system
 Steel framing systems
 Prefabricated timber framing systems
 Block work systems
 Innovative product systems
The categorization used in UK was defined by Gibb (2001) and represent four types of
production systems with varying degrees of off-site production ranging from component
manufacture and sub-assembly, which is the traditional way of producing buildings on-site,
to modular building. This way of categorising different production systems include
traditional production on-site which is not included in the categorisations used in the US,
Australia and Malaysia. In this research both industrialised production systems and more
traditional production on the construction site are considered, hence Gibb´s (2001) four
types of production systems, including production both on-site and off-site, are relevant as
a base in this research. The four production systems are defined in Table 4.
12
Table 4 Production systems defined by (Gibb, 2001)

Many components used in construction are actually sub-assemblies, e.g.
Component manufacture door furniture or light fittings. This category includes all small scale sub-
and sub-assembly assemblies that would never be considered for on-site assembly in any
developed country. (Gibb, 2001, p. 308)
These items are assembled in a factory, or at least prior to being placed
Non-volumetric pre- in their final position. They may include several sub-assemblies and
assembly constitute a significant part of the building or structure. Examples
include wall panels, structural sections and pipework assemblies. (Gibb,
2001, p. 309)
These items are also assembled in a factory. They differ from non-
Volumetric pre-assembly volumetric in that they enclose usable space and usually are installed on-
site within an independent structural frame. Examples include toilet
pods, plant room units, pre-assembled building services risers and
modular lift shafts. (Gibb, 2001, p. 309)
These items are similar to volumetric units, but in this case the units
Modular Building themselves form the building, as well as enclosing useable space. They
may be clad externally on-site with ‘cosmetic’ brickwork as a secondary
operation. Examples include office blocks and motels and concrete
multi-storey modular units used for residential blocks. (Gibb, 2001, p.
309)
Compared to the seven production systems defined by Kamar et al. (2011), where on-site
is included, it can be argued that:
 On-site fabrication and sub-assembly and components correspond to component

manufacture and sub-assembly
 Panelised system correspond to non-volumetric pre-assembly
 Block work system correspond to volumetric pre-assembly
 Volumetric and modular system correspond to modular building
The hybrid system is a combination of two or more of the production systems defined in
Gibb (2001) and to include that systems as a generic production system is not considered
necessary. Frame system describes pre-fabricated framing systems but since a structural
framework is included in all types of buildings the framing systems are included in all four
production systems defined by Gibb (2001). For the reasons given above it is considered
that the four production systems defined by Gibb (2001) give a good representation of
different production systems used for house-building.
Literature state that the main barriers for using off-site production are high capital cost,
difficulties to achieve economies of scale, complex interfaces between different systems
and the inability to freeze the design early in the process (Pan et al., 2008). The main drivers
for using off-site production are increased quality, time, cost, and reduced health and safety
issues (see e.g. Blismas et al., 2006, Gibb and Isack, 2003, Jaillon and Poon, 2008). The
fact that different types of production systems have strengths and weaknesses in different
areas of competition indicates that there are differences in competitiveness, and that one
type of production system cannot meet all types of demands. Instead a production system
has to be designed to meet the targeted market in the most effective way and how it should
13
are not considered compatible with the need of the industry (Bergström and Stehn, 2005).
The resistance to change, and lack of innovation across the construction industry is well
documented. New ICT-technologies are not well adopted so the mechanisms for effective
and efficient information exchange are not in place (Hong-Minh et al., 2001).
The characteristics of the house-building industry described above make the use of
effective information exchange extremely important and also very difficult. The
shortcomings in information exchange across the supply chain has been shown to be one
of the most important and persistent issues facing organisations (Fiala, 2005). In housing-
building, where there are many stakeholders, such as the client, main contractor, sub-
contractors, suppliers, engineers, architects, a wide range of project information must be
co-ordinated to ensure success of a project (Senaratne and Ruwanpura, 2016). Deficiencies
regarding information exchange are one of the most common project risks in construction
and cause lower performance, increases unnecessary expenditure and affects the process
and quality of the project negatively (Senaratne and Ruwanpura, 2016).
Kembro et al. (2014) identified four aspects of information exchange in supply chains, i.e.
(1) Why (not) share information, (2) What information to share with whom, (3) How to
share information, and (4) Prerequisites, barriers and drivers. If these aspects are
considered, and handled properly, problems occurring due to poor information
management can be reduced.
The difficulties of information exchange in house-building supply chains have been

addressed in previous research (see e.g. Dainty et al., 2006, Senaratne and Ruwanpura,
2016). However, most research on information exchange in construction consider
traditional, on-site, production methods or, in a few cases, industrialised housing (see e.g.
Bergström and Stehn, 2005, Persson et al., 2009) and do not appreciate differences between
different types production systems. As noted by Kembro et al. (2014), information
exchange in the supply chain is context dependent and “one size does not fit all” (Kembro
et al., 2014 p. 618).
Studies of industrial data systems show that as the complexity of service increases (for
instance by increasing customisation requirements), the information exchange architecture
may have to take more collaborative forms of inter-organizational connectivity (Wang et
al., 2007). Further, a greater degree of customer interaction and customisation often means
a greater information richness that has to be processed and shared (Slack and Lewis, 2011).
A more flexible/agile production system is founded on information technology
(Miltenburg, 2005) that can cope with the increased level of customer interaction.
In a project with a high degree of customisation and most of the production undertaken on-
site, resulting in the co-ordination of many components and suppliers, as well as the co-
ordination of a lot of design and engineering work, information exchange must be handled
in one way. A higher degree of product standardisation where parts of the house are
produced off-site and assembled on-site, requiring careful synchronisation of standard
modules. This puts different demands on information exchange and within this space an
15
information planning system, such as ERP which are widely argued to be challenging in
customised environments, may become more suitable (Jin and Thomson, 2003). Higher
levels of standardisation needs an ICT-system that can to cope with timing and
synchronization of prefabricated components compared to a the demands on information
management in a project using traditional production methods and a high degree of
customisation (Persson et al., 2009).
In Table 5 four challenges, derived from literature, in a construction project environment

and the implications for information exchange are presented.
Table 5 Challenges with information exchange in construction

Challenge in a Implication for information exchange Relevant Papers
construction project
environment
1. Temporary supply This makes the trust and long term collaborations (Cox et al., 2003,
chains, due to project needed for effective information exchange in the Dainty et al., 2006)
environment supply chain very difficult to achieve.
2. Long and This results in many levels and layers of contracts (Dubois and Gadde,
fragmented supply and subcontracts. It is difficult to see the bigger 2002)
chains, as a result of picture and incentivise transparent information
outsourcing many exchange. It is a ‘loosely coupled system’, and
specialist trades commercial tendering models tend to exacerbate the
problem.
3. Projects are The result of this is that the supply chain must cope (Schoenwitz et al.,
engineer-to-order, with the consequences of customisation, typically 2017)
since each project has leading to the need for design revisions, new
a degree of engineering work and new or adapted processes.
uniqueness This introduces significant complexity, and the need
to coordinate design information.
4. Reluctance to The resistance to change, and lack of innovation, (Bergström and Stehn,
embrace new ICT- across the construction sector is well documented. 2005, Dehlin and
solutions, caused by a New ICT-technologies are not well adopted across Olofsson, 2008, Hong-
complex range of the industry, so the mechanisms for information Minh et al., 2001)
issues. exchange are not in place.
16
3. Production strategy
The theoretical base for this research is production strategy. This is also where the main
theoretical contribution of this research lie. The research is positioned in the project based
manufacturing area that is omitted in many traditional production strategy frameworks and
the context of the research is house-building. The introduction and context, described in
the previous two chapter, give this chapter a direction when presenting the theoretical base
for this research. First an overview of the topic is given to get an understanding of what
production strategy is. After that the dimensions of production strategy, that is relevant for
this research, are accounted for.
3.1 Overview and definition

As previously mentioned, a production strategy has to exist to manage the different
challenges the production function faces and help the company to make operational and
strategic decisions so that the production function can meet market requirements in an
effective and efficient way. When no production strategy exists the decisions may be
arbitrary and unpredictable (Miltenburg, 2005).
Production strategy has been defined and interpreted by various researchers. Dangayach
and Deshmukh (2001) compiled definitions of production strategy formulated by various
authors. There are some variations in the definitions but all in all they are quite similar, in
summary production strategy can be defined as:
Production strategy involves a pattern of decisions (Cox and Blackstone, 1998, Marucheck
et al., 1990, Miltenburg, 2005, Slack and Lewis, 2011) to shape the long term capabilities
of the production function (Slack and Lewis, 2011) to a competitive weapon (Marucheck
et al., 1990, Swamidass and Newell, 1987) that supports the overall strategy of the firm
(Hill and Hill, 2009, Slack and Lewis, 2011) for achieving business and corporate goals
(Swamidass and Newell, 1987), through the reconciliation of market requirements and
operations resources (Slack and Lewis, 2011).
Since 1969, when Skinner identified production as the missing link in corporate strategy
(Skinner, 1969), the topic has evolved and research within many different thematic areas
has been conducted. In their comprehensive literature review “Themes of study in
manufacturing strategy literature” Chatha and Butt (2015) found that production strategy
literature covers 11 major thematic areas, namely: production strategy components and
paradigms, manufacturing capabilities, strategic choices, best practice, the strategy process,
17
supply chain management, performance measurement, transnational comparisons, global

manufacturing, environmental/green manufacturing and literature reviews. The thematic
areas are described in more detail in Table 6.
Table 6 Thematic areas in production strategy literature

Thematic area Description
Components and Include literature on the definition of production strategy, and components paradigms
paradigms and/or general articles on production strategy (Chatha and Butt, 2015, p. 618).
Capabilities Include literature on competitive priorities, capabilities to realize competitive
priorities, resource based view, knowledge and learning, order winning criteria etc.
(Chatha and Butt, 2015 p. 619)
Strategic choice Includes literature in structural and infrastructural choices. Structural choices include
capacity, process focus, technology choice, vertical integration and outsourcing and
facility/plant choice whereas infrastructural choice include planning and control,
organisation, human-resource management, purchasing, and product and/or process
development. (Chatha and Butt, 2015 p. 619)
Best practices Include literature on lean and agile production, virtual manufacturing, mass
customisation, advanced manufacturing technology, JIT, etc. (Chatha and Butt, 2015
p. 619)
Strategy process Includes literature on strategy formulation and implementation, various approaches
and methods for formulating strategy are also included in this theme (Chatha and
Butt, 2015 p. 619)
SCM Includes literature on supply chain management. (Chatha and Butt, 2015 p. 619)
Performance Includes articles on measuring performance and design of measures (Chatha and
measurement Butt, 2015 p. 619).
Transnational Comparative studies between different countries or geographical regions pertaining
comparisons to production strategy practices are included in this theme (Chatha and Butt, 2015 p.
619).
Environmental Studies focussing on environmental factors are included in this theme (Chatha and
manufacturing Butt, 2015 p. 619).
Global Because of the growing body of literature in international manufacturing, this theme
manufacturing is identified (Chatha and Butt, 2015 p. 619).
Literature reviews Includes studies on production strategy literature reviews (Chatha and Butt, 2015 p.
619).
Closely related to research themes are dimensions that constitute the actual production
strategy. Production strategy is often divided into two separate dimensions, content and
process (Leong et al., 1990). Production strategy content focuses on the specific decisions
that form the production system, and production strategy process focuses on how such
decisions are formulated, implemented and used in an organizational setting (Fahey and
Christensen, 1986). This can then be broken down in to number of additional dimensions
(Mirzaei, 2015), as visualised Figure 7. The distinction between production strategy content
and production strategy process is important to acknowledge in production strategy
research since a discussion about the production strategy process is not relevant until the
production strategy content is well defined (Rudberg, 2002).
18
Delivery
Quality
Competitive
priorities
Cost
Flexibility Capacity
Sourcing & vertical

integration
Content
Structural
Facilities
Production Decision Process technology

strategy categories
Production planning
and control
Infrastructural Human resources
Participation Product design/

Engineering
Audit of current
Formulation state Organisation
structure and control
Process Formulation of action plan
Implementation
Figure 7 Production strategy dimensions, partly based on Mirzaei (2015, p 18).
The basic constructs of production strategy in a house-building context are no different than
for traditional manufacturing. The production system must be designed so that it delivers
manufacturing outputs at a level that supports the competitive priorities of the firm. Related
to the process choice (Hill and Hill, 2009) it is also important in a house-building industry
context to choose an appropriate production system that can meet the demands from the
targeted market in an efficient way. It is when different dimensions in production strategy
(Figure 7) are reviewed that the specific context of house-building show differences from,
but also similarities with, traditional production strategy.
3.2 Production strategy content

Traditionally production strategy content is built around two groups; decision categories,
that are of long term importance for the manufacturing function and competitive priorities,
that are based on the market strategy of the firm (Leong et al., 1990). Decision categories
and competitive priorities are vital terms in this research and thus described more in detail
in the following.
3.2.1 Competitive priorities

The most basic route to competitive advantage and to outperform competitors on the market
is to provide customers with superior value (Miltenburg, 2005). Another term that is used
for competitive priorities is manufacturing outputs. The two terms describe the same thing
but from different perspectives. The term manufacturing outputs is used when describing
what the production function of the firm is able to deliver. The term competitive priorities
19
is used when describing the market strategy of the firm in terms of what the targeted
customers think is important. Thus, manufacturing outputs deal with potential performance
while competitive priorities deal with importance (Safizadeh et al., 2000). Given this, one
can say that from a production strategy perspective it is thus important that the production
function of the firm delivers manufacturing outputs that support the competitive priorities
of the company. The values created by a production system are called manufacturing
outputs (Miltenburg, 2005). Competitive priorities are a set of goals for manufacturing
(Leong et al., 1990) linking the market strategy with the production task, i.e. deciding in
what areas of competition the firm wants to compete. Production strategy literature agrees
on some of the competitive priorities while some are more author-specific. Table 7 provides
an overview of competitive priorities that different authors consider important in a
production strategy context.
Table 7 Examples of competitive priorities

Leong et al. (1990) Miltenburg (2005) Hill and Hill (2009) Slack and Lewis (2011)
Quality Quality Quality conformance Quality
Delivery Delivery Delivery speed Speed
Delivery reliability Dependability
Cost Cost Price Cost
Flexibility Flexibility Product range Flexibility
Demand increase response
Colour range
Design
Innovativeness Innovativeness
Performance
Brand name*
Technical support*
After sales support*
*Not production related.
The competitive priorities quality, delivery (speed and dependability), cost (level and
dependability), and flexibility are mentioned (in one form or the other) by all authors. In
this research focus is on these four “classical” competitive priorities (Hayes and
Wheelwright, 1984, Leong et al., 1990, Ward et al., 1998). These competitive priorities are
also described in Slack and Lewis (2011) as generic performance objectives that have
meaning for all types of operations. These priorities specifically relates to the production
function’s basic task of satisfying customer requirements. For a company to be successful
the link between market and production must be appreciated. If the customer require low
price the production system must be designed to produce at low production cost, if delivery
speed is most important to the customer focus should be on reducing lead times, etc.
The majority of production strategy research adopts trade-off reasoning when it comes to
competitive priorities, meaning that focusing on improving the ability to deliver one
manufacturing output will be at the expense of others (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984, Hill
and Hill, 2009, Miltenburg, 2005). Manufacturing outputs that have been found to be of
contesting nature are for example quality and cost, cost and delivery lead times, and
flexibility and cost efficiency (Hallgren et al., 2011). Trade-off reasoning thereby suggests
20
that a certain production system cannot outperform its competitors in all areas of
competition, and it is therefore important to design the production system so that it supports
the market strategy of the firm. To highlight the fact that a firm and its production system
cannot provide competitiveness along all competitive priorities, Hill and Hill (2009)
introduces the terms order winner and order qualifier. To win orders a firm has to perform
in parity, or better, than its competitors in one or more areas of competition. This will be
done at the sacrifice of other areas. However, the other areas have to be at an acceptable
level (order qualifying level), otherwise the customer will not consider the firm at all. It is
important to recognise that order qualifiers are equally important as the order winners since
a company cannot win an order if they do not even qualify on the market.
The concept of cumulative capabilities (Ferdows and Meyer, 1990) is an alternative

perspective when discussing the relation between competitive priorities. It suggests that
improvements of one competitive priority will facilitate improvements in other areas of
competition. Even though the ultimate goal for the manufacturing function is to make the
process cost efficient, first improvements to enhance quality must be made, then attention
should be paid to improve dependability (on time delivery), then flexibility and not until a
certain level within these areas has been reached direct attention can be paid to cost
efficiency (Ferdows and Meyer, 1990).
At first, trade-off and cumulative capabilities seem to be competing rivals but Schmenner
and Swink (1998) argue that the two are rather complements than rivals. This can be
explained by that trade-off and cumulative capabilities are different in the sense that the
trade-off is reflected in comparisons across plants at a given point in time, whereas
cumulative capabilities are reflected in improvements within individual plants over time
(Schmenner and Swink, 1998). From a production strategy perspective both comparison
across plants and improvements over time are important aspects. However, when
comparing different production systems with the purpose to visualise different production
systems’ relative strengths and weaknesses, the trade-off reasoning is argued to be valid.
Just as in more traditional manufacturing industries it is more or less impossible to design

a production system for house-building that outperforms all other production systems in all
areas of competition. Different production systems, using different levels of prefabrication,
has pros and cons (Brege et al., 2014), and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas
of competition. In traditional production strategy literature a set of competitive priorities
are defined (Table 7), to link the market requirements to the task of the production function.
To find out if the set of competitive priorities defined for traditional manufacturing are
relevant in a house-building industry context a review of literature describing drivers and
barriers for an increased the degree of off-site production are presented. The drivers and
barriers can then be related to competitive priorities defined for traditional manufacturing
and competitive priorities relevant in a house-building context can be identified. Table 8
summarises the identified drivers and barriers for off-site production.
21
Table 8 Drivers and barriers for off-site production (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2014)
Jaillon and Poon (2008)

Gibb and Isack (2003)
Arif and Egbu (2010)

Halman et al. (2008)
Blismas et al. (2006)
Barlow et al. (2003)
Kadir et al. (2006)
Chen et al. (2010)

Pan et al. (2007)
Pan et al. (2008)

Gann (1996)
Gibb (2001)
Quality • • • • • • • • • •
Time • • • • • • • •
Health and safety • • • • • • • •
Cost • • • • • • •
Productivity • • • • • • •
Waste reduction • • • •
Drivers
Management • • • •
Economies of scale • • •
Human resource
management • • •
Technical possibilities • •
Continuous
improvement •
More efficient logistics •
Flexibility • • • • • • •
Freeze design early • • • • •
Barriers
Capital investments • • • • •
Capabilities • • • • •
Need for high
production volumes
• • •
As can be seen in Table 8, the most frequently mentioned drivers for using off-site
production in construction are: improved quality, shorter and/or more predictable
production time, health and safety issues, lower and/or more predicable production cost
and higher productivity. Other drivers for using off-site production are that it facilitates
waste reduction, increased possibilities for economies of scale, better project management
and human resource management, technical possibilities, continuous improvement, and
more efficient logistics. Turning to the barriers in Table 8, the most frequently mentioned
ones are: reduced flexibility, the need to freeze design early, the level of capital investment,
the different types of capabilities needed, and the need for high production volumes when
investing in fixed assets for production.
If the drivers and barriers (Table 8) are compared to competitive priorities defined for
traditional manufacturing industries (Table 7) there are some relations. For example, the
drivers cost, productivity and waste reduction can all be clustered under the competitive
priority cost. Technical possibilities and continuous improvements under quality. Time and
more efficient logistics under delivery, and the barriers freeze the design early and a need
for high production volumes can be related to flexibility. This indicates that competitive
priorities used for traditional producing industries are also relevant in a house-building
context.
22
3.2.2 Decision categories

Decision categories are areas in which a company must make decisions that are of long
term importance for the production function to be able to meet the market strategy of the
firm (Leong et al., 1990). The decision categories can be categorized as structural or
infrastructural. This distinction between structural decisions and infrastructural decisions
was introduced by Hayes and Wheelwright (1984). The structural decisions are decisions
that, have long-term impact on the production function, are difficult to reverse and undo
when they are implemented, and typically requires substantial capital investments. The
infrastructural decisions affect the people and systems that make the production function
work.
The sets of decision categories differ somewhat between authors, but there is an essential
agreement on the areas that really matters for the production strategy (Leong et al., 1990).
Leong et al. (1990) made a comparison between decision categories and the result form
that review is presented in Table 9. The decision categories presented in Miltenburg (2005)
are also included as a complement to the sources published prior to the review performed
by Leong et al. (1990).
23
Table 9 Comparison of decision categories in production strategy literature

Skinner (1969) Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) Buffa (1984) Fine and Hax (1985) Miltenburg (2005)
Plant and equipment Facilities Facilities Facilities
Capacity Capacity/Location Capacity
Structural
Technology Product/Process Processes/ Process technology

technology Technologies
Vertical integration Suppliers vertical Vertical integration Sourcing
integration
Vendor relations
24
Production planning and Production planning/ Strategic implications of Production planning and control
control Materials control operating decision
Labour and staffing Workforce Workforce and job design Human resources Human resources
Infrastructural
Quality Quality management

Position of production
system
Product Scope/New products
design/Engineering
Organization and Organization Manufacturing infrastructure Organization structure and
management controls
3. Production Strategy
Worth mentioning is that Skinner (1969) includes the decision categories facilities,
technology, capacity and vertical integration in the decision category plant and equipment.
Skinner also includes quality in the decision category production planning and control.
Slack and Lewis (2011) defines four different decision categories, i.e. capacity, supply
network, process technology and development and organisation. The reason for not
including them in Table 9 is that they do not categorise the decision categories as purely
structural or infrastructural. They mean that, in reality, all decision categories have both
structural and infrastructural implications.
In summary there are in total eight decision categories that the literature agree upon. Four
structural, i.e. capacity, sourcing and vertical integration, facilities, and process technology
and four infrastructural, i.e. production planning and control, human recourses, product
design/engineering, and organisation structure and control. These eight decision categories
and examples of related decisions are presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Decision categories

Decision Relevant
Examples of decisions within each category
category references
Capacity How to deal with cyclical demand (holding excess capacity, (Fine and Hax,
seasonal inventory, subcontracting). Whether to add capacity in 1985)
anticipation of future demand or in response to exciting demand.
Sourcing Make or buy decisions, i.e. amount of vertical integration. Control, (Miltenburg, 2005)
and vertical management and coordination of suppliers and parts of the value (Hayes and
integration system that the production system does not own, e.g. direction and Wheelwright, 1984)
extent. Number of suppliers and type of relationship, e.g. purely (Slack and Lewis,
market-based or long term. 2011)
Facilities How to specialise or focus each facility, e.g. plant size, location (Fine and Hax,
and capabilities, type and timing of changes, choice of equipment, 1985) (Miltenburg,
specialisation, etc. 2005) (Hayes and
Wheelwright, 1984)
Process Process choice, matching product characteristics with process (Fine and Hax,
technology characteristics, degree of automation, layout etc. 1985) (Hayes and
Wheelwright, 1984)
Production Rules and systems that plan and control the flow of material, (Miltenburg, 2005)
planning and production activities and support systems, e.g. maintenance,
control centralisation.
Human Comprises the company’s human resource policies for the (Fine and Hax,
recourses production system at use. Decisions must be made regarding 1985) (Miltenburg,
training programs, skill level, incentive systems, employment 2005)
security, etc.
Product Degree of product customisation. Frozen product design or (Skinner, 1969)
design/ engineer to order design. The use of new technology (unproved by
engineering competitors) or a “follow the leader” approach.
Organisation Organisation structure, relationships between different groups of (Miltenburg, 2005)
structure and employees, how are decisions made (top down or bottom up?), (Hayes and
control culture, and systems for performance measurement Wheelwright, 1984)
25
According to Hill and Hill (2009) the most significant decisions manufacturing companies
have to make are in the decision category process technology and concern customers,
products and the process by which to make them. When choosing the appropriate way to
produce its products, a company must choose between alternative production approaches
and use the type of production system that best deliver manufacturing outputs that support
the competitive priorities of the company. Factors that have to be taken into consideration
are product characteristics, e.g. complexity and volumes, type of manufacturing process
and the business implications of the product and process decisions. These factors are
referred to as the process choice (Hill and Hill, 2009), i.e. choosing a production system
that supports the competitive priorities of the firm (Rudberg, 2004). The process choice
constitute the base in many production strategy frameworks developed for the
manufacturing industry (see e.g. Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984, Hill and Hill, 2009,
Miltenburg, 2005).
To categorize different production systems Hayes and Wheelwright (1979) introduced the
product-process matrix. This matrix is used in various production strategy frameworks (see
e.g. Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984, Hill and Hill, 2009, Miltenburg, 2005) to visualise the
characteristics of different production systems and to facilitate the process choice.
Separating the concept of the product life cycle and the process life cycle facilitates the
understanding of the different strategic options, both marketing and manufacturing,
available to the company. By using the dimension product life cycle, in terms of production
volume and standardisation (low/low to high/high) on the x-axis, and the process life cycle
(project, job shop, batch flow, line flow, and continuous processing) on the y-axis,
correlations between the product structure and the process structure are visualised (Figure
8).
26
counsel caution in such situations (Schmenner and Swink, 1998). Examples of effective
production systems off the diagonal are innovative production systems such as Just-in-time
(JIT) and Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) that manage to handle a high product
variety produced in low volumes using a relatively high degree of flow orientation
(Miltenburg, 2005).
This research is concerned with house-building and, as stated in the introduction, focus is
on the project part of the product-process matrix (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979), see
Figure 1. The project based organisation is an organisation where projects are the primary
choice for production, innovation and competition. Project based organisations are
widespread and exists in traditional industries, e.g. construction and shipbuilding, in
industries regenerated through new technologies, e.g. aerospace and telecommunications,
and other industries with hi-technology and high value capital goods (Hobday, 2000).
The strengths of project based organisations are the flexibility and the ability to respond to
changing customer needs. However, all types of production systems for house-building are
not designed to handle flexibility and customisation. The trade-off between flexibility and
more productivity related outputs visualised in Table 8 shows that industrialised house-
builders are less flexible, hence have a harder time to offer a high degree of customisation
than production systems using more traditional production methods on-site. This can be
related to Lampel and Mintzberg (1996) stating that while some industries favour
customisation and some foster standardisation, other industries, e.g. the construction
industry, mix the two in their products and processes. To visualise this they presented
standardisation versus customisation as the two extremes in a continuum of five different
strategies (Lampel and Mintzberg, 1996). The full descriptions and definitions of the five
strategies can be found in Lampel and Mintzberg (1996) but in summary: (1) Pure
standardisation is a strategy where there are no distinction between different customers,
hence the buyer has to adapt or else switch to another product. (2) Segmented
standardisation is a strategy where firms respond to the need of different clusters of
customers, but there is no distinction between different customers within each cluster. (3)
Customised standardisation is a strategy where customised products are assembled from
standardised components with integrated interfaces. (4) Tailored customisation is a strategy
where the company presents a product prototype and then adapts or tailor it to customers’
wishes or needs. (5) Pure customisation is a strategy where the customer’s wishes
penetrates deep into the design process and the products are truly made to order.
A project based organisation is also typically effective at integrating different types of

knowledge and skills (Hobday, 2000). However project based manufacturing is weak when
it comes to performing routine tasks, achieving economies of scale, coordinating cross-
project resources, facilitating companywide technical solutions, and promoting
organisation-wide learning. The project based organisation can also work against the wider
interest of corporate strategy and goals (Hobday, 2000). However, all project based
production is not exactly the same and within project based manufacturing there are some
similarities, but also differences. Whitley (2006) identified two dimensions that separates
different project based organisations. The first dimension review to what extent the
28
company focus on developing unusual, sometime one-off products for varied and uncertain
markets. The second dimension defines the extent to which the organisation is predictable
and stable over projects. This indicated that different project based production systems are
different and can be designed for different purposes, hence the process choice is equally
important in a house-building context as it is for traditional manufacturing industries.
3.3 Production strategy process

The production strategy process involves the formulation and implementation of the
production strategy. The process of production strategy formulation is concerned with how
strategies are put together. Although strategies will vary from organisation to organisation
they should attempt to reconcile market requirements with the production resources (Slack
and Lewis, 2011). The process of production strategy implementation is concerned with
implementing a new or revised production strategy.
In line with this Van de Ven (1992) categorise different models for development processes
and gives examples of: strategic decision models, and strategic planning models. The
strategic decision models concerns the process of coming to a decision for making a change,
i.e. production strategy formulation. The models include: identification and a sense of need
for change, develop awareness and understanding, develop tentative solutions and
assessment of the tentative solutions, (see e.g. Cohen et al., 1972, Mintzberg et al., 1976).
The strategic planning models cover how to make the change take place, i.e. production
strategy implementation. These models include such steps as objectives setting, strategic
programming for achieving the objectives, budgeting, monitoring and measuring progress
towards the new strategy, but also establishing incentives to motivate goal achievement
(Lorange, 1980). In the following production strategy formulation and production strategy
implementation are described. After that a description of how the formulation and
implementation can be assessed and evaluated are provided.
3.3.1 Production strategy formulation

The production strategy formulation processes traditionally, implicitly or explicitly, is
described using the same steps. Platts and Gregory (1990) describes the formulation process
in seven steps, i.e. strategy identification, environment analysis, resource analysis, gap
analysis, strategic alternatives, strategic evaluation and finally strategic choice. These can,
as an example, be related to the three steps of the formulation process described by
Miltenburg (2005). In the first step the current status of the factory is defined. In this step
the production system’s position on the product-process matrix (Figure 8) is determined,
i.e. strategy identification. The current level of capability for each decision category is also
assessed, i.e. resource analysis. In the second step the future status of the factory is defined.
This step includes a competitive analysis to determine the qualifying and order winning
outputs that the production system must provide, and also determine what type of
production systems that best meets the demands from the targeted market, i.e. environment
analysis. In the third and final step it is decided how to get from the current status to the
future desired status. If the first and second step show that the production system, currently
in use, is the right type of production system to deliver the required manufacturing outputs,
29
the production system can be improved by making adjustments within the different decision
categories, but without changing the type of production system. If there is a mismatch
between the production system in use and the competitive analysis performed in step two,
the company must find a way to align the production system with market requirements, i.e.
gap analysis. This can be done by changing to a better suited production system that meets
the demands from the market in a better way (market based view) or by finding a different
market segment that is better suited for the existing production system (resource based
view), i.e. strategic alternatives, evaluation and choice.
The steps above answers the production strategy related questions why a production
strategy need to be implemented/changed, and what has to change, i.e. what decisions have
to be taken within each decision category, to be able to meet the market demands. A final
step in the formulation process is suggested by Mills et al. (1995) and that is to formulate
an action plan for implementation of the formulated production strategy. This is an
important step in the production strategy process since it connects the formulation process
with the implementation process in the production strategy process.
Besides following the process steps above other aspects are important to consider when
evaluating a production strategy formulation process. Platts et al. (1996) presented a set of
criteria for doing this, the criterias are presented in Table 11. It is important to recognise
that the criterias, presented in Table 11, are to be used for evaluation of the actual
formulation process and not for the resulting production strategy.
Table 11 Criteria’s for evaluating the production strategy formulation process (Platts et al., 1996)
Criteria Description of the criteria
Objectives What is the objective of the process?
Effectiveness in What measures are used to assess the performance of the process?
achieving the objectives
Procedure Visibility: Is the existence of the process recognised within the different
functions of the company?
Formality: Is the process documented?
Participation Involvement: Who is involved in the formulation process?
Communication: Are the result of the process communicated effectively to
the different functions within the company?
Process management How is the process managed?
Adaptability Is the process robust enough to adapt to new requirements?
Potential for error What methods are used to reduce the potential for errors?
3.3.2 Production strategy implementation

When the company know why they need a new or revised production strategy, what
decisions they have to take to get from the current state to a desired future state, and have
formulated a plan for how to implement the new/revised production strategy, it is time for
the actual implementation.
The new production strategy is usually implemented through different change projects that
are executed in a predetermined sequence by resources with the right competence for each
change project (Miltenburg, 2005). However, production strategy implementation is a less
30
structured and more behaviourally oriented process than formulation (Marucheck et al.,
1990). In simple terms, the production strategy implementation is done using the input from
the formulation process, taking decisions within the different decision categories so that
the production strategy change according to what has been formulated (Miltenburg, 2005).
As opposed to the formulation process, that typically takes a top-down approach
(Marucheck et al., 1990), the implementation process involves different parts of the
organisation to a larger extent and should be approached using a bottom-up approach. It is
therefore important to communicate the results of the formulation process to all levels
within the organisation and get acceptance of the new production strategy early on in the
process to facilitate the implementation.
To initiate the implementation phase it is common to use a pilot study. The pilot study helps
to reduce uncertainties regarding the new product and the process by which to produce it
(Rodney Turner, 2005). To learn from a pilot study and improve the plan for
implementation before committing to it in full can save a lot of time and money in the
implementation phase. To really benefit from a pilot study feedback has to be documented
and analysed and then used to revise the implementation plan, increasing the chances for a
successful implementation. Kasunic (2004) presented a structured approach to a pilot study
including five steps, i.e. plan and design, train personnel, support and monitor the pilot
study, evaluate the pilot results, and make recommendations and improve.
After the pilot study is evaluated and the implementation plan has been revised the new
strategy, product and or process can be fully implemented. The implementation process can
be approached in different ways. Two approaches that are commonly used are the Big-
Bang approach where everything is implemented at once or a phased in approach where
the implementation is done incrementally over a longer period of time (Mabert et al., 2003).
The Big-Bang approach usually results in the shortest implementation time but involves a
higher degree of risk while a phased in approach reduces risk but takes longer time (Mabert
et al., 2003). Which approach to use is dependent on the motive for making the change. For
a proactive change made to stay competitive in the marketplace a phased in approach might
be the preferred choice since there is no urgent need for change. For a crisis change that is
more urgent a Big-bang approach might be a better approach.
Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) presents a number of aspects that should be taken into
consideration when implementing a new production strategy. Organisational aspects are
important, e.g. which parts/persons in the organisation should be included in the
implementation process. The motivation for the change also has to be communicated to the
whole organisation. As the implementation phase include all levels in the organisation to a
larger extent than the formulation process, it is important to communicate what is changing
and why. Finally the tools for executing the implementation must be defined. Besides these
aspects, the keys to a successful implementation is leadership, the right skills and
capabilities in the project team, to see the change as a first step to a desired goal and not as
correcting something in the past, and finally get the whole organisation to feel included in
the change process (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984).
31
In line with this, Marucheck et al. (1990) empirically derived a number of implementation
issues that have to be considered: Involvement of lower levels is important since
implementation involves lower levels of the organisation. Team approach, since it is
important that different functions within the organisation is on board with the new
production strategy and how to carry out the implementation. Corporate culture, that is the
norms, values and informal beliefs held by the people in the organisation are important to
consider (Marucheck et al., 1990). The corporate cultures are usually developed under an
old set of business conditions and people are often unwilling to modify their decision
patterns and activities so that they support the new production strategy (Marucheck et al.,
1990). Consistency in implementation is mentioned as important. Regular meetings with
lower level managers and staff to communicate, e.g. updates concerning the
implementation plan and how well the strategic goals are being achieved is a way to achieve
this. Top management commitment comes more natural in the formulation process (top-
down approach) but it is equally important in the implementation process. Commitment
from top management gives a sense of importance and provides impetus for a successful
implementation.
The formulation and implementation processes described above follow a certain pattern of
predetermined steps, following a specific sequence, from the start of the formulation
process to the successful implementation of a new pre-determined production strategy.
Mintzberg and Waters (1985) question the prescriptive approaches (formulation and
implementation) described above and states that these “intended strategies” are affected
along the implementation process. Some of the intended strategy is not realised, i.e.
unrealised strategy, some of the intended strategy is realised, i.e. deliberate strategy and
some ideas emerge during the implementation process, i.e. emergent strategy. All this put
together ends up in a realised strategy, see Figure 9. Deliberate and emergent strategies can
be seen as two ends of a continuum along which real-world strategies lie (Mintzberg and
Waters, 1985).
Deliberate
strategy
Intended Realised
strategy strategy
Unrealised Emergent
strategy strategy
Figure 9 Different types of strategies (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985)
3.4 Performance measurement

When a company has decided in what market it want to compete and designed the
production systems that supports the competitive priorities of the company, the
32
performance of the production system has to be measured. In traditional production strategy

literature the importance of performance measurement is emphasized. In Slack and Lewis
(2011) it is stated that for a production strategy to be effective, performance must be
measured and monitored. Hill and Hill (2009) point out that as part of the continuous
reappraisal of production strategy decisions, performance must be monitored on a regular
basis. In Miltenburg (2005) performance measures are used to make a competitive analysis
of production systems, also indicating the importance of performance measurement from a
production strategy perspective.
The focus on performance measurement has spread to many industries, including the
construction industry (Bassioni et al., 2004). In construction various methods of measuring
performance have been used. Robinson et al. (2005) investigated the utilization of
performance measurement frameworks in leading U.K. construction firms and concluded
that there were three methods that dominated the industry; the Balanced Scorecard, the
European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Model (EFQM Excellence
Model) and the use of Key Performance Indicator (KPI) related systems.
When investigating potential systems for performance measurement in the construction

industry used in a production strategy context it is important to make a distinction between
performance management and performance measurement (Kagioglou et al., 2001). The
performance management system is the process by which the company manages its
performance. It is a process where feedback is provided from various levels in the
organisation in order to manage the overall performance of the system. In a performance
management system the strategy and policy of the organisation is in focus and deployed to
all business processes, activities and personnel in the organisation. A performance
measurement system is an information system and it constitutes the core process in the
performance management system and provides the feedback that enables appropriate
management decisions (Bititci et al., 1997).
In the construction industry, it is not uncommon that KPIs are used as a performance
management system. That way of using KPIs has received some critique. Beatham et al.
(2004) argues that most KPIs used in the construction industry are post event, lagging
measures that do not provide the opportunity to make changes in the project that was
measured. Bassioni et al. (2004) raises the issue that KPIs are used for benchmarking but
do not give insight into the means of improving performance and therefore are of limited
use for internal decision making. However, KPIs can be useful if they are used in the right
way, i.e. as a tool in a performance management system. Both the balanced scorecard
system (Kaplan and Norton, 1992) and the Excellence Models (EFQM, 2017) use KPIs to
measure performance. This indicates that KPIs can also be useful as part of the production
strategy development in a company, analysing different types of production systems ability
to perform in different areas of competition. In the following section the use of KPIs in a
construction production strategy context is described. In that context a production strategy
framework (see e.g. Miltenburg, 2005) can be seen as the performance management system
and the use of KPIs as the performance measurement system.
33
3.4.1 Key performance indicators (KPI)

KPIs are frequently used to measure performance in the construction industry (Bassioni et
al., 2004), and is the collective term for performance metrics in the construction industry
(Beatham et al., 2004). Egan (1998) highlighted the importance of performance
measurement and as a result of that report, the Construction Best Practice Programme
(CBPP, 2002) launched KPIs for both project and organisational levels. The construction
industry KPIs were first published in 1999, and are updated annually. Swan’s and Kyng’s
(2004) report describe how to work with the KPIs defined by (CBPP, 2002) and list 10
headline KPIs, see Table 12.
Table 12 KPIs (Swan and Kyng, 2004)

KPI Description
Construction Cost Improvement of capital cost year on year.

Construction Time Improvement of time year on year
Predictability Cost Actual cost against the cost predicted at
tender.
Predictability Time Actual time against the time predicted at
tender
Client Satisfaction Client satisfaction with the delivered product
Product
Client Satisfaction Client satisfaction with the service provided
Service by the Project Team
Defects Impact of the defects of the final product
Productivity Value added per person working on the
project
Profitability Profitability of the construction company
Safety Accident incident rate for the company
The headline KPIs in Swan and Kyng (2004) represent cost (level and dependability) and
delivery (speed and dependability) and quality (defects), but flexibility is not represented
by the headline KPIs. Beatham et al. (2004) describe the use of KPIs in the construction
industry and give examples of organisations that have developed KPIs for the construction
industry and describe them briefly. In Table 13, KPIs presented by some of the
organisations are categorized under each of the KPIs: quality, delivery speed, delivery
dependability, cost level and cost dependability. None of the organisations represented in
Table 13 presented KPIs for measuring flexibility.
KPIs have been developed by other organisations than those presented in Table 13, for
example The ACE consultants KPIs; Respect for people KPIs; Design Quality Indicator;
Satisfaction of service KPIs (SoS KPIs), etc. The reason for not including these
organisations in the list of potential KPIs are twofold. Firstly they consider areas that are a
bit out of the scope for this research and secondly they are not publically available and the
providing organisations charge a fee to get access to the KPIs. The KPIs from these
organisations will therefore not be further investigated in this thesis.
34
Table 13 KPIs for the construction industry previosly suggested in literature

Quality Delivery speed Delivery dependability Cost level Cost dependability
Rethinking 1.Number of 1.Construction time – 1.Time predictability 1.Capital cost- all costs 1.Cost predictability
construction defects on Client approval to excluding land and
(Egan, 1998) handover practical completion finance
KPI Report for 1.Defects 1.Time for construction 1.Time Predictability – Design 1.Cost for construction 1.Cost Predictability –
the Minister of 2.Quality issues at 2.Time to rectify defects 2.Time Predictability – 2.Cost of rectifying Design
Construction available for use Construction defects 2.Cost Predictability –
3.Quality issues at 3.Time Predictability – Design 3.Cost in use Construction
(Raynsford, 2000)
end of defect & Construction 3.Cost Predictability –
rectification 4.Time Predictability – Design and Construction
period Construction (client change 4.Cost Predictability –
orders) Construction (client
5.Time Predictability – change order)
Construction (project leader 5.Cost Predictability –
35
change orders) Construction (project
leader change order)
CIRIA design - 1.Design time estimate 1.Design fee estimate
KPIs (Dent and 2.Design change time 2.Design change cost
Storey, 2004) impact impact
3.Design errors and 3.Design errors and
omissions time impact omissions cost
impact
The MCG 1. Certificate of 1.Mobilisation period 2.Predictability – start on site 1.Change orders – co 1.Predictability –
Benchmarking making good 3.Predictability – construction value/weeks to date construction cost
Club (Beatham et defects time 2.Change orders – co
2.No of defects 4.Predictability – practical value/contract cost
al., 2004)
during defects completion
liability period 5.Extension of time index
3.No of snags at
practical
completion
4. Research questions
To be able to fulfil the purpose of this research, i.e. to extend the production strategy body
of knowledge concerning project based production, in the context of house-building, four
research questions have been formulated. In the following they are presented and
motivated. Production strategy consists of a number of dimensions (Figure 7), and this
research cover competitive priorities, product design and engineering, organisation
structure and control, process technology, sourcing and vertical integration and the
production strategy process (see Figure 11), in a house-building context. The motivation
for including the dimensions that are considered in this research is described below and in
chapter 5.
4.1 Research question 1

The process choice is central in production strategy frameworks developed for traditional
manufacturing industries (see e.g. Hill and Hill, 2009, Miltenburg, 2005). To find the right
match between product and process characteristics is important in a house-building context
so that the production systems are effective in delivering manufacturing outputs to the
targeted market segment. When reviewing literature that categorise different production
systems for house-building, different aspects are treated such as, e.g. the design process
(see e.g. Barlow and Ozaki, 2005, Gann, 1996, Segerstedt and Olofsson, 2010), and the
degree of off-site assembly (see e.g. Doran and Giannakis, 2011, Kadir et al., 2006). What
becomes apparent is that there is little focus on how a production system should be designed
to perform in relation to market requirements. The important link between the market and
the production function is thereby not explicitly addressed. In traditional production
strategy literature the product-process matrix (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979) is often used
to facilitate the process choice. A corresponding classification matrix adapted to a house-
building context that acknowledge different production systems’ ability to meet customer
demands, such as customisation, price, delivery and quality, would be useful to visualise
the link between market requirements and the design of the production system The first
research question is therefore related to categorisation of different production systems for
production of multi-family houses.
RQ1: What aspects can be useful in a classification matrix, corresponding to the product-
process matrix (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979), see Figure 8, contrasting different
production systems for house-building?
37

As stated above the link between the design of the production system and the ability to
deliver manufacturing outputs is not explicitly treated in previous construction related
research focusing on production system design (see e.g. Barlow et al., 2003, Segerstedt and
Olofsson, 2010, Winch, 2003, Voordijk et al., 2006). Different production systems with
different process characteristics can all be competitive given that the production function
is aligned with the targeted market (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984). To measure and
compare different production systems’ ability to perform in different areas of competition
are important parts of production strategy, as indicated by the thematic areas presented in
Chatha and Butt (2015). To be able to evaluate performance at a production strategy level,
firstly valid and feasible measures have to be used and secondly, empirical data has to be
accessed (Beatham et al., 2004). In the process of finding valid and feasible measures that
can be used to measure performance, at a production strategic level, in a house-building
context, it became apparent that most research that evaluate and compare production
systems for house-building is based on qualitative estimations (see e.g. Arif and Egbu,
2010, Blismas et al., 2006, Gibb, 2001, Halman et al., 2008) rather than quantitative
calculations. The second research question relates to the lack of publically available, well-
defined and quantitative key performance indicators to measure performance at a
production strategy level.
RQ2: Which competitive priorities are important to measure when evaluating different
production systems on a production strategy level in a house-building context, and how
can they be quantitatively be measured?

The next step in the research is towards investigating how the process choice affects other
parts of the production system. This study investigates how the process choice, i.e. the
design of the production system, affect information exchange in house-building projects.
The reason for exploring information exchange relates to the fact that information exchange
is an important part of any production system and in a context as complex as house-
building, with long and fragmented supply chains and temporary project organisations, a
wide range of information must be coordinated properly to ensure success of the project
(Dainty et al., 2006). Previous research on information exchange in house-building
typically consider traditional production methods on the construction site (see e.g. Dainty
et al., 2006, Senaratne and Ruwanpura, 2016) or, in a few studies, industrialised house-
building (see e.g. Bergström and Stehn, 2005, Persson et al., 2009) and do not appreciate
differences between different types of production systems. The third research question
relates to this by exploring how the design of the production system affects information
exchange in a house-building context.
RQ3: How does the characteristics of the production system, i.e. the process choice, affect
information exchange in a house-building context?
38

The final part of the research study the process of formulating and implementing a revised
production strategy for an industrialised house-builder. The process part of production
strategy is not as well researched as the content part (Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2001)
even though it has been given some more attention in recent years (Chatha and Butt, 2015).
All companies need to change their strategies to deal with different courses of events in
their surroundings. Change can be very challenging (Szulanski, 2000) and in a house-
building context where culture impedes innovation, and emphasise the complexity and
unique characteristics of each project, change can be even more challenging (Titus and
Bröchner, 2005). In an industrialised house-building context there are circumstances that
further contribute to this complexity, e.g. the fact that the house is produced in two different
production processes, first in an off-site facility and after that production and assembly on
site. To be successful in making a production strategy change in an industrialised house-
building context the production strategy process must be structured and the company
making the change must be aware of the context specific challenges. The fourth research
question is related to this.
RQ4: How can a new production strategy be formulated and implemented in an

industrialised house-building context and what challenges are important to consider in that
process?
39
5. Research design
This chapter describes the research design to give an overview of how the research has
evolved through the decisions taken throughout the research process. The chapter describes
the research process and methods used as transparent as possible for the reader to be able
to judge the quality of the research. The chapter ends with a discussion around the research
validity and reliability.
5.1 Overview of the research process

The research is divided into three separate but related studies. Study 1 covers process choice
and performance measurement (RQ1 and RQ2), Study 2 takes a production strategy
perspective on information exchange in house-building (RQ3), and Study 3 focuses on the
formulation and implementation of production strategy in an industrialised house-building
context (RQ4). An overview of the research process is visualised in Figure 10.
Study 1 includes three publications, Paper 1 in Construction Management and Economics,

Paper 2 in Journal of Construction Engineering and Management and Paper 3 in
Construction Innovation. Early versions of the papers have been presented at the EurOMA
conferences in Amsterdam 2012, Dublin 2013 and Neuchâtel 2015 respectively. A working
paper version of Paper 3 was also included in the licentiate thesis presented halfway
through the PhD-studies, see Figure 10.
Study 2 resulted in an extended version of a conference paper presented at the EurOMA

conference in Edinburgh 2017. The conference version of this paper had a page limitation,
hence the paper has been extended in this publication to increase the quality of the paper.
The output of Study 3 also has its origin in a conference paper, presented at the EurOMA
conference in Trondheim 2016. After the conference the paper has been re-written and
shifted focus. The paper included in this thesis (Paper 5) is a working paper submitted to
International Journal of Production Economics.
41
5. Research design
and vertical integration as the supply chain structure has a large effect on information
exchange and the thematic area information sharing (Chatha and Butt, 2015). Information
exchange is an important issue in a house-building context, hence including this topic was
also a conscious choice. The output of Study 2 is a working paper based on a conference
paper presented at the EurOMA conference in Edinburgh 2017 (P4) (Figure 11).
In the third study (RQ4) the process of formulating and implementing a production strategy
for an industrialised house-builder is investigated, hence concerning the process dimension
in production strategy literature. Access to an industrialised house-builder that had made a
change in production strategy gave an opportunity to study a production strategy process
(formulation and implementation) in an industrialised house-building context. When doing
field research one can encounter both difficulties and opportunities when it comes to getting
access to necessary data. In this study good access was provided, hence this was a
combination of pursuing a relevant and interesting research topic, i.e. a conscious choice
and the opportunity to get access to empirical data. The output of the Study 3 is a paper
(P5) that has been submitted to the International Journal of Production Economics (Figure
11).
Delivery P1
Quality
Competitive RQ1
Study 1
priorities
Cost
P2
Flexibi ity Production planning
RQ2
and control
Content
Infrastructural
Human resources
P3
Product design/
Engineering
Production Decision
strategy categories Organisation
structure and control
Study 2
Structural
Capacity
RQ3 P4
Process technology
Participation Facilities
Audit of current Sourcing & vertical

Formulation state integration
Study 3
P5
Process Formulation of action plan
RQ4
Implementation
Figure 11 Production strategy dimensions considered in this thesis
In all studies empirical data from different types of production systems was collected and
used both to test theoretical constructs and in a more inductive approach to explore different
production strategy dimensions. In total eight different production systems were studied in
the research. Production systems F and G have been forced to shut down whilst the other
production systems were still active at the time they were studied. A description of the
product and process characteristics of each production system is given in Table 14.
43
5. Research design
Table 14 Descriptions of production systems studied in this thesis

Production Description
system
Product characteristics: This production system only deliver one type of product and that
is tower block with four to eight floors. Each floor consists of standard apartments with one,
two three, or four rooms. The layout of each type of apartment is standardised. The layout
of the floors can be varied in terms of apartment combinations, however in one building each
floor must have the same layout.
A Process characteristics: The production system use traditional production methods on-site
but since they have decided to standardise the product they have also standardised the
production process ta a large extent. The production process on-site also include production
of components that are traditionally prefabricated, e.g. balconies, joints and slabs. The
fabrication of these components on-site is used to transform waste, in terms of waiting time,
to value adding activities.
Product characteristics: This production system use a modular approach where
standardised components with integrated interfaces are combined to build the house. The
production system produces unique houses, designed by external architects, but within the
boundaries of the building system. They produce tower blocks, lamellar buildings and L-
B shaped buildings with three to eight floors.
Process characteristics: This production system use prefabricated elements produced both
in their own off-site facility and by external suppliers. They also use prefabricated toilet pods
produced by an external supplier. The prefabricated concrete elements and toilet pods are
then assembled and completed on the construction site.
Product characteristics: This production system produces rental apartments and the
product is standardised to a large extent. They produce two types of buildings, a tower block
with four to eight floors and a lamellar building with four to six floors. The only choice
customer can affect is the exterior design where they can choose form three predetermined
C designs so that the house can match the style of existing buildings in the surroundings.
Process characteristics: This production system do not own an off-site facility for
prefabrication. Instead they by prefabricated elements, façade elements and bathroom
modules from external suppliers. The elements are prefabricated to a relatively high degree
of completion off-site and assembled on the construction site to a house.
Product characteristics: This production system produce multifamily houses with two to
six floors and each house is designed based on customer needs. There are some limitations
in the design though, related to transport regulations of the prefabricated modules and the
fact that the product is based on technical solutions and a production process that are reused
D to a great extent. Still, this production system offer a large degree of customisation.
Process characteristics: This production system produces modules to a high level of
completion off-site. The modules are complete with installations, floor, sealing, wallpaper,
wardrobes and kitchen when they leave the off-site facility. The only activities performed
on-site are assembly of the modules and finishing work.
44
5. Research design
Production Description
system
Product characteristics: This production system have gone through a strategic change
when it comes to the degree of product standardisation. Before the change they produced
only one type of house with limited possibilities for the customer to affect the design of the
houses. After the change they produced houses with a higher degree of customisation. Now
they can produce houses with two to four floors and there is no limit in terms of how many
apartments a house can contain. The apartment layouts are still standardised.
E
Process characteristics: This productions system prefabricate modules in an off-site facility
to a high level of completion. The modules are then transported to and assembled on the
construction site. The decreased degree of product standardisation affected the production
process on-site since it was in that process the increased product flexibility was taken care
of. In the off-site facility they still produce standardised modules to a high level of
completion.
Product characteristics: This production system produced houses up to eight floors and
was designed to be able to meet a high variety of customer demands. The prerequisite for
this was that customer choices were made early in the project development process.
Process characteristics: Elements, complete with installations and surfaces, was produced
F
in an off-site facility in three separate production lines producing ceiling/floor, walls, and
kitchens respectively. Stairways, balconies, bathrooms and roofs were also prefabricated but
bough from external suppliers. All the prefabricated elements were then transported to and
assembly on site in a large, temporary, weatherproof assembly hall.
Product characteristics: The production system could deliver multi-family houses up to
five floors. The approach when it came to customisation was to standardise the interior
design to a relatively large extent and customise the exterior to blend in to the surroundings.
G Process characteristics: The building-system consisted of an independent structural frame
that carried the load and modules that were installed within the structural frame. The
modules were produced off-site to a high level of completion. Activities performed on-site
were, e.g. assembly, facades, complementary work with bathrooms and kitchen appliances.
Product characteristics: The houses are engineered to order and they offer a very high
degree of customisation. This production system can basically produce any type of house.
H Process characteristics: This production system represent traditional production methods
on the construction site. The majority of the value adding activities are preformed on-site
and they use a small amount of pre-fabrication.
Each of the production systems described in Table 14 were studied in one or more studies
in this research. The production systems are named differently in this thesis compared to
what they are named in the different papers. Table 15 shows which production systems that
took part in each respective study and paper and how the production systems are named in
the papers.
45
5. Research design
Literature
Conceptual
Interviews and modelling and
Stage 1 secondary data logic reasoning
Development of from production
theoretical system D, F and G
constructs
P11: Classification matrix for process
choice and performance evaluation,
considering RQ1 and RQ2
Empirical data
from interviews
with production
system A, B, C,
Stage 2 D and E
Assessment of
theoretical
constructs A need to refine the A need to define
classification matrix, performance
considering RQ1 measurement,
considering RQ2
Literature and Conceptual Conceptual Literature

input from modelling and modelling, logic
Stage 3 empirical data logic reasoning reasoning and Empirical data from
Refinement of empirical assessment a second round of
theoretical interviews with
constructs P22: Refined classification P33: KPIs for measuring production system
matrix for process choice, performance, A, B, C, D and E
considering RQ1 considering RQ2
1 Paper 1, Classification of production systems for industrialized building: a

production strategy perspective (Jonsson and Rudberg 2014)
2 Paper 2, Production system classification matrix: Matching product
standardisation and production system design (Jonsson and Rudberg 2015)
3 Paper 3, KPIs for measuring performance of productions systems for residential
building: a production strategy perspective (Jonsson and Rudberg 2017)
Figure 13 Research process for Study 1
The literature review, secondary data, and interviews with persons involved in production
systems D, F and G, were used in Stage 1 to develop a classification matrix corresponding
to the left hand part of Figure 12. Production system D was also used in Stage 2 and 3. In
Stage 1 the right hand part of Figure 12 was also considered by clustering drivers and
barriers with off-site production and linking them to competitive priorities. The result from
Stage 1 is a classification matrix for house-building production systems, offering the
possibility to assess the relative ability of different types of production systems to perform
in different areas of competition.
In the second stage the initial idea was to position a number of production systems in the
classification matrix developed in Stage 1, and evaluate their ability to perform in different
areas of competition. This resulted in a conference paper (conference paper 2 in Figure 10)
but also a list of shortcomings with the classification matrix. What also became clear was
47
5. Research design
that there is a lack of well-defined performance measurement systems developed to

evaluate the ability of the production system to perform.
In stage 3 the classification matrix developed in Stage 1 was refined. One can question if it
is motivated to include the first version of the classification matrix in this thesis when it
has been revised and improved. The reason for including the first version and the results
from Paper 1 is that the theoretical foundation for the final version is presented there and
is still valid. The decision to revise it came from a more practical perspective, both
academic and managerial. It was hard to map different production systems in the first
version of the classification matrix and therefore hard for academics and practitioners to
use.
To revise and improve the classification matrix, the input from production systems D, F,
and G, and the results from the literature review were used. The dimensions in the matrix
were revised to be better adapted to a house-building context. The revised classification
matrix was then tested using production systems A, B, C, D and E. Secondly a performance
measurement system was developed. To do this a literature review were used to define
KPIs for different areas of competition. The defined KPIs were then validated through
empirical data from production systems A, B, C, D and E.
5.2.2 Method Study 1

The initial intention for this research was to use a deductive research approach. The logical
conclusions (i.e. theoretical constructs) derived from theory (i.e. the literature review in
Stage 1) were supposed to be tested in an empirical setting (Stage 2) and based on this
present general conclusions. However, the test in an empirical setting did not match the
theoretical constructs developed in Stage 1. This started an iterative approach to find new
matching literature to extend the theoretical constructs defined prior to the empirical test.
This is more in line with abductive reasoning (Kovács and Spens, 2005) where an iterative
approach between theory and empirical data is used.
For the empirically grounded part of this research, Stage 2 and 3, case based research was
chosen as the primary research method. In Stage 1 secondary data, in terms of already
published papers, reports and publically available data about three production systems (D,
F, and G) were used to validate the findings in Stage 1. The secondary data was
complemented with interviews with persons involved in the different production systems.
To collect data from different sources increases the construct validity of the research and
consistency of the findings (Yin, 2009).
Case studies have been argued to be a good method to follow-up previous research, e.g.
survey-based research or, as in this instance, the results derived from a literature review
and conceptual modelling (Karlsson, 2009). Case research can also be used for theory
extension/refinement (Yin, 2009), as is the intention in this study. When selecting cases for
theory building research each case should be selected to either predict similar results (literal
replication), i.e. cases are chosen for statistical reasons (Eisenhardt, 1989), or to produce
contrary results but for predictable reasons (theoretical replication) (Karlsson, 2009). In
48
5. Research design
this study theoretical replication is used and a screening of the industrialised house-building
sector in Sweden was made to identify suitable cases for the study. Persons involved in the
industrialised house-building sector have been consulted, both from academia and from the
industry, and this resulted in a list of potential candidates.
From this list, seven production systems were selected so that they would represent
different types, in terms of product and process characteristics, thereby offering the
possibility to expose differences and similarities between different production systems. All
seven production systems accepted to participate in the research and they were visited for
an initial interview and factory visit. After these initial visits, two of the production systems
were left out since they did not produce whole buildings, but rather acted as supplier/sub-
contractor for another main contractor. The remaining five house-builders are production
systems A-E presented in Table 14. The unit of analysis is thereby the production system
and the cases in this study consist of different production systems for production of
multifamily residences (whole buildings, being the main contractor).
The data for the five remaining cases was collected on two occasions. The first round of
data was collected through on-site visits, review of company documents, and semi-
structured interviews with persons involved in developing and managing the different
production systems. Each company visit consisted of a general presentation of the company
and the production system (from their part), a presentation of the research project (from our
part), a tour in the factory where the pre-fabrication of building components was performed
and an interview with one or more persons, at management level, with knowledge about
the production system. An interview protocol with predetermined questions was used in all
interviews to be able to compare the different production systems and to ensure reliability.
The questions in the interview protocol were related to four main topics:
 Background and general facts about the firm and their concept for producing
multifamily residences
 The production system
 The product
 The market (clients and competitors)
The first bullet aims to give a general understanding of the firm and the related production
system. The second and third give detailed information about the product and process
characteristics respectively. The fourth bullet gives an indication on how the firm handles
market requirements from clients and competitors. Information about the interviews is
summarised in Table 16.
49
5. Research design
Table 16 Summary of the interviews conducted in Stage 2 of Study 1

Production Function of key Topic of the Information about the interview
system informant(s) interview
Head of development, The production Performed in person
responsible for system, the The interview was performed by two
developing product, the researchers. One was responsible for asking
A* technological platforms market, the questions and the other for documentation.
for house-building coordination of Draft of interview documentation validated by
suppliers. the respondent
Duration 3 hours
Four persons: The production Interview performed in person
Head of development, system, the The interview was performed by two
Responsible for product, the researchers. One was responsible for asking
B market, the questions and the other for documentation.
strategic planning,
coordination of Draft of interview documentation validated by
Responsible for suppliers. the respondent
logistics and purchase, One day including, interview, discussion, and
Supply chain manager plant tour
Head of development, The production Interview performed in person
responsible for system, the The interview was performed by two
developing product, the researchers. One was responsible for asking
C*
market, the questions and the other for documentation.
technological platforms
for house-building suppliers. the respondent
Duration 3 hours
Three persons: The production Separate interviews were performed with each
Head of system, the person. Two in person and one (business
construction/design, product, the manager) over the phone
market, Documented through notes taken by the
Head of purchase,
D coordination of interviewer.
Business manager suppliers. Draft of interview documentation validated by
the respondent.
Half a day including two interviews and plant
tour. The telephone interview was performed
separate duration 90 minutes.
Two persons: The production Interview performed in person
Plant manager system, the The interview was performed by two
Production manager product, the researchers. One was responsible for asking
E market, the questions and the other for documentation.
and head of production
system development suppliers. the respondent
Duration 4 hours, including interview,
discussion and plant tour
* Production system A and C are different production systems within the same company, data concerning
both production systems were collected during the same interview session, with the same person.
After each visit the data was transcribed and compiled. If some information was missing
additional interviews were performed by phone and e-mail.
The second round of data, concerning performance measurement, was collected through
telephone interviews with the same production systems as in Stage 1, i.e. production
systems A-E. An interview protocol with predetermined questions was sent to the
respondents in advance so that they could prepare for the interview. Information about the
interviews is summarised in Table 17. If the persons from the first round of interviews had
good knowledge about performance measurement, they were interviewed in the second
round of data gathering as well. In some cases other persons were contacted, on
50
5. Research design
recommendation from earlier contacts within the production systems, since they had better
knowledge about performance measurement.
Table 17 Summary of interviews conducted in Stage 3 of Study 1

Production Function of key Topic of the Information about the interview
system informant(s) interview
Head of development, Performance Telephone interview
responsible for measurement Questions sent to respondent in advance
developing Documented by taking notes during the
A* technological platforms interview
for house-building Draft of interview documentation validated by
the respondent
Duration 1 hour
Two persons: Performance Telephone interview
Head of development, measurement Questions sent to respondent in advance
Head of production Documented by taking notes during the
B
interview
support
Draft of interview documentation validated by
the respondent
Duration 1 hour
Head of development, Performance Telephone interview
responsible for measurement Questions sent to respondent in advance
developing Documented by taking notes during the
C*
interview
technological platforms
for house-building the respondent
Duration 1 hour
Lean coordinator Performance Telephone interview
measurement Questions sent to respondent in advance
Documented by taking notes during the
D
interview
the respondent
Duration 1.5 hours
Production manager Performance Telephone interview
and head of production measurement Questions sent to respondent in advance
system development Documented by taking notes during the
E
interview
the respondent
Duration 0,5 hour
* Production system A and C are different production systems within the same company, data concerning
both production systems were collected during the same interview session, with the same person.
The interview consisted of three parts. The first part focused on performance measurement
in general within the house-building industry and more specifically on how they worked
with performance measurement within their production system. This part of the interview
gave insight in how the companies measured the ability of the production system to
perform. The second part consisted of a discussion and validation of the theoretically
defined metrics derived from performance measurement literature. This part of the
interview was performed to be able to see if the derived metrics could be useful to the case
companies. It was also used to refine some of the suggested metrics so that they would be
in line with already established terms and metrics used in the house-building industry. The
third part of the interview focused on the feasibility of the metrics, i.e. if the companies had
access to all the necessary data to be able to use the suggested metrics. This part of the
51
5. Research design
interview is important since, for any performance measurement system to be successful,

the data should be easy to collect (Beatham et al., 2004). After collecting and compiling
the data from the interviews, the drafts were sent back to the respondents for review to
strengthen reliability.
5.3 Study 2: Information exchange in house-building

5.3.1 Research design and process Study 2
The study explores how the process choice affect information exchange in a haouse-
building context. The research process of this study is visualised in Figure 14.
Research idea: How does the

process choice affect information
exchange in house-building?
Step 1
Research topic and Identifying challenges
analytical framework with information
Literature
exchange in traditional
house-building
Empirical input from

study 1 concerning
production system Secondary data
Case descriptions and
B and D concerning background
identification of product and
information concerning
process characteristics
Step 2 production system H
Data collection
Empirical data collected Identifying differences in
through interviews with supply chain structures and
production system B, D information sharing between
and H different production systems
Relating the differences Analysis using

between production empirical data from
systems B, D and H to production system
the identified challenges B, D and H
Step 3
Analysis and output P4: Information
exchange in house-
building – a production
strategy perspective
Figure 14 Research process Study 2
A literature review was used to identify challenges with information exchange in traditional
house-building. Literature indicated that information exchange in a house-building context
is complex and hard, and four main challenges were identified. In the second step empirical
data was collected from production systems B, D and H, using semi-structured interviews,
to see how the different types of production systems approached information exchange.
Differences in supply chain structure and information exchange were analysed and related
to the challenges. This was done to see to what extent the identified challenges with
information exchange could be observed for different types of production systems. For the
52
5. Research design
empirical part of Study 2 data were collected from three types of production systems. Two
of the production systems (B and D) was also used in Study 1, hence some of the empirical
data had already been collected and could be reused in this study. Production system H was
new and represent the traditional way of producing houses, using no or very little off-site
production. It was important to include that type of production system in this study since
the challenges identified in the literature are related to traditional house-building on-site
and including that type of production system gave the opportunity to validate the
challenges, identified in academic literature, empirically.

In this study interviews are used as the main source for collecting empirical data. The study
is of exploratory nature to get an understanding of how the process choice affects
information exchange in a house-building context. For this type of research, i.e. increasing
understanding and/or generate propositions unstructured or semi-structured interviews are
preferred to structured interviews that are more suitable for theory testing (DiCicco-Bloom
and Crabtree, 2006). As mentioned above, three different production systems were used in
this study to collect empirical data. The production systems were selected to represent
different types so that a comparison of production systems, with different product and
process characteristics, could be made. The empirical data was collected through semi-
structured interviews. Information about the interviews is summarised in Table 18.
Table 18 Summary of interviews conducted in Study 2

Production Function of Topic of the Information about the interview
system key informant interview
B Contract Supply chain Interview performed over telephone.
manager and structure and Documented through notes taken by the
head of information exchange interviewer.
development Draft of interview documentation validated by
the respondent
Duration 90 minutes
D Project leader Information exchange Interview performed over telephone.
Documented through notes taken by the
interviewer.
the respondent
Duration 90 minutes
D Head of Mainly supply chain Interview performed over telephone.
logistics and structure and some Documented through notes taken by the
SCM complementary interviewer.
information about Draft of interview documentation validated by
information exchange the respondent
in the supply chain. Duration 90 minutes
H Purchase Supply chain Interview performed in person
manager at structure and Documented through notes taken by the
regional level. information exchange interviewer.
the respondent.
Duration 2,5 hours
For production system D two interviews were performed. The first interview was
performed with a project leader and that interview focused mainly on information
exchange. The second interview was performed with the head of logistics and focused
53
5. Research design
mainly on supply chain structure and supply chain management. Some additional/clarifying
questions were asked through e-mail correspondence. Notes were taken during the
interviews and the documentation from each interview was sent to and validated by the
corresponding persons.
For production system B only one interview was performed, the reason for that was that
the corresponding person had good insight in both supply chain structure and information
exchange. The interviewed person is contract manager and head of development and had
long experience of developing and managing production system B. The interview was
performed over the phone, approximately 90 minutes, and the notes from the interview was
sent to the corresponding person for verification.
For production system H the interview was performed in person. Since this was the first
collaboration with this house-builder some more time, approximately 2,5 hours, were spent
on this interview. The person interviewed is head of purchase within one of the house-
builder’s districts in Sweden and also the link between the district and the purchase
organisation on a national level. The interviewed person had good knowledge mainly about
the supply chain structure but also about information exchange, hence only one person from
production system H was interviewed.
The interviews performed with production system B and D are in line with the description
of short case study interviews whilst the interview with production system H is more in line
with a prolonged case study interview (Yin, 2013). This was a suitable approach since the
interview with production system B and D could be more focused on the topics at hand due
to previous collaborations whilst the interview with production system H had to start
broader and then be narrowed down to the topics relevant for this study.
5.4 Study 3: Production strategy process

5.4.1 Research design and process Study 3
The idea for this study came during Study 1 in our collaboration with production system E.
They announced that they were planning a change in strategy by targeting a new market
closer to the city-centres. To be able to do that they had to make the design of the product
more flexible. This change in market strategy had an effect on the production function and
in Study 3 the production strategy process, i.e. the process of formulating and implementing
the new production strategy was studied.
This study was a bit different form Study 1 and Study 2 in the sense that empirical data was
used to describe the process and then evaluated using theory, compared to using the
empirical data to test theoretical constructs. This is more in line with an inductive approach
where specific observations, interviews, etc., were made and then used to develop broader
generalisations. Data was collected using different sources of information. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with persons holding different positions in the production
system. Observations on-site and in the off-site facility were made to get an understanding
of the production process. Access to company documents related to the change in
54
5. Research design
production strategy were also provided. The collected data was used to describe the
production strategy process (formulation and implementation) and the production strategy
process was then evaluated using literature. The research process for this study is visualised
in Figure 15.
Production strategy process

(formulation and implementation)
Stage 1
Data collection and Empirical data collected Describing the process of
case narrative through interviews, formulating and
company visits, and implementing a revised
review of company production strategy in
documents production system E
Stage 2
Derive analytical Analytical framework
framework concerning to assess the production
Literature
production strategy strategy process of
formulation and production system E
implementation from
literature
Empirical data collected A suggested production strategy

through interviews, process in an industrialised house-
company visits, and building context and recognition of
review of company context specific challenges that has to
documents be considered in the production
Stage 3
Analysis and output strategy process
Literature
P5: Production strategy
process – formulation and
implementation in an
industrialised house-building
context.
Figure 15 Research process Study 3

This study is a single case study that can be seen as a revelatory case (Yin, 2013). To study
the production strategy formulation and implementation process more or less when it
happened was seen as a good opportunity to make a contribution to the production strategy
process literature as this part of the production strategy literature has received less attention
than the production strategy content literature (Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2001). The
study is based on empirical data from an industrialised house-builder (Production system
E).
55
5. Research design
Data was collected through multiple sources, i.e. interviews, observations and review of
company documents. Interviews were performed with persons with different functions
within the organisation. Semi-structured interviews were performed with totally six key
informants and their function, length of interview and main topics of each interview are
summarised in Table 19.
Table 19 Summary of interviews performed in Study 3

Function of key Perspective on the Information about the interview
informants production strategy process.
VP Product Background and company Interview performed in person
development, Industrial information, formulation Recorded on tape
Production & Supply process, implementation Duration 3,5 hours including 2,5 hours
Chain recorded interview
Director of technical Formulation process, technical Interview performed in person
development development of the new Recorded on tape
product and building system Duration 2 hours
Head of construction Formulation and Interview performed by phone
management on-site implementation on-site Recorded on tape
Duration 1,5 hours
Technical support in the Implementation process of site Interview performed in person
off-site facility and communication between Recorded on tape
off-site production and on-site Duration 2 hours
assembly
Project manager Implementation on-site and Informal interview performed on
project development construction site during a site visit.
Duration 3 hours including 1 hour informal
talk about project development and
implementation on-site
Site manager on-site Implementation on-site Informal interview performed on
construction site during a site visit.
Duration 3 hours including 1 hour informal
talk about the production process before
and after change
In addition to the interviews, observations were made during visits both in the off-site
facility and on a construction site where a house were assembled. The observations were
made to get an understanding of the production process. This was helpful when conducting
the interviews. The third source of information was review of company documents. Access
to the company database was given and documents regarding the production strategy
process could be accessed and used to cross-check data collected through the interview.
5.5 Research quality

Theory can be developed combining findings in previous literature, common sense and
experience. Yet, it is the connection between this and empirical data that permits
development of a testable, relevant and valid theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). This research is
based on qualitative data collected from different production systems and analysed to draw
conclusions. In this type of research it is particularly important to pay attention to reliability
and validity (Karlsson, 2009). However to measure the quality of qualitative research using
56
5. Research design
the criteria reliability and validity has been questioned (see e.g. Golafshani, 2003,
Halldorsson and Aastrup, 2003, Stenbacka, 2001). The general critique is that the concepts
of reliability and validity is drawn from a positivistic ontological standpoint (Halldorsson
and Aastrup, 2003) that is more applicable on quantitative research (Golafshani, 2003). For
a more qualitative/naturalistic research approach other criteria should be used to judge the
research quality, such as credibility, neutrality or confirmability, consistency or
dependability and applicability or transferability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
This research is mainly based on a deductive approach (Study 3 excluded) were empirical
data is used for theory testing. This is more in line with a positivistic standpoint despite the
fact that this is qualitative research. Hence, the quality of the research is discussed using
the criteria reliability and validity.
Reliability is the extent to which a study can be repeated with the same results (Flynn et
al., 1990, Stuart et al., 2002, Yin, 2013). Validity is usually divided into three different
types, i.e. construct validity, internal validity, and external validity (Stuart et al., 2002, Voss
et al., 2002, Yin, 2013). Construct validity is the extent to which we establish correct
operational measure for the concepts being studied. Internal validity is the extent to which
we can establish a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other
conditions and finally, external validity is knowing whether a study´s findings can be
generalised beyond the immediate study (Voss et al., 2002).
To evaluate the quality of this research Yin’s (2013) four “tests” to assess reliability and
the three dimensions of validity is used. Table 20 describes means to ensure validity and
reliability.
Table 20 Means to ensure validity and reliability (Yin, 2009 p. 41)

Test Case study tactic Phase of research in
which tactic occurs
Construct validity  Use multiple sources of evidence Data collection
 Establish chain of evidence Data collection
 Have key informants review drafts of case Composition
study report
Internal validity  Do pattern matching Data analysis
 Do explanation building Data analysis
 Address rival explanations Data analysis
 Use logic models Data analysis
External validity  Use theory in single-case studies Research design
 Use replication logic in multiple-case studies Research design
Reliability  Use case study protocol Data collection
 Develop cases study database Data collection
5.5.1 Reliability
“A non-reliable measure is like an elastic tape measure; the same thing can be measure a
number of times, but it will yield different length each time” (Flynn et al., 1990, p. 265).
A good reliability is also a prerequisite to establish validity. If a study can’t be repeated and
come to the same result, a high degree of validity is meaningless. A thing that should be
57
5. Research design
considered related to the reliability of this research is that the data from the cases are
collected and analysed by specific persons. To know if the results had been exactly the
same if the study had been performed by another researcher is more or less impossible. The
main findings however should be the same independent of who is doing the research.
To ensure reliability in this research:
 Structured and well prepared research protocols have been used when interviewing
persons representing different functions in the organisation.
 The documentation from the interviews is stored digitally by the researcher so it
can be reviewed and controlled.
 In the cases where the interviews have been recorded, the original recordings are
also stored digitally by the researcher.
5.5.2 Construct validity

Construct validity is defined as having the right measures for a studied object (Yin, 2009).
To ensure construct validity:
 For study 1 and 3 data has been collected from multiple sources, i.e. review of
publicly available information, interviews, archival data, and observations. For
Study 2 the main source for collecting empirical data was interviews, that data has
not been triangulated using other sources which decreases the construct validity of
Study 2.
 The iterative process in Study 1, going from findings from the literature review to
empirical data back to theory for development and further refinement of the
constructs should strengthen the construct validity of the research
 After the data collected through interviews had been compiled the draft notes sent
to the respondents for validation.
5.5.3 Internal validity

Internal validity is the confidence that can be placed in the cause and effect relationship in
a study (Yin, 2013), i.e. can there be an alternative cause, than the one presented, that
explain the observations and results. Internal validity is mainly a concern for explanatory
research (Yin, 2013). In this research Study 1 and Study 3 are explanatory hence the internal
validity discussed for these studies. Study 2 is more of an exploratory nature, i.e. explore
how the process choice affects information exchange in a house-building context, hence
internal validity is not an issue in Study 2.
To ensure internal validity:
 Alternative explanations have been considered and valued throughout the research
process.
 In this research the empirical data was matched with predicted results in terms of
conceptual models derived from literature. This is in line with the description of
58
5. Research design
pattern matching given in Yin (2013) and also a way to strengthen the internal
validity of this study.
 One thing that decreases the internal validity for Study 1 is that the case companies’
ability to deliver manufacturing outputs has not been measured. This is due to
limited access to the case companies. The effect is that no quantitative evaluation
of how the position in the suggested classification matrix affects the ability of a
production system to perform could be done.
5.5.4 External validity

External validity describes to what extent the findings in the study can be generalized
beyond the immediate case (Yin, 2009).
To achieve external validity in this research:
 The approach for Study 1 and 2 is in line with theoretical replication where the
results from the different production systems exposes differences between different
production systems, but for predictable reasons.
 In Study 1 the sample of cases was deliberately chosen to represent different types
of production systems for production of multifamily residences. This makes the
findings generalizable in a house-building industry context. All the production
systems that took part in the research considered the findings useful which, in some
sense, strengthen the external validity. However, the sample of case companies is
small and to be sure that the results can be used for all types of production systems,
for production of multifamily residences, a larger sample of case companies is
needed.
 In Study 2 the findings are based on empirical data from three different production
systems representing the extreme cases in terms of the degree of off-site assembly
(traditional production on-site and modular building) and also a production system
representing a position in between the two extremes. Given this the external validity
of this study is considered good but with the potential to be strengthen further by
studying a larger sample of production systems and also alternative perspectives
from, e.g. suppliers, subcontractors, clients etc.
The external validity is more problematic in Study 3 since it is a single case study. However,
in an attempt to strengthen external validity of Study 3, and achieve analytical
generalisation, the empirical data and findings are related to theory and reflected upon in a
broader context than the immediate case.
59
6. Results
production systems, and it shows that the framework can be used to analyse the relative
strengths and weaknesses of a production system. The framework can also be used as a guide
when developing new, or adjusting existing, production systems for production of multifamily
houses so that they will match market requirements and offer competitiveness.
The next step in developing the classification framework (Figure 16), was to test and possibly
verify the usefulness of the matrix based on empirical data. For this purpose a set of case
companies representing different types of production systems were identified, contacted and
analysed. In this process a number of shortcomings of the classification matrix (left part of
Figure 16) were identified. The main shortcomings related to the difficulties of classifying the
production systems correctly. The two main problems with the matrix was the use of floating
scales in the two dimensions (the degree of product standardisation and volumes and degree of
off-site production respectively) and the way that Gibb (2001) defined the generic production
systems. Thereby in Paper 2 (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2015) the research turned into an iterative,
abductive, process going between the empirical data and a further theorethical development of
the classification matrix (Figure 16), in order to improve it and make it more usefull both for
academics and practitioners.
The major changes made to the classification matrix (left part of Figure 16) was:
 Introducing Lampel’s and Mintzberg’s (1996) five categories of customisation instead of

the floating scale of degree of product standardisation and production volumes. The five
categories are:
o Pure standardisation refers to the case in which the end product is the same and
where the customer does not get involved before taking possession of the
product.
o Segmented standardisation, where firms respond to the needs of different
clusters of customers but the product for each cluster is standardised.
o Customised standardisation, where products are made to order from
standardised components, this can also be called standardised customisation,
modularisation or configuration.
o Tailored customisation requires a basic product that can be customised in the
fabrication stage.
o In pure customisation the product is customised from scratch
This way of defining different degrees of product standardisation facilitates the
classification by using fixed segments for classifying the production systems’ product
characteristics.
 Using Gibb’s (2001) four generic production systems as means to classify the production
systems’ process characteristics. This introduced fixed categories in terms of the degree
of off-site production.
 Two out of Gibb’s (2001) four generic production systems were slightly adjusted to better
reflect the companies producing whole buildings as the main contractor:
o Pre-fabrication & Pre-assembly (PF&PA) replaced Gibb’s Volumetric Pre-
assembly (VPA). PF&PA is a situation not only including a high degree of pre-
fabrication, but also some degree of pre-assembly off-site.
62
6. Results
for house-building (see e.g. Barlow and Ozaki, 2005, Doran and Giannakis, 2011, Gann, 1996,
Kadir et al., 2006) The result of the research suggests that a useful way to classify production
systems for production of multifamily houses is along the dimensions; degree of product
standardisation and the degree of off-site assembly.
6.2 Performance measurement

The first part of research question 2 consider which competitive priorities that are important to
measure when evaluating different production system on a strategic level. In this first phase,
the results from a literature review is used to define what to measure, i.e. which manufacturing
outputs that have to be taken into consideration when evaluating a production system in a
house-building context.
In Paper 1 a quite extensive list of drivers and barriers were found in the literature, (Jonsson
and Rudberg, 2014), see Table 8. The list of drivers and barriers for off-site production is longer
than the list of competitive priorities listed in Table 7. However, the drivers and barriers can
be clustered and linked to the competitive priorities. The drivers and barriers are clustered
under headlines based on traditional competitive priorities in Figure 18. Many of the drivers
and barriers can be related to competitive priorities in more than one way. The relations
presented in Figure 18 are considered direct relations. Other more indirect relations are not
considered, for example, continuous improvement is related to quality but not to cost even
though the work with continuous improvements probably has an indirect impact on cost.
64
6. Results
Based on the review of drivers and barriers for off-site production and the link to competitive
priorities, the first part of research question 2 can be answered. The following competitive
priorities are considered relevant to measure when evaluating the ability of different production
systems ability to perform, see Paper 3 (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2017):
 Quality
 Delivery
- Speed
- Dependability
 Cost
- Level
- Dependability
 Flexibility
- Volume
- Mix
The second part of research question 2, see Paper 3 (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2017), considers
how performance, at a production strategy level, should be measured. In this research and a
production strategy context a production strategy framework can be viewed upon as a system
to manage performance and in such systems KPIs are argued to be useful to measure
performance. Both Table 12 and Table 13 indicate that KPIs for measurement of the
competitive priorities quality, delivery (speed and dependability) and cost (level and
dependability) are defined for the house-building industry. What becomes apparent is that there
is a lack of KPIs defined for measuring flexibility adapted to a house-building industry context.
Flexibility is an important aspect for all manufacturing companies. To be able to be competitive

a company must be able to adapt to changing environmental influences. However, flexibility
is a concept that is complex, multidimensional, and hard to capture and over 50 different terms
of various flexibility can be found in manufacturing literature (Sethi and Sethi, 1990). To find
KPIs for flexibility, traditional production strategy literature has been reviewed, see Paper 3
(Jonsson and Rudberg, 2017).
The result of this study is KPIs that can be used to measure performance at a production strategy
level in a house-building context. KPIs are presented to measure quality, cost, delivery and
flexibility. The suggested KPIs are validated using empirical data collected through interviews
conducted with production systems A-E. The respondents gave their opinion on the suggested
metrics and also accounted for how they work with performance measurement within each
production system. The result of this deductive approach is a performance measurement system
that is grounded in both theory and practice. The defined KPIs are presented in Paper 3,
(Jonsson and Rudberg, 2017), see Table 21.
66
6. Results
Table 21 KPIs for measuring production system performance in the house-building industry, see
Paper 3 (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2017)
Competitive KPI
priority
𝑝
Quality 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖: 𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 (𝑄𝑖 ) =
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖
= 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖
× 100; 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑛
𝑝
∑𝑛
𝑖=𝑛−𝑁+1 𝑄𝑖
𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝑄 𝐶 ) = 𝑁
i= Project index (running numbers)

N= Number of projects included in the moving average calculation
Delivery 𝑝
𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖: 𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 (𝐷𝑆𝑖 ) =
speed 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖
= 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖 ; 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑛
𝑝
∑𝑛
𝑖=𝑛−𝑁+1 𝐷𝑆𝑖
𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝐷𝑆 𝐶 ) = 𝑁

Delivery 𝑝
𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖: 𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 (𝐷𝑃𝑖 ) =
dependability =
(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒−𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖:𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
× 100;
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖:𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛
∑𝑛𝑖=𝑛−𝑁+1 𝐷𝑃𝑖𝑝
𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝐷𝑃𝐶 ) =
𝑁
𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝐷𝑃𝐷 ) =

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠
= × 100
𝑀

M= Number of projects that is to be taken into consideration (can be different from N)
67
6. Results
Competitive KPI
priority
𝑝
Cost level 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖: 𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 (𝐶𝐿𝑖 )
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖
= ;
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖
𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛
𝑝
∑𝑛
𝑖=𝑛−𝑁+1 𝐶𝐿𝑖
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝐶𝐿𝐶 ) = 𝑁

𝑝
Cost 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖: 𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 (𝐶𝑃𝑖 ) =
dependability =
(𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡−𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖:𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
× 100
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖:𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛
∑𝑛𝑖=𝑛−𝑁+1 𝐶𝑃𝑖𝑝
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡(𝐶𝑃𝐶 ) =
𝑁
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡(𝐶𝐷 𝐶 ) =

=
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑛 𝑏𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠
𝑀
× 100

M= Number of projects that is to be taken into consideration (can be different from N)
Volume 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝑉𝐹 𝐶 )

flexibility = 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 − 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝐵𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡
Mix flexibility ∑𝑛𝑖=𝑛−𝑁+1 ∆𝐶𝑀𝑖𝑝

𝑀𝑖𝑥 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 (𝑀𝐹 𝐶 ) =
𝑁
i = Project index (running numbers)

𝑝
∆𝐶𝑀𝑖 = the relative deviation from the contributing margin of the optimal project for
project i
N = Number of projects included in the moving average calculation
The KPIs presented in Table 21 represent the answer to the second part of research question
two. The KPIs can be used to measure the ability of different production systems to deliver
manufacturing outputs in different areas of competition using quantitative data instead of
qualitative estimations that have been used in previous literature (see e.g. Arif and Egbu, 2010,
Blismas et al., 2006, Gibb, 2001, Halman et al., 2008).
68
6. Results
Table 22 Comparison of the production systems regarding information exchange challenges

Challenge Production Production Production
system B system D system H
1. Temporary supply chains, due to project
environment + + -
2. Long and fragmented supply chains, as a result
of outsourcing many specialist trades + + -
3. Projects are engineered-to-order, since each
project has a degree of uniqueness + - -
4. Reluctance to embrace new ICT solutions,
caused by a complex range of issues. + + -
- Observed to a large extent
+ Observed to a lesser extent
Production system B, using a higher degree of off-site assembly and product standardisation
than Production system H (Figure 19), has reduced many of the typical challenges. Some of
the good observed practices are that they work with a relatively small supply base and they
have long term agreements with suppliers and sub-contractors. They also use ICT-based
approach to information exchange, for example, they use an ERP-system for information
exchange and BIM to facilitate the design of the product. The modular approach using
standardised components with integrated interfaces in combination with BIM reduces the
uniqueness of the projects, hence reduces the complexity that comes with a high degree of
product customisation.
Production system D, using a higher degree of off-site assembly than both Production system
H and Production system B, and still a relatively high degree of customisation (higher than
Production system B but lower than Production system H), has also been able to reduce some
of the traditional challenges. They use a relatively small number of suppliers and sub-
contractors. The biggest challenge for them is exchanging information regarding the design of
the product. However, they are well aware of this and have, through standardised processes
and lean thinking in all steps of the process, been able to handle this. They use different types
of ICT-systems than Production system B, such as project portals where all information
concerning the specific projects are gathered, to support their process based approach to
information exchange.
Production system H, positioned in the top left corner of the classification matrix (Figure 19),
displays all the traditional challenges, to a large extent. The richness of information that comes
with a high degree of customisation and production on-site was handled in temporary and
fragmented supply chains. There was also an absence of ICT-solutions that could help the
company to handle the complexity of the supply chain and information exchange. They use a
traditional approach to information exchange in the projects such as different types of project
meetings.
The findings of this study (Paper 4), and also the answer to research question 3, are presented
in the form of two propositions.
Firstly, production systems using some degree of off-site assembly have less complex supply
chains with fewer suppliers and sub-contractors, as well as more stable supply chains which
facilitates information exchange.
70
6. Results
The off-site facility can use the same suppliers from project to project and this facilitates
information exchange, as exemplified by Production system B and D. This is more complex
for the more traditional approach, exemplified by Production system H, since the supply chain
usually is temporary with new actors for each project. Even though the use of off-site
production can facilitate the long term relations with only a few selected suppliers it is
advocated that also house-builders using on-site production could benefit from a less
fragmented supply chain using only a few trusted suppliers. However, this is a bigger challenge
in that type of environment where the project organisations are more unique from project to
project and due to the high degree of product customisation that typically is provided by that
type of production system. This can also be an explanation to why Production system H has a
more traditional approach (common in the house-building industry) to information exchange.
Secondly, production systems using some degree of off-site assembly and a high degree of
product standardisation use ICT-solutions, e.g. ERP-systems, BIM, project portals, etc., to a
larger extent than production systems using more traditional production methods on-site
providing a high degree of product customisation.
A production system with a higher degree of off-site assembly typically uses a higher degree
of product standardisation. This is true for Production system B that has managed to combine
customised standardisation with the use of both an ERP-system and BIM. The combination of
off-site assembly and a relatively high degree of product standardisation seem to facilitate the
use of an ICT-based approach to information exchange within the organisation and in the
supply chain. Production system D has a higher degree of off-site assembly than Production
system B but also a higher degree of product customisation. They use a more process based
approach to information exchange and use other types of ICT-solutions, such as project portals,
to support the standardised processes for information exchange. This indicates that the
increased degree of customisation makes it harder for them to use more sophisticated ICT-
solutions such as ERP-systems and BIM. In productions system H, providing pure
customisation, there is a lack of ICT-solutions. The empirical data indicates that the degree of
product standardisation affects what type of ICT-solution that is appropriate for different types
of production systems.
The study gives a contextual interpretation of information exchange across different types
production systems for house-building and shows that the process choice affects information
exchange as described by the propositions. Previous research on information exchange in
house-building typically consider traditional production methods on the construction site (see
e.g. Dainty et al., 2006, Senaratne and Ruwanpura, 2016) or, in a few studies, industrialised
house-building (see e.g. Bergström and Stehn, 2005, Persson et al., 2009). The contribution in
this study lies in the comparison between different types of production systems. However, the
sample of production systems is small and further research is needed to validate the findings.
71
6. Results
used the objectives as a steering mechanism, and the use of knowledge from different parts of
the organisation indicates good leadership in the formulation process.
The implementation process is a less structured and more behaviourally oriented process than
the formulation process. When analysing the studied implementation process and comparing it
to the suggested production strategy process in Figure 20, a number of shortcomings were
identified. The industrialised house-builder followed the suggested implementation process to
some extent but missed out on some important activities in the implementation process.
The implementation process studied in this research started with a pilot project. However the
pilot project was not evaluated and documented properly and the potential learnings from the
pilot project was not transferred to future projects, hence arrow 3, in Figure 20, was missing in
the studied implementation process. This highlights the importance of managing the pilot
project both in the production phase but also in the evaluation phase.
For the full implementation they decided to use a phased in approach. The new production
strategy was gradually implemented over a time period of approximately two years. This way
of implementing the change gave time for reflection between the projects and also reduce the
negative economic consequences that comes with implementing a new product and setting up
a new production system. The potential downside of implementing the change gradually is that
the production system has to handle two types of products over a limited time period. This may
affect the learning curve negatively and potentially cause quality issues, due to mixing two
different building systems. These aspects have to be considered before deciding what approach
to use in the implementation phase. The gradual implementation in the studied production
strategy process was considered a good approach since the change was a proactive move to
increase market share and stay competitive and not triggered by crisis and a struggle to survive
in such scenario a Big-bang approach might have been more suitable.
The production process of an industrialised house-builder is divided into two separate

production processes, pre-fabrication off-site and construction work on-site. When changing
the production strategy, in that type of production system, it is important to recognise that the
change affect the different production processes differently. In the studied case, the goal to
extend the market share resulted in an increased degree of customisation. This increase in
product flexibility was handled to a large extent in the on-site production process (see, Figure
21), as the product standardisation moved from the house to the module in the product
hierarchy. The result of this, perhaps a bit simplified, was that the production process off-site
could continue to produce basically six standard modules whilst the on-site production process
went from producing one standardised house to producing unique houses for each project in
terms of number of floors and size. Given this, the implementation process should have focused
on preparing the implementation on-site to a larger extent than what they did. Instead focus
was mainly on the implementation process in the off-site facility. This imbalance between
impact and preparation for the implementation is visualised in Figure 21.
73
7. Discussion and further
research
In this chapter the practical implications of the research is discussed, by giving examples based
on the empirical data collected in the research process, to increase understanding of how this
research can help companies in formulating and implementing a sound production strategy.
With a sound production strategy, house building companies can meet the challenges of today
and tomorrow effectively. In this chapter reflections on the research process is also accounted
for and these reflections leads to suggestions for further research.
7.1 Practical implications

Production strategy research is an example of an applied science. In applied science the
theoretical contribution should be accompanied by practical contributions. The practical
implications of this research are presented using a number of examples related to the three
studies in the thesis.
7.1.1 Evaluating two different production systems

In this example two competing production systems are compared using the classification matrix
(Figure 17). Firstly, the characteristics of the two production systems are described to be able
to position them in the classification matrix.
Production system A
The production system only delivers one type of product, tower blocks with four to eight floors.
Each floor consists of a combination of standard apartments with one, two, three or four rooms.
Offering the customers only one house type gives a relatively high production volume of
similar products, and it is categorised as pure standardisation. The whole building is produced
on-site, including components that normally are prefabricated, such as balconies, joists, and
slabs. This concept is thereby classified as CM&SA.
Production system E
This production system only offers the customers slab blocks with two floors. The slab blocks
can be built either as I-, L- or U-shaped houses. Offering the customers only one type of house
(slab blocks with two floors) gives a high production volume of similar products, also
categorised as pure standardisation. Modules are produced off-site to a high level of
completion. The interior of the modules are complete with floor, wallpaper, wardrobes and
kitchen (appliances excluded due to risk of theft). The only activity performed on-site is the
assembly. This concept is classified as MB.
75
7. Discussion and further research
This is an example of how the classification matrix can be used to research different dimensions
of production strategy and compare different types of production systems, hence a practical
implication, of this research, for other researchers. This way of using the classification matrix
can be used to research other topics in a house-building context as long as a comparison is to
be made between, e.g. different types of production systems, or before and after scenarios.
Examples of other topics that can be investigated using the same approach are other decision
categories such as vertical integration, corporate culture, organisation structure, etc. To have a
structured way of categorising different types of production systems facilitates this type of
research.
7.1.5 Redesigning a production system

In this example Production system E is used to describe a before and after scenario (see Table
14). The management of the firm decided to investigate the possibility to offer the customers
residences with 2-4 floors, instead of only 2 floors, and they also wanted to offer the customers
the possibility to change the design of the house to a larger extent than in the current system.
In this scenario the classification matrix (Figure 17) can be used to analyse what effects a
suggested market strategy change have on the production function. Before the change
Production system E used a production system with a high degree of off-site production
(Modular Building) to produce a standardised product, hence was positioned on the diagonal
(lower right corner) of the classification matrix (see Figure 26). The suggested changes of the
product characteristics meant that they decreased the degree of standardisation and now offer
a more customised product. This means that they moved to the left in the classification matrix.
The suggested changes comprises both an increase in the number of floors and offering a higher
degree of customisation. If the product characteristics are changed the new position is the
classification matrix would be somewhere between segmented standardisation and customised
standardisation.
80
Figure 27 Tentative framework for production and logistics strategy in house-building
However, adapting the production strategy part of the tentative framework (Figure 27) to a
house-building context took more time and effort than expected. Hence, instead of developing
the whole framework, selected parts of the production strategy framework, e.g. process choice,
performance measurement, information exchange, and the production strategy process were
studied.
From the initial plan for this research project (Figure 27) some parts have been left for further
research. This thesis consider the process choice but other decision categories (Table 10)
should be researched and, if necessary, adapted to a house-building context. Tentative research
questions concerning this could be: What decision categories are relevant and have to be
considered when designing a production system in a house-building context? Are there other
decision categories that have to be taken into consideration in the house-building industry, than
the ones derived from traditional production strategy literature? Maybe the areas that should
be considered in industrialised house-building presented by Lessing (2006), see Table 2, can
be seen as decision categories that are useful in a house-building context? If further research
and literature on the subject could be synthesised and presented in a structured production
strategy framework it would be useful both for academics and practitioners.
The next suggestion for further research is to relate production strategy to logistics and supply
chain management. Can different types of production systems be related to different types of
logistics systems designed to suit the characteristics of each specific production system?
82
Tentative research questions related to this could be: Is there different logistics systems that
are used in the house-building industry today? What are the characteristics of the different
logistics systems, e.g. strengths and weaknesses? Can the different logistics systems be
matched with different production systems for house-building to suit the characteristics of each
specific production system? The logistics dimension could be integrated as one part of the
production strategy framework, as suggested in Figure 27.
Even though a lot of work has been put down in developing the KPIs for performance
measurement, presented in Paper 3 (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2017), and that they have been
validated by industry experts representing different production systems, there are issues with
some of the KPIs. The main concern is the flexibility KPIs. Some of the industry expert found
the KPI for mix flexibility difficult to understand. The KPI for mix flexibility can also be
misleading since the range of different products offered by the production system is not taken
into consideration as long as more than one type of product is produced. Another issue that can
be misleading with the KPIs for delivery and cost dependability is the use of budgeted cost and
planned production time. The calculated budget and time plan can be affected by client and
market considerations. The way the budgeting is done can affect the KPI even though this is
out of the control of the production system. To get as accurate calculations as possible these
KPIs should preferably use the production budget and production time plan in the calculations
since they are not affected by strategic considerations to the same extent as for example a tender
calculation.
When it comes to performance measurement the initial plan was to position a number of
production systems in the classification matrix and then use an existing performance
measurement system to evaluate how the position in the matrix affected the production
systems’ ability to perform, using quantitative data. Qualitative estimations indicate that there
is a trade-off between productivity related outputs and flexibility, but no research, to my
knowledge, has evaluated this using quantitative data. This initial plan had to be left for further
research since no structured way of measuring performance, at a production strategy level,
could be found in existing literature. The KPIs presented in this research can be used for this
purpose and a tentative research question related to this could be: How does the characteristics
of the production system affect the ability to perform in different areas of competition? This
could help house-building companies to design a production system that is aligned with the
targeted market or find a market that is suitable for the production system in use. [AF1][HJ2]
The results of Study 2, taking a production strategy perspective on information exchange, are
based on a small sample of production systems. This can be seen as a pre study resulting in the
two propositions, i.e. that production systems using some degree of off-site assembly have less
complex and less fragmented supply chains, and that they use ICT-tools to a larger extent. This
have to be validated using a larger number of production systems and also collecting empirical
data from other actors in the supply chain than main contractors, e.g. suppliers, sub-contractors
and clients. This is left to further research but the design of this study and the results presented
can be used as a starting point for a more comprehensive study regarding a production strategy
perspective on how the process choice affects information exchange in a house-building
context.
83
8. Contribution
Slack and Lewis, 2011). This simplified view of production strategy in project based
manufacturing do not appreciate that different types of production systems for house-building
(see e.g. Gibb, 2001, Gibb and Isack, 2003) have strengths and weaknesses in different areas
of competition (see e.g. Arif and Egbu, 2010, Barlow et al., 2003, Halman et al., 2008, Pan et
al., 2007). The gap identified here is a production strategy perspective on house-building to
visualise the link between market requirements and the ability of different types of house-
building production systems to perform.
The classification matrix (Figure 17) contribute with a structured way of classifying different
house-building production systems. The matrix can be used in the same way that the product-
process matrix (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979) has been used to aligning the process and
product characteristics for traditional production industries. Previous literature that tries to
categorise production systems for house-building (see e.g. Barlow et al., 2003, Gibb and Isack,
2003, Segerstedt and Olofsson, 2010, Winch, 2003, Voordijk et al., 2006) do not explicitly
address the link between production system design and customer requirements in terms of
manufacturing outputs. This research illustrate differences in product and process
characteristics between different production systems and their relative strengths and
weaknesses in different areas of competition. This clarifies how different types of production
systems can be competitive as long as there is a match between the requirements from the
targeted market and the capabilities of the production system.
The research also makes a contribution by identifying which manufacturing outputs that are
important to measure in a house-building context, i.e. quality, delivery, cost and flexibility, and
presenting quantitative KPIs that can be used to measure performance, at a production strategy
level. There is a lack of well-defined quantitative KPIs for measuring performance at a
production strategy level. Most measurements in previous literature are based on qualitative
estimations (see e.g. Arif and Egbu, 2010, Blismas et al., 2006, Gibb, 2001, Halman et al.,
2008) and the quantitative KPIs found in literature are developed for measuring performance
on a more operational level. The quantitative KPIs (Table 21) in combination with the
classification matrix (Figure 17) can be a useful tool, to link the process choice to performance
in a house-building context, when working with production strategy in house-building both in
practice and academia.
Information exchange in a house-building context is not new and considered in previous

research. However, previous research study information exchange in either a in traditional
house-building context (see e.g. Dainty et al., 2006, Senaratne and Ruwanpura, 2016) or in an
industrialised house-building context (see e.g. Bergström and Stehn, 2005, Persson et al.,
2009). What is missing, and the contribution here, is a production strategy perspective, using a
contingency perspective to look at differences in the approach to information exchange,
between different types of production systems. In this research empirically derived
propositions of how the process choice affects information exchange in a house-building
context are presented.
Finally, this research makes a contribution to the production strategy process literature by
studying a production strategy process for an industrialised house-builder. This type of
86
8. Contribution
empirical research on the production strategy process, i.e. production strategy formulation and
implementation, is lacking in production strategy literature (Chatha and Butt, 2015, Dangayach
and Deshmukh, 2001), and could not be found in literature concerning industrialised house-
building either. The contribution here is an extension of production strategy process theory by:
(1) Presenting a suggested production strategy process (Figure 20), and (2) identifying context
specific challenges that have to be considered when formulating and implementing a
production strategy in an industrialised house-building context. The research also presents an
analytical framework providing a structure for the formulation and implementation process in
a house-building context. This is useful for industrialised house-builders facing a change in
production strategy and increases the likelihood of the intended strategy becoming the realised
strategy.
The results of this research and the answers to the research questions in chapter 6, the
discussion and managerial implications in chapter 7.1, and the scientific contribution presented
above all contributes to fulfilling the purpose:
To extend the production strategy body of knowledge concerning project based production, in
the context of house-building.
87
References
Al‐Reshaid, K., Kartam, N., Tewari, N. and Al‐Bader, H. (2005). A Project Control Process
in Pre‐Construction Phases: Focus on Effective Methodology. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 12:4, 351-372.
Arif, M. and Egbu, C. (2010). Making a Case for Offsite Construction in China. Engineering,
Azman, M. N. A., Ahamad, M. S. S., Majid, T. A. and Hanafi, M. H. (2010). The Common
Approach in Off-Site Construction Industry. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 4:9, 4478 - 4482.
Barlow, J., Childerhouse, P., Gann, D., Hong-Minh, S., Naim, M. and Ozaki, R. (2003).
Choice and Delivery in Housebuilding- Lessons from Japan for Uk Housebuilders.
Building Research & Information, 31:2, 134-145.
Barlow, J. and Ozaki, R. (2005). Building Mass Customised Housing through Innovation in
the Production System: Lessons from Japan. Environment and Planning A, 37:1, 9-20.
Bassioni, H. A., Price, A. D. F. and Hassan, T. M. (2004). Performance Measurement in
Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20:2, 42 - 50.
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T. and Hedges, I. (2004). Kpis: A Critical Appraisal of
Their Use in Construction. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11:1, 93-117.
Bergström, M. and Stehn, L. (2005). Matching Industrialised Timber Frame Housing Needs
and Enterprise Resource Planning: A Change Process. International Journal of
Production Economics, 97:2, 172-184.
Bititci, U. S., Carrie, A. S. and Mcdevitt, L. (1997). Integrated Performance Measurement
Systems: An Audit and Development Guide. The TQM Magazine, 9:1, 46 - 53.
Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A. (2006). Benefit Evaluation for Off‐Site Production in
Construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24:2, 121-130.
Boverket (2012). Bostadsbristen Ur Ett Marknadsperspektiv [the Housing Shortage from a
Marketing Perspective]. Karlskrona.
Boverket (2016). Reviderad Prognos Över Behovet Av Nya Bostäder Till 2025 [Uppdated
Forecast of the Need for New Accomodation by 2025]. Boverket.
Brege, S., Stehn, L. and Nord, T. (2014). Business Models in Industrialized Building of
Multi-Storey Houses. Construction Management and Economics, 32:1-2, 208-226.
Buffa, E. S. (1984). Meeting the Competitive Challenge: Manufacturing Strategy for U.S.
Companies, Dow Jones-Irwin.
Byggindustrier, S. (2017). Fler Bostäder Kräver Fler Som Bygger [Increased House-Building
Requires More House-Buidlers].
Cbpp, C. B. P. P. (2002). Key Perfomance Indicators.
Chatha, K. A. and Butt, I. (2015). Themes of Study in Manufacturing Strategy Literature.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35:4, 604-698.
Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E. and Riley, D. R. (2010). Sustainable Performance Criteria for
Construction Method Selection in Concrete Buildings. Automation in Construction,
19:2, 235-244.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational
Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17:1, 1-25.
Cooper, R., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. and Sheath, D. (1998). The
Development of a Generic Design and Construction Process. In: European
Conference, Product Data Technology (PDT) Days, 1998. 1-10.
89
References
Cox, A., Ireland, P., Lonsdale, C., Sanderson, J. and Watson, G. (2003). Supply Chains,
Markets and Power: Managing Buyer and Supplier Power Regimes, Taylor &
Francis.
Cox, J. F. and Blackstone, J. H. (1998). Apics Dictionary, APICS (Falls Church, VA).
Dainty, A., Moore, D. and Murray, M. (2006). Communication in Construction Theory and
Practice, Taylor & Francis.
Dangayach, G. S. and Deshmukh, S. G. (2001). Manufacturing Strategy - Literature Review
and Some Issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
21:7, 884 - 932.
Dehlin, S. and Olofsson, T. (2008). An Evaluation Model for Ict Investments in Construction
Projects. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 13:Case studies of BIM
use, 343-361.
Dent, R. J. and Storey, D. A. (2004). Benchmarking the Performance of Design Activities in
Construction. London.
Dicicco-Bloom, B. and Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The Qualitative Research Interview. Medical
Education, 40:4, 314-321.
Doran, D. and Giannakis, M. (2011). An Examination of a Modular Supply Chain: A
Construction Sector Perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 16:4, 260-270.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002). The Construction Industry as a Loosely Coupled
System: Implications for Productivity and Innovation. Construction Management and
Economics, 20:7, 621-631.
EFQM (2017). The Efqm Excelence Model [Online]. Available: http://www.efqm.org/the-
efqm-excellence-model [Accessed 2017-09-03 2017].
Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction. London.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14:4, 532-550.
Erikshammar, J. (2013). Characteristics of Supply Chain Management in Systems Building
and Implications for Small Business. Nordic Conference on Construction Economics
and Organization : 12/06/2013 - 14/06/2013. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Fahey, L. and Christensen, H. K. (1986). Evaluating the Research on Strategy Content.
Journal of Management, 12:2, 167-183.
Ferdows, K. and Meyer, A. D. (1990). Lasting Improvements in Manufacturing Performance:
In Search of a New Theory. Journal of Operations Management, 9:2, 168 - 184.
Fiala, P. (2005). Information Sharing in Supply Chains. Omega, 33:5, 419-423.
Fine, C. H. and Hax, A. C. (1985). Manufacturing Strategy: A Methodology and an
Illustration. Interfaces, 15:6, 28-46.
Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A. and Flynn, E. J. (1990).
Empirical Research Methods in Operations Management. Journal of Operations
Management, 9:2, 250-284.
Gann, D. M. (1996). Construction as a Manufacturing Process? Similarities and Differences
between Industrialized Housing and Car Production in Japan. Construction
Management and Economics, 14:5, 437-450.
Gibb, A. G. F. (2001). Standardization and Pre-Assembly- Distinguishing Myth from Reality
Using Case Study Research. Construction Management and Economics, 19:3, 307-
315.
Gibb, A. G. F. and Isack, F. (2003). Re-Engineering through Pre-Assembly - Client
Expectations and Drivers. Building Research & Information, 31:2, 146 - 160.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The
qualitative report, 8:4, 597-606.
90
References
Grosskopf, K. R., Elliott, J. W. and Killingsworth, J. E. 2017. Offsite Construction?U.S.

Market Trends in Prefabrication. Challenges for Technology Innovation: An Agenda
for the Future. CRC Press.
Halldorsson, A. and Aastrup, J. (2003). Quality Criteria for Qualitative Inquiries in Logistics.
Journal of Operational Research, 144:2, 321-332.
Hallgren, M., Olhager, J. and Schroeder, R. G. (2011). A Hybrid Model of Competitive
Capabilities. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31:5,
511-526.
Halman, J. I. M., Voordijk, J. T. and Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2008). Modular Approaches in
Dutch House Building: An Exploratory Survey. Housing Studies, 23:5, 781-799.
Hayes, R. H. and Wheelwright, S. C. (1979). Link Manufacturing Process and Product Life
Cycles: Focusing on the Process Gives a New Dimesion to Strategy. Harvard
Business Review, 57:1, 133-140.
Hayes, R. H. and Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Restoring Our Competitive Edge Competing
through Manufacturing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hill, A. and Hill, T. (2009). Manufacturing Operations Strategy, Palgrave Macmillan.
Hobday, M. (2000). The Project-Based Organisation: An Ideal Form for Managing Complex
Products and Systems? Research Policy, 29:7–8, 871-893.
Hong-Minh, S. M., Barker, R. and Naim, M. M. (2001). Identifying Supply Chain Solutions
in the Uk House Building Sector. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
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, 953-966.
Jin, G. and Thomson, V. (2003). A New Framework for Mrp Systems to Be Effective in
Engineered-to-Order Environments. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 19:6, 533-541.
Jonsson, H. and Fredriksson, A. (2017). Production Strategy Process: Formulation and
Implementation in an Industrialised House-Building Context.
Jonsson, H. and Gosling, J. (2017). Information Exchange in House-Building: A Production
Strategy Perspective.
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M. (2014). Classification of Production Systems for Industrialized
Building: A Production Strategy Perspective. Construction Management and
Economics, 32:1-2, 53-69.
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M. (2015). Production System Classification Matrix: Matching
Product Standardization and Production-System Design. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 141:6.
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M. (2017). Kpis for Measuring Performance of Production Systems
for Residential Building: A Production Strategy Perspective. Construction Innovation,
17:3, 381-403.
Kadir, M. R. A., Lee, W. P., Jaafar, M. S., Sapuan, S. M. and Ali, A. a. A. (2006).
Construction Performance Comparison between Conventional and Industrialised
Building Systems in Malaysia. Structural Survey, 24:5, 412-424.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (2001). Performance Management in Construction:
A Conceptual Framework. Construction Management and Economics, 19:1, 85-95.
Kamar, K. a. M., Hamid, Z. A., Azman, M. N. A. and Ahamad, M. S. S. (2011).
Industrialized Building System (Ibs): Revisiting Issues of Definition and
Classification. International Journal of Emerging Sciences 1:2, 120-132.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive
Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70:1, 71 - 79.
91
References
Karlsson, C. (2009). Researching Operations Management, New York, Routledge.

Kasunic, M. (2004). Conducting Effective Pilot Studies. Softwere Engineering Process
Group (SEPG) conference. Orlando, Florida.
Kembro, J., Selviaridis, K. and Näslund, D. (2014). Theoretical Perspectives on Information
Sharing in Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual
Framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19:5/6, 609-625.
Klinger, M. and Susong, M. B. (2006). The Construciton Project: Phases, People, Terms,
Paperwork, Processes ABA Book Publishing.
Kovács, G. and Spens, K. M. (2005). Abductive Reasoning in Logistics Research.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35:2, 132-
144.
Lampel, J. and Mintzberg, H. (1996). Customizing Customization. Sloan Management
Review, 38:1, 21 - 30.
Landin, A. and Oberg, M. (2014). Productivity and Efficiency in the Development of the
Swedish Construction Sector. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management, 2014.
Larsson, J., Eriksson, P. E., Olofsson, T. and Simonsson, P. (2013). Industrialized
Construction in the Swedish Infrastructure Sector: Core Elements and Barriers.
Construction Management and Economics, 1-14.
Leong, G., Snyder, D. and Ward, P. (1990). Research in the Process and Content of
Manufacturing Strategy. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 18:2,
109-122.
Lessing, J. (2006). Industrialised House-Building: Concept and Processes. Licentiate, Lund
University.
Lessing, J., Stehn, L. and Ekholm, A. (2015). Industrialised House-Building – Development
and Conceptual Orientation of the Field. Construction Innovation, 15:3, 378-399.
Lidelöw, H., Stehn, L., Lessing, J. and Engström, D. (2015). Industriellt Husbyggande,
Studentlitteratur.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage.
Lind, H. and Song, H.-S. (2012). Dålig Produktivitetsutveckling I Byggindustrin - Ett Faktum
Eller Ett Mätfel [Bad Productivity Growth in the Construction Industry - a Fact or a
Measurement Error]. In: Byggindustrier, S. (ed.). Stockholm.
Lorange, P. (1980). Corporate Planning: An Executive Viewpoint, Englewood Cliffs :
Prentice-Hall.
Mabert, V. A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M. A. (2003). The Impact of Organization Size
on Enterprise Resource Planning (Erp) Implementations in the Us Manufacturing
Sector. Omega, 31:3, 235-246.
Marucheck, A., Pannesi, R. and Anderson, C. (1990). An Exploratory Study of the
Manufacturing Strategy Process in Practice. Journal of Operations Management, 9:1,
101-123.
Meiling, J., Backlund, F. and Johnsson, H. (2012). Managing for Continuous Improvement in
Off-Site Construction: Evaluation of Lean Management Principles. Engineering,
Mesly, O. (2017). Project Feasibility: Tools for Uncovering Points of Vulnerability, CRC
Press.
Mills, J., Platts, K. and Gregory, M. (1995). A Framework for the Design of Manufacturing
Strategy Processes: A Contingency Approach. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 15:4, 17-49.
Miltenburg, J. (2005). Manufacturing Strategy - How to Formulate and Implement a Winning
Plan, New York, Productivity Press.
92
References
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., Th, Xe, Or, Xea and T, A. (1976). The Structure of
"Unstructured" Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21:2, 246-275.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985). Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic
management journal, 6:3, 257-272.
Mirzaei, N. E. (2015). Involving Individuals in the Manufacturing Strategy Formation:
Strategic Consensus among Workers and Managers. Doctor of Philosophy, Chalmers
University of Thechnology.
Pan, W., Gibb, A. G. F. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2007). Perspectives of Uk Housebuilders on the
Use of Offsite Modern Methods of Construction. Construction Management and
Economics, 25:2, 183-194.
Pan, W., Gibb, A. G. F. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2008). Leading Uk Housebuilders' Utilization
of Offsite Construction Methods. Building Research & Information, 36:1, 56-67.
Pan, W., Gibb, A. G. F. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2012). Strategies for Integrating the Use of Off-
Site Production Technologies in House Building. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 138:11, 1331-1340.
Persson, S., Malmgren, L. and Johnsson, H. (2009). Information Management in Industrial
House Design and Manufacture. Journal of information Technology in Construciton,
14, 110-122.
Platts, K. W. and Gregory, M. J. (1990). Manufacturing Audit in the Process of Strategy
Formulation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 10:9,
5-26.
Platts, K. W., Mills, J. F., Neely, A. D., Gregory, M. J. and Richards, A. H. (1996).
Evaluating Manufacturing Strategy Formulation Processess. International Journal of
Production Economics, 46, 233-240.
Raynsford, N. (2000). Kpi Report for the Minister for Construction. Norwich.
Riley, M. and Cotgrave, A. (2013). Construction Technology 1: House Construction,
Palgrave macmillan.
Robinson, H. S., Anumba, C. J., Carrillo, P. M. and Al-Ghassani, A. M. (2005). Business
Performance Measurement Practices in Construction Engineering Organisations.
Measuring Business Excellence, 9:1, 13-22.
Rodney Turner, J. (2005). The Role of Pilot Studies in Reducing Risk on Projects and
Programmes. International Journal of Project Management, 23:1, 1-6.
Rudberg, M. (2002). Manufacturing Strategy: Linking Competitive Priorities, Decision
Categories and Manufacturing Networks. PhD thesis, Linköping University.
Rudberg, M. (2004). Linking Competitive Priorities and Manufacturing Networks: A
Manufacturing Strategy Perspective. International Journal of Manufacturing
Technology and Management, 6:1/2, 55-80.
Safizadeh, M. H., Ritzman, L. P. and Mallick, D. (2000). Revisiting Alterantive Theorethical
Paradigms in Manufacturing Strategy. Production and Operations Management, 9:2,
111 - 126.
Statistics Sweden. (2017). Påbörjade Nybyggda Bostadslägenheter [Online].
http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/housing-
construction-and-building/housing-construction-and-conversion/new-construction-of-
residential-buildings/pong/tables-and-graphs/number-of-started-dwellings-under-new-
construction/: [Accessed 2017-04-25 2017].
Statistics Sweden, Construction, Rents and Real Estate unit. (2017). Number of Completed
Dwellings in New Construction Increasing [Online]. Available:
http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/housing-
construction-and-building/housing-construction-and-conversion/new-construction-of-
residential-buildings/pong/statistical-news/completed-new-construction-conversion-
93
References
and-demolition-of-multi-dwelling-buildings-2016---definitive-figures/ [Accessed
2017-09-03 2017].
Schmenner, R. W. and Swink, M. L. (1998). On Theory in Operations Management. Journal
of Operations Management, 17:1, 97-113.
Schoenwitz, M., Potter, A., Gosling, J. and Naim, M. (2017). Product, Process and Customer
Preference Alignment in Prefabricated House Building. International Journal of
Production Economics, 183, Part A, 79-90.
Segerstedt, A. and Olofsson, T. (2010). Supply Chains in the Construction Industry. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 15:5, 347-353.
Senaratne, S. and Ruwanpura, M. (2016). Communication in Construction: A Management
Perspective through Case Studies in Sri Lanka. Architectural Engineering and Design
Sethi, A. K. and Sethi, S. P. (1990). Flexibility in Manufacturing: A Survey. The
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 2, 289 - 328.
Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing - Missing Link in Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, 136-145.
Slack, N. and Lewis, M. (2011). Operations Strategy, Harlow, Pearson Education Limeted.
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative Research Requires Quality Concepts of Its Own.
Management Decision, 39:7, 551-556.
Stuart, I., Mccutcheon, D., Handfield, R., Mclachlin, R. and Samson, D. (2002). Effective
Case Research in Operations Management: A Process Perspective. Journal of
Operations Management, 20:5, 419-433.
Swamidass, P. M. and Newell, W. T. (1987). Manufacturing Strategy, Environmental
Uncertainty and Performance: A Path Analytic Model. Management Science, 33:4,
509-524.
Swan, W. and Kyng, E. (2004). An Introduction to Key Performance Indicators. Manchester:
Centre for Construction Innovation.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of
Stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82:1, 9-27.
Titus, S. and Bröchner, J. (2005). Managing Information Flow in Construction Supply
Chains. Construction Innovation, 5:2, 71-82.
Van De Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for Studying Strategy Process: A Research Note.
Strategic Management Journal, 13:S1, 169-188.
Wang, Y., Potter, A. and Naim, M. (2007). Electronic Marketplaces for Tailored Logistics.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107:8, 1170-1187.
Ward, P. T., Mccreery, J. K., Ritzman, L. P. and Sharma, D. (1998). Competitive Priorities in
Operations Management. Decision Science, 29:4, 1035 - 1046.
Whitley, R. (2006). Project-Based Firms: New Organizational Form or Variations on a
Theme? Industrial and Corporate Change, 15:1, 77-99.
Winch, G. (2003). Models of Manufacturing and the Construction Process: The Genesis of
Re-Engineering Construction. Building Research & Information, 31:2, 107-118.
Voordijk, H., Meijboom, B. and Haan, J. D. (2006). Modularity in Supply Chains: A Multiple
Case Study in the Construction Industry. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 26:6, 600-618.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002). Case Research in Operations Management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22:2, 195-219.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, Carlifornia
Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage publications.
94
Papers
The papers associated with this thesis have been removed for
copyright reasons. For more details about these see:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-143262

Production Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationProduction Strategy

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Production Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Production Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology,

Dissertations No. 1892

Printed in Sweden by LiU-Tryck, Linköping, Sweden, 2017

A production strategy enables companies to effectively manage the different challenges

… to extend the production strategy body of knowledge concerning project based

RQ4: How can a new production strategy be formulated and implemented in an

Furthermore, to answer RQ3, a production strategy perspective was taken on information

Thirdly, I want to thank all my colleagues at the division of Communications- and

Norrköping, November 2017

This thesis is of a compilation character (thesis by publication) comprising five articles;

Eddie Vedder (2009)

Paper 2 – Production System Classification Matrix: Matching Production

Paper 3 – KPIs for measuring performance of production systems for residential

Paper 4 – Information exchange in house-building: A production strategy

Paper 5 – Production strategy process: Formulation and Implementation in an

From a broader perspective it is important to extend the production strategy body of

1.2 Scope and limitations

 Off-site (e.g. off-site construction, fabrication, manufacturing, production,

2.1 The house-building industry in Sweden today

2.2 House-building projects

Table 1 Phases in a general contract house-building project

1. Infrastructure 2. Prefab. off-site 3. Substructure

4. Superstructure 5. Roof 6. On-site fit-out

2.3 Industrialised house-building

“Industrialised house-building is a thoroughly developed house-building process with a

As the definition is formulated it becomes clear that industrialised house-building is more

2.3.1 Process model of industrialised house-building

Stages of house- Land acquisition/design Pre-site On- Post-site

Table 2 Areas defining industrialised house-building (Lessing, 2006)

2.3.2 Classifying different types of house-building production systems

In a list of different ways to classifying industrialised house-building systems presented in

Table 3 Categorisation of production systems in different countries (Azman et al., 2010)

Table 4 Production systems defined by (Gibb, 2001)

 On-site fabrication and sub-assembly and components correspond to component

The difficulties of information exchange in house-building supply chains have been

In Table 5 four challenges, derived from literature, in a construction project environment

Table 5 Challenges with information exchange in construction

3.1 Overview and definition

supply chain management, performance measurement, transnational comparisons, global

Table 6 Thematic areas in production strategy literature

Sourcing & vertical

Production Decision Process technology

Infrastructural Human resources

Participation Product design/

Figure 7 Production strategy dimensions, partly based on Mirzaei (2015, p 18).

3.2 Production strategy content

3.2.1 Competitive priorities

Table 7 Examples of competitive priorities

The concept of cumulative capabilities (Ferdows and Meyer, 1990) is an alternative

Just as in more traditional manufacturing industries it is more or less impossible to design

Jaillon and Poon (2008)

Arif and Egbu (2010)

Kadir et al. (2006)

Chen et al. (2010)

Pan et al. (2008)

3.2.2 Decision categories

Table 9 Comparison of decision categories in production strategy literature