“Do the advantages outweigh

the disadvantages when using

bathroom pods over traditionally
built bathrooms in the student
accommodation sector?”

By

Elias Crang

Supervised By

Chris Boothman
10,986 WORDS

Dissertation submitted to the

University College of Estate Management,
Reading.

MSc Quantity Surveying

February 2017
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number & Description Page
Figure 1: A typical bathroom pod (Off Site Solutions, 2016) 6

Figure 2: Iron Triangle (Blismas, et al. 2005) 7

Figure 3: How many projects have you used bathroom pods on in the past? 22
(Please select one)

Figure 4: In your opinion, which sector has seen the greatest uptake of pods in 22
recent years? (Please select one)

Figure 5: On a scale of 1 to 9, how effective is the use of bathroom pods in 24

comparison to traditionally built bathrooms when working to time constraints and
sticking to programme?

Figure 6: On a scale of 1 to 9, how would you rate the cost effectiveness of pods 27
in comparison to traditionally built bathrooms?

Figure 7: Which bathroom type is easiest to keep control of costs and ensure 27
costs do not overrun?

Figure 8: On a scale of 1 to 9, how would you rate the quality of bathroom pods 30
in comparison to traditionally built bathrooms when aiming for a high quality
product?

Figure 9: Do you believe that bathroom pods or traditionally built bathrooms 31

provide the best solution when looking at the whole life of a bathroom, including
defects and maintenance issues?

Figure 10: Which option creates the least waste and promotes best sustainable 34
practice? (Please select one)

Figure 11: When using projects that require environmental accreditations, such as 34
BREEAM, as is often the case in the student accommodation sector, which bathroom
type provides the best option for success?

Figure 12: How likely is it that you would recommend bathroom pods to a friend or 37
colleague?

ABBREVIATIONS
AEC – Architecture, Engineering and Construction
EU – European Union
GRP – Glass Reinforced Plastic
MMC – Modern Method of Construction
NPS – Net Promoter Score
OSB – Oriented Strand Board
OSM – Offsite Manufacture
OSP – Offsite Production
RQ – Research Question
UK – United Kingdom

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Chris Boothman, my research
supervisor, for his patient guidance and encouragement throughout. Thanks are
extended to Off Site Solutions (RT) Ltd for their advice and assistance in putting
me in contact with those who formed the data sample, and to those who took part
in the interviews and surveys that were sent.

3
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... 2
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................ 3
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... 5
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 6
1.1 Research Questions/Objectives of the study ......................................... 7
1.2 Research Hypotheses ............................................................................ 8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 9
2.1 The uptake of offsite manufacture ........................................................ 9
2.2 Time ................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Cost .................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Quality ................................................................................................ 14
2.5 Environmental .................................................................................... 15
2.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 17
3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 18
3.1.1 Data Collection – Desk Research ...................................................... 18
3.1.2 Data Collection – Interviews ............................................................ 18
3.1.3 Data Collection – Surveys ................................................................ 19
3.2.1 Data Analysis – Qualitative .............................................................. 20
3.2.2 Data Analysis – Quantitative ........................................................... 20
3.3 Triangulation of Data .......................................................................... 20
3.4 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................ 21
4 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 22
4.1 Background ........................................................................................ 22
4.2 Time ................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Cost .................................................................................................... 27
4.4 Quality ................................................................................................ 30
4.5 Environmental .................................................................................... 34
4.6 Bathroom Pod Net Promoter Score (Recommendation Likelihood) ..... 37
5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 39
6 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 41
7. REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................ 42
8. APPENDICES .................................................................................... 48
Appendix 1 Survey Questions Template ................................................... 48
Appendix 2 Key points from interview table ............................................ 51
Appendix 3 UCEM Research Ethics: Information Sheet ............................. 56

4
ABSTRACT
Offsite manufacture in the United Kingdom is a now a significant contributor to the
delivery of United Kingdom construction industry output, and this is partly due to
the growth in popularity of bathroom pods. Although studies in to various aspects
of both premanufactured bathroom pods and traditional bathrooms exist, many
contradictions occur and none seek to give a comparative guide of the advantages
and disadvantages of both throughout the life cycle of a project. This therefore
developed the theoretical underpinning of the work, with the triangulation of
desktop, survey and interview data merging to give an insight in to the bathroom
areas important contribution to project success and ultimately adding value. The
three Iron Triangle pillars of time, cost and quality were the focal point, with
environmental issues also considered. Pods were shown to exhibit time savings
through shortened programme times and increased time certainty. Cost savings
were also achieved when looking at the life cycle of bathroom pods, with lower
maintenance costs and less hidden costs later in the project that are often buried in
the nebulous preliminaries figures of traditionally built bathrooms. Environmental
benefits were widely reported and these results echoed throughout the surveys
and interviews due to designing out waste in a factory environment. Quality was
the only area in which there was a general agreement that improvement was
needed to match the traditional sector. The other areas of bathroom pod
construction all saw results that far-exceeded the use of in-situ bathrooms to form
a more advantageous and well-rounded approach that suits the needs of the
student accommodation sector. It is recommended, however, that the sample size
is increased in future, so that more statistical analysis can be undertaken to test
the correlation between variables and give a further insight in to the bathroom area
of a construction project.

5
1 INTRODUCTION
This dissertation seeks to assess whether the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages when using glass-reinforced plastic (hereafter GRP) bathroom pods
(Figure 1) over traditionally built bathrooms in the student accommodation sector.
Bathroom pods are volumetric prefabricated modules that are delivered to site by
lorry as a finished bathroom unit. These are then unloaded by either a crane or
forklift, and placed or hoisted in to position, respectively, ready for the finishing
trades to connect the pod and encapsulate it within the building. The release of
Egan’s (1998) paper ‘Rethinking Construction’ sought to improve the quality and
efficiency of the United Kingdom (hereafter UK) construction industry. The
consistent performance of wastage coupled with adversarial tendencies led to
good value not being achieved for clients and a promotion for modern methods of
1
construction (hereafter MMC) followed. This was aimed at achieving higher levels
of production and a higher quality of product (Danby and Painting, 2007) which
coincided with the use of offsite prefabrication (hereafter OSP), in particular
bathroom pods, as they offered an alternative to traditional construction barriers.
As a result, bathroom pods were seen by some as a panacea to the ills of the
construction industry (McCarney and Gibb, 2012) and the offsite construction
sector is now established as a significant contributor to the delivery of UK
construction industry output (Taylor, 2010). It should be noted that for this study,
offsite is defined as “the manufacture and pre-assembly of modules before
installation into their final position.”

Figure 2: A typical bathroom pod (Off Site Solutions, 2016)

1
A term used to describe technical improvements in prefabrication, encompassing a range
of on and off-site construction methods (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (In
Danby and Painting, 2007)

6
The growth of the student accommodation sector has called for accommodation
that is finished on time, to budget and to the desired quality, also known as the
‘Iron Triangle’ shown in Figure 1, first coined by Blismas, et al. (2005). This has
simultaneously overlapped with the increasing implementation of offsite volumetric
modular construction, leaving little chance to assess the real advantages and
disadvantages that are associated with it. The use of bathroom pods is reasonably
well documented, but a firm comparison against traditionally built bathrooms in the
student sector does not exist, and this gap in literature creates a well-defined
scope of research. This study aims to quantify the data and assess whether the
use of bathroom pods in a student environment is appropriate, based on extensive
literature review and targeted data collection, collation and analysis. In addition,
surveys and interviews will be conducted to gain an insight in the views of those
who are regularly involved with the student accommodation sector and have had
previous experience using bathroom pod. The research will constantly relate back
to the Research Objectives, and eventually test the hypothesis to evaluate the
success of bathroom pods.

Figure 2: Iron Triangle (Blismas, et al. 2005)

1.1 Research Questions/Objectives of the study

1. What are the time implications of bathroom pods in comparison to
traditionally built bathrooms?
2. What are the cost implications of bathroom pods in comparison to
traditionally built bathrooms?
3. What are the quality implications of bathroom pods in comparison to
traditionally built bathrooms?
4. What are the environmental implications of bathroom pods in comparison
to traditionally built bathrooms?
5. What are the experiences of main contractors (teams) and clients when
using bathroom pods?
6. To gain an understanding of the overall experiences of those working with
bathroom pods and how this has affected their views on them.

7
 1.2 Research Hypotheses
The following hypothesis will be tested:
“The advantages outweigh the disadvantages when using bathroom pods
over traditionally built bathrooms in the student accommodation sector”

8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to establish the main articles and texts that
relate to the key components of the investigation.

2.1 The uptake of offsite manufacture

The uptake of offsite manufacture (hereafter OSM) in the UK has been slow (Pann,
Gibb and Sellars, 2008) and a lack of data using examples rather than theory to
show its success, or lack of, has been attributed to this. In addition, common
methods and techniques often disregard critical factors and softer issues, such as
health and safety and life-cycle costing (Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb, 2006),
resulting in comparison exercises failing to find a true evaluation of bathroom pods,
perhaps attributing to the apparent lack of utilisation. However, current skills
shortages and short timescale demands from clients means that demands for new
construction is unlikely to be met by conventional construction techniques (Danby
and Painting, 2007) and therefore the OSP market could increase dramatically
over the coming years if manufacturers are able to overcome the barriers
(McAllister, et al. 2006).

Notwithstanding the evidential previous reluctance of some to embrace OSP, the

offsite construction sector is now established as a significant contributor to the
delivery of UK construction industry output, despite the exact value of this
contribution being questionable and the subject of substantial debate in recent
literature (Taylor, 2010). Even in 2004, Goodier and Gibb (2004), valued the offsite
market in the UK at £2.2 billion, and despite only £0.29 billion of this being made
up of volumetric pre-assembly, total offsite construction formed some 4.1% of total
new build construction, with a large amount being student accommodation (Osrin
and Wornell, 2015). Taylor, Fisher and Wamuziri (2009) stated that “the bathroom
area of a construction project is commonly identified as the most intense area in
terms of the number and variety of activities and trades required to successfully
construct it” and this again favours the use of bathroom pods.

The factors that contribute to the overall success or failure of bathroom

construction on a project are often seen as independent variables, but they are
actually intrinsically linked, dependent variables, directly governed by each other.
This is exemplified by the Iron Triangle and although not always the case, a low
quality product, for example, is likely to be linked to a short amount of time spent
on it and/or savings in cost, and so on. The following research must therefore
assess the most critical factors that affect project success when using pods to add
value to a project.

9
2.2 Time
Bathroom pods are often cited for their benefits of time-saving (Ozorhon, Abbott
and Aouad, 2011; Pan, Gibb and Dainty, 2005) and there are now unparalleled
demands on stakeholders to deliver projects and milestones on time and
substantial penalties built in to the contract if these targets are not met. A review of
perspectives and practices of leading UK housebuilders found two of the top four
most important drivers for using OSP in the industry to be “time and cost certainty,”
and “minimising on-site duration,” with “time certainty” listed as one of the most
important drivers (54%) (Pan, Gibb and Dainty, 2006). To attain the time-saving
properties that pods can offer, design must be frozen early to allow production to
commence and pods to be delivered on time. However, whilst this is seemingly a
positive notion (Smith, 2011), it was instead a significant barrier against the use of
OSP for some as clients were not ready to decide on more detailed aspects, such
as sanitaryware, at such an early stage of the project (Blismas, 2007). This is
understandably problematic for hotels and high-end residential projects, but is less
of a concern in the student accommodation sector where bedroom and bathroom
choice is more generic due to size and cost limitations (Smith, 2011). Also, a GRP
2
pod will not have as many complex design choices, such as a tiled finish and
items are often nominated by the pod company to fit some cost criteria, simplifying
the design process. The procurement route must also be considered in this
instance, as a Design and Build contract will have the specification decided a lot
earlier in the process, for example. Therefore, the early design freeze may not be
an issue and could be advantageous.

Cook (2013) focused on the use of bathroom pods for a hospital building and found
the construction schedule to be shortened from forty-five days to nineteen days, a
58% reduction in time, which is significant in construction schedule improvement.
This is in keeping with the findings of Rogan, et al. (2000) who noted one of the
key drivers of modular construction was to build quickly on site, and that the build
time of projects using modular construction was 50-60% less than traditional onsite
construction. Although not as significant, other studies have also shown a schedule
reduction of 10% and over 150,000 work-hours diverted from the jobsite of a
healthcare project (Antillon, Morris and Gregor, 2014; Boyd, Khalfan and Maqsood,
2013). The use of “just-in-time” deliveries is a key reason for this, as pods can be
stored off-site and called off when they are needed on site. This clears up space on
site and makes the programming element of a construction project far simpler
(Rogan, Lawson and Bates-Brkljac, 2000).

2
It is now possible to have a “tile-effect” finish moulded in to GRP

10
In contrast to the above findings, OSP has come under criticism in the past despite
the benefits being more widely promoted. Lengthened lead-times have been an
echoing complaint (Blismas, 2007; Doran and Giannakis, 2011; Pan, Gibb and
Dainty, 2005) due to the bathroom pod components all needing to be available
before the pod can be completed. This can be overcome by delivering the pods
and issuing a ‘missing list’, whereby the pod manufacturer will return to site and
rectify the issues. However, this is counterproductive, and has faced criticism by
removing the value that is gained from a reduction in wet trades on site (Cox and
Piroozfar, 2011) of around 50% and requiring fewer trade-qualified persons (Lovell,
2003).

Whilst lead-time delays can present issues when using OSP, they are not a
common feature and should be evaluated as an exception to the rule rather than a
3
cause for concern. Eastman and Sacks (2008) looked in to the AEC industries in
the United States for offsite and onsite activities and concluded that OSP in the
construction industry has had a consistently higher productivity growth than on-site
construction productivity. This solidified the predictions of Egan (1998) whereby the
greater use of prefabrication and standardisation would greatly enhance the
productivity of the construction industry.

2.3 Cost
“The building sector is yet to undergo a complete phase of industrialisation. Yet, if
a car was produced in the way a building is delivered, very few people would be
able to own one; if a computer was produced the way a building is delivered, it
would cost a fortune.” (Azman, Ahamad and Wan Hussin, 2012). This damning
verdict of the construction industry is particularly true for OSP and its need to
embrace more cost-effective solutions for designing and constructing buildings.
Antillon, Morris and Gregor (2014) conducted a value-based cost-benefit analysis
on an ongoing 831,000 square feet hospital consisting of 360 beds, with the input
of major parties involved in the prefabrication process. Despite this research being
undertaken in the healthcare sector, the results bear many similarities to the
student sector, and a cost premium of 6% was found over the traditional site-built
cost on this occasion. Worse still, other estimates have been less conservative with
higher cost estimates of 7-10% (Lovell, 2003). Nadim and Goulding (2001) also
looked in to the upfront cost premium of bathroom pods, recording findings from 36
large construction organisations’ perceptions of OSP characteristics. Although the
majority of respondents perceived OSP to be the future of the UK construction
industry, increased initial costs were agreed by 92% of the respondents as an

3
Architecture, engineering and construction

11
inhibitor to the wider use of OSP. However, it is argued that the initial cost outlay
can be nullified by reduced onsite labour costs of 50%, in addition to factory
overheads being at fixed costs, whereas onsite costs are variable. Previous
uncertainties about the adoption of OSP because of high capital costs and
perception issues were generally based on precast concrete structures as well,
greatly differing to that of GRP (Boyd, Khalfan and Masqood, 2013) and when
looking at GRP pods, lower capital costs of up to 10% have been reported (Rogan,
Lawson and Bates-Brkljac, 2000).

Whilst higher initial costs are generally accepted in OSP among scholarly opinion,
the upfront cost is not the only, or even the most, important cost to be considered
and the issue of cost later in the assets life must also be investigated, particularly
when building maintenance accounts for over 5% of the UK’s gross domestic
4
product (Pann and Gibb, 2009). Taylor, Fisher and Wamuziri (2009) noted this in
their comparison of maintenance costs between in-situ bathrooms and pods and
found that without careful consideration of the procurement strategy for bathroom
pods, cost variation can arise from additional labour and materials required to
make good the results of poor design and construction. They also noted a
reduction in remedial works and retro-fitting costs. In contrast, Osirin and Wornell
(2015) stated essential maintenance, reparability and failure was a concern in GRP
pods and these differing results give scope for further research. Parallel research
in to the student sector use of bathroom pods showed that GRP modules required
the lowest maintenance costs, while in-situ bathrooms were significantly more
expensive to maintain when analysing 732 maintenance jobs spanning three years
for 398 bathrooms (Pann, Gibb and Sellars, 2008; Pann and Gibb, 2009). Offsite
modules most common reported maintenance issues were drainage, toilets, vents
and sinks, as opposed to in-situ bathrooms for which the maintenance issues were
far more complex and involved a wider range of problematic areas (Pann, Gibb
and Sellars, 2008). These findings therefore justify further exploration during the
data collection and analysis in to the maintenance characteristics of bathroom pods
and traditional bathrooms.

In hotel developments, the bathroom is 6-10% of capital cost (Taylor, Fisher and
Wamuziri, 2009). Clients are increasingly considering ‘whole life costing’, linking it
heavily to the maintenance issues raised above. In turn, this may lead to value for
money, rather than cost, becoming the main driver, thus allowing cost comparison
to not only include direct costs but also indirect costs (McCarney and Gibb, 2012).
A key example of this is maintaining transportation and cranage costs for the room
modules. Certain constraints must be placed on the maximum dimensions and

4
the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year

12
weight of the bathroom pods, and weighing more than 8 tonnes, for instance, will
require the use of more specialist, expensive cranes (Alexander and Tasker,
2002). However, this is extremely rare in the student accommodation sector, with
the average GRP pod weighing under 2.5 tonnes (Off Site Solutions, 2016) and the
size being kept relatively small to maximise the usage of space in student
accommodation blocks.

It is not just cost savings/expenses that can be achieved through the use of
bathroom pods though, cash flow and cost management must also be considered
(Zayed and Liu, 2014). “Common methods of evaluation simply take material,
labour and transportation costs into account when comparing various options, often
disregarding other cost-related items such as crane use and rectification works”
(Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb, 2006). These cost factors are usually buried within
the nebulous preliminaries figure, with little reference to the building approach
taken. In traditional bathroom construction, there are at least four different trades
involving four different sub-contractors working at different times. Bathroom pods,
on the other hand, allow all work to be carried out in one area offsite, with the
finished product delivered to site ready to be connected and used, as well as
reducing the likelihood of damage and theft (Lawson, Ogden and Goodier, 2014).
Pods allow these trades to be combined in to one contract with the added
advantage of reducing and/or transferring risk by placing it all with one supplier
(Mills, 2001). Furthermore, the ‘bathroom section’ of the contract is easier to
manage, having only one invoice to process, one retention to hold etc, aiding the
contract administration process. Cost management and cash flow forecasting is
again simplified as there is a fixed, continuous cost for factory works requiring a
guaranteed workflow, whereas site-based costs are only incurred when
construction actually takes place (Lovell, 2003). This is beneficial to both the
contractor and the pod manufacturer, as the steady workflow means that level
scheduling is being achieved and the exposure to risk is reduced.

Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb (2006) give a succinct evaluation of pods, stating that
pure direct cost comparisons will favour traditional onsite operations that are
costed on a rate-based system, with overheads, access, cranage, repairs and
reworks hidden with preliminary costs. OSP costs, on the other hand, are usually
presented as all-inclusive amounts with a premium for off-site overheads and so
the initial high cost is recovered throughout the duration of the project. Despite this,
there continues to be a climate within construction of benefit evaluation based
almost solely on upfront cost with non-monetary benefits and disbenefits of the
construction process being merely alluded to, or disregarded. For example, the
overheads and set-up costs of the factory are covered within OSP unit costs,

13
whereas equivalent costs for traditional site-based approaches are often ‘lost’ in
principal contractors’ preliminaries. As a result, this study must fill the gap in
literature that fails to approach the other issues in more detail, examining the
advantages and disadvantages they offer as a bathroom package.

2.4 Quality
Quality, whilst directly linked to the maintenance points raised above, is another
key sub-heading that must be explored in more detail to learn of both the
advantages and disadvantages and how they affect the decision of whether or not
to use bathroom pods. Among other problems, criticism of the construction industry
has been attributed to its underperformance resulting in poor quality products, with
bathroom pods arguably being proof of this and many arguing it is the main area
pods fall short of traditionally built bathrooms.

Inflexible design and poor aesthetic characteristics were highlighted by Nadim and
Goulding (2001) as a key barrier to the use of OSP but this must be considered in
the context of the student sector. Firstly, in relation to other sectors the student
sector does not generally seek an extremely high finish quality due to its target
audience and use. Therefore, the perceived lack of quality when using GRP may
not be as much of an issue. Arguably, the pod simply has to be to a required size
and specification and once this is satisfied it will be completed for the lowest cost
rather than the most extravagant design from the client’s point of view.
Furthermore, the student often wants lower cost as opposed to higher quality
(Nimako and Bondinuba, 2012).

Despite this, opinion is still divided and some argue that modular and panelised
prefabricated construction systems allow for more flexibility and consumer choice
(Scofield, Potangaroa and Bell, 2009). It is argued that design quality is intrinsically
linked with the long-term cost of offsite bathrooms (Pan, Gibb and Sellars, 2008),
and so the inflexibility may in fact promote higher quality through standardisation,
echoing the views of Gibb (2001) mentioned previously. The same rings true for
the poor aesthetic characteristics as well, and since Nadim and Goulding’s
publication in 2001 there have been great advances in bathroom pod technologies
5
with the introduction of tile effects and Perspex feature wall panels, for example.
Other professionals promote pods as a higher quality alternative to in-situ
bathrooms (Boyd, Khalfan and Maqsood, 2013; Lawson, Ogden and Goodier;
2014) again with much of this research focuses on standardisation and
preassembly of OSP (Pasquire and Gibb, 2002) and the factory control that is

5
Solid transparent plastic made of ploymethyl methacrylate

14
achieved through its use. This is often referred to as “economy of scale” which is
the improvement of quality through the repetition of prefabricated units (Rogan,
Lawson and Bates-Brkljac, 2000; Tennant, McCarney and Tong, 2012). Gibb
(2001) focused on standardisation in the construction industry and concluded that it
offered continuous improvement and that the overall construction process was
streamlined as a result. Also, because preassembly brought the construction site
into the factory where the environment was more controllable, safety, productivity
and quality were all improved agreeing with Doran and Giannakis (2011).
Bathroom pods will be completed to a higher standard through repetition of units
and not having to retool production lines with varying complexities and fit-outs,
which can counterbalance the lack of skilled tradespersons involved in the
manufacture process.

In addition, partnering arrangements can also improve the quality of OSP and help
promote best practice (Akintoye, Goulding and Zawdie, 2012) and these are far
easier to set up and manage with the use of pods as opposed to traditional
bathrooms. This is achieved through involving the bathroom pod manufacturer
earlier in the design stage and building relationships that improve communication
flow throughout the project duration spanning over many projects (Hall and
Tomkins, 2000; Winch, 2000). Tang, Duffield and Young (2006) researched
partnering in the Chinese construction industry, and concluded that partnering was
a basic management method through which risk management and total quality
management can be strongly improved. Therefore, the idea of partnering
arrangements between main contractors and pod manufacturers should be
considered, and in this instance tripartite partnering arrangements including the
client may be beneficial, especially in the student accommodation sector where
clients may have a range of projects taking place at any one time.

2.5 Environmental
A final factor to consider when looking at the various advantages and
disadvantages of bathroom pods is the environmental effect. In a climate of ever-
growing awareness of environmental sustainability, construction and demolition
waste has been identified by the European Union (hereafter EU) as a priority waste
stream to reduce due to the large amounts generated and the high potential for re-
use and recycling embodied in these materials. It accounts for approximately 25-
30% of all waste generated in the EU consisting of numerous materials, and so will
likely be at the forefront of construction policy over the coming years (Mackova, et
al. 2012; Akintoye, Goulding and Zawdie, 2012).

15
Ozorhon, Abbot and Aouad (2011) conducted their research at Lancaster
University, analysing the eco-friendly accommodation that was built on campus.
The main innovations observed in the project were within the residences’ bespoke
design of bathroom pods that adopted the ‘sustainable by design’ approach and
community engagement. It was found that the use of pods not only improved
construction speeds but reduced the environmental construction impact. The
efficient design and manufacturing processes established by Lancaster University
optimised the use of resources and materials by designing out unnecessary
material waste and ensuring an efficient procurement chain due to correct
management (Goh and Loosemore, 2016).

Cox and Piroozfar (2011) noted similar benefits through the use of bathroom pods,
such as reduced waste and reduced site trades in one confined area. Reduced
waste has also been seen in OSP through exact factory specifications, greater
recycling capacity, energy savings as a result of increased levels of insulation and
less air leakage, and lower transport costs caused by site trips (Lovell 2003).
However, perhaps the most well documented and substantial environmental
benefit of bathroom pods is a well-managed production line. This enables the use
of production waste on one line to complement the needs of the second, effectively
creating an internal recycle and reuse scheme (Ermolli, 2007). Efficient factory
production techniques have also been noted by Rogan, Lawson and Bates-Brkljac
(2000), who state that a reduction of site waste by 70% is not uncommon when
using bathroom pods over traditionally built bathrooms concurring with the work of
Jaillon and Poon (2008) who noted an average reduction of 65-70% in some
projects studied.

It is widely regarded in the construction industry that the installation and finishing of
the plumbing and sanitaryware in bathrooms are part of the critical path and often
generate delays and significant waste (Manley and Miller, 2014). Pods are far
superior instance, as once delivered to site, the pods are directly installed in to
their final position and do not require any additional work other than mechanical
and engineering and plumbing work to make the pods fully functional.

However, while multiple benefits of OSP are clear, there is a slight blurred line
formed once transportation is included. Some pods are transported the length of
the country or further and their carbon footprint is far higher than sourcing materials
close to site and having them delivered (Chen, Okudan and Riley, 2010; Jaillon
and Poon, 2008). While this argument may hold some weight when concerning
larger bathroom pods for hotels and the like and less pods are delivered per load,
student bathroom pods are in comparison very small and it is not uncommon to fit

16
ten or more bathroom pods on a wagon, nullifying the transportation concerns.
However, this will be approached through the interviews and surveys to challenge
the practicality of the analysis points raised.

2.6 Conclusion
To conclude, there are many factors which contribute to the advantages and
disadvantages of bathroom pods, and a combination of these lead to decisions
being made about whether to use bathroom pods or build traditionally. While the
cost, quality, time and environmental factors are all important, it is believed that the
cost is always considered as an initial starting point as to whether the use of pods
is feasible or not. If it is determined that both are a possibility to be implemented on
the project then further comparisons will be drawn between bathroom pods and
traditionally built bathrooms for which is most appropriate (Tennant, McCarney and
Tong, 2012). It is also critical that all factors are evaluated for their whole-life rather
than just the initial results, to give a more rounded idea of success and which
method is most likely to deliver it. This will give the project the highest chance of
achieving best value and will promote best practice in the student accommodation
sector. The research that follows will seek to fill the gaps in literature that have
been exposed and challenge some of the issues raised, while linking back to the
Research Questions (hereafter RQs) and Objectives.

17
3 METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 Data Collection – Desk Research

Desk research should always be the starting point of any research project giving,
an insight in to the project area and ensuring that there is a relevant topic to be
explored (Silverman, 2013). Items reviewed included books, journals, conference
reports and websites, among others, providing a wider knowledge of both
bathroom pods and traditionally built bathrooms in the student accommodation
sector. The RQs were the focus when reviewing the text and gave a focal point to
the research, helping to avoid ambiguity so that only relevant areas were explored
and analysed in the main body of the text. These RQs were, as discussed based
on the Iron Triangle to set a structure for the research. Environmental factors were
also considered due to increasing demands for environmental sustainability to be
prioritised at the core of UK construction (Sarhan & Fox, 2013). A brief mention of
case study examples also used to give strength to arguments and solidify points
made.

3.1.2 Data Collection – Interviews

In the Research Proposal, the initial suggestion was to conduct ten interviews.
However, after experience and consideration this was reduced to six, owing both to
the time constraints on the project and the saturation point being reached after six
interviews where no new key issues or themes were emerging. Interviews were
conducted with Project and Site Managers due to them having the most hands-on
experience of working with bathroom pods. The only selection criteria for
interviewees was that they had to have had at least one experience of using
bathroom pods in their career, but whether their previous experiences were
positive or negative was not known until the interview. This meant that all aspects
of bathroom pod construction could be explored in an unbiased environment
adding to the reliability of the results.

The interviews were semi-structured (Appendix 1), as scholarly opinion focused on

the numerous advantages that this produced over both structured and unstructured
(Dearnley, 2005). Semi-structured interviews allow structure while providing fluidity
and a balance of discussion. The use of pre-prepared, open-ended questions
meant it was possible to guide the interviewee and give them a chance to expand
on their answers and give feedback on points that might not have been previously
considered. All questions also had relevant additional and clarifying questions to
probe for more depth to responses and avoid a fragmented discussion. Generally,
seventeen questions were asked and the average interview length was around

18
forty-five minutes but no interviews overran the allotted time of one hour. Britten
(1995) suggested that this was enough time to gain sufficient information without
becoming too intense or time-consuming for either party involved. Time was
allowed for an informal brief to calm the atmosphere and gain bio-data – namely
age, experience and job title. Without this time set aside to create a relaxed
atmosphere and make the interviewee feel comfortable, the responses may have
been far less in-depth and honest with a less friendly environment. The interviews
were all recorded and then transcribed and analysed at a later date to avoid
disrupting the interview flow, as recommended by Whiting (2006). Whiting (2006)
also noted that the open-ended questions may diverge from the interview guide
allowing a more personal feel with honest discussion.

3.1.3 Data Collection – Surveys

This research bears many similarities in its methodology to the work of Nadim and
Goulding’s (2001), where they reviewed the uptake of OSP using surveys as the
main source of data collection. This led to the use of surveys in this study. An email
survey questionnaire that comprised of ten questions linking to the RQs was
created on SurveyMonkey. The ten questions in total take ten minutes or less to
complete. Any longer was proved by Galesic and Bosnjak (2009) to show a decline
in response rates and those targeted may be pushed for time, so the questionnaire
was as straightforward as possible to ensure a maximum response rate. This was
sent to 190 individuals and received forty responses; a response rate of 21.05%
which is in the average bracket of 20-30% for questionnaire surveys in the UK
construction industry (Akintoye & Fitzgerald, 2000). The number of respondents
added reliability to theories that were developed in the interviews and produced a
range of results. The questionnaire was sent to a selection of contractors and
clients that have had previous involvement in projects that use bathroom pods to
avoid bias and give a wider perspective that may be missed by not involving
certain contractors or parties. This was an example of cluster sampling, whereby
the population was divided in to segments and then several segments were chosen
at random (Rowley, 2014). Next, the decision of a rating scale had to be chosen
for the questionnaire. Dawes’ (2008) research in to varying scales found that “the
nine-point format produced higher comparative variance in the study compared to
the coarser scales” such as the most commonly used one-to-five. This was
supported by Hancock and Klockars (1991) and therefore the nine-point scale was
chosen for three of the questions. The remaining multiple choice questions had a
choice of either “bathroom pods” or “traditionally built bathrooms”, and utilised a
“Comments box” so that additional information could be given to an answer if the
participant felt it was required, as recommended by O’Cathain and Thomas (2004).
This helped give depth and detail beyond the questions that were asked,

19
something that is often criticised as missing from questionnaires (Denscombe,
2010).

3.2.1 Data Analysis – Qualitative

Both the desk research and interviews involved qualitative data analysis; reading
the text to identify themes and issues. The themes were taken from the Research
Objectives and were identified as: cost, time, quality, environmental and other. This
process is known as ‘coding’ and is iterative. The surveys and transcribed
interviews were read through more multiple times to ensure all issues were
recognised and developed upon and sections of text were colour-coded under the
topics of the RQs with notes written in the margins as key pointers (Merriam and
Tisdell, 2015). Transcripts were then put in to a table of key points to critically
analyse and discuss (Appendix 2).

3.2.2 Data Analysis – Quantitative

The questionnaire comprised of cases and variables. The use of SurveyMonkey
allowed the data to be organised and analysed simply, and automatically provided
key descriptive statistics for use. Visual aids such as tables and charts were also
used to present the data in a more appealing way and break up the large chunks of
text, as advised by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009). These were all taken
from SurveyMonkey rather than re-creating them to save time. All results were
included in the final data analysis and the data was analysed as a set. The work of
Rowley (2014) stated that to break the data down in to further sub-sets would
require a larger data set of at least 100 responses. Without this, some of the
groups may not be sufficiently large to generate significant results and incorrect
conclusions may be drawn from small sample sizes. Rowley’s (2014) example was
based on a Masters Dissertation and so there are strong similarities with this
project, whereby tight time and resource constraints are apparent. Therefore, bio-
data was not used for the surveys and the analysis focused on previous
experience of bathroom pods alone rather than the bio-data factors which may
contribute to certain opinions.

3.3 Triangulation of Data

Triangulation involves multiple data sources in an investigation to produce
understanding. Therefore, the use of both interviews and questionnaires means
that both qualitative and quantitative data can be studied and compared.
Triangulation is widely documented and highly recommended due to broadening
the understanding of study phenomenon (Olsen, 2004) and increasing study
accuracy (Golafshani, 2003). In the case of this dissertation, Creswell and Miller’s
(2000) definition was promoted, whereby triangulation equates to “a validity

20
procedure where researchers look for convergence among multiple and different
sources of information to form themes or categories in a study”.

3.4 Ethical Considerations

All those that were invited to participate in the interviews and questionnaires were
given The UCEM Research Ethics: Information Sheet (Appendix 3). The research
was non-intrusive with answers and data given anonymised, and critical or
personal data was not used.

21
4 DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Background

Figure 3: How many projects have you used bathroom pods on in the past? (Please select
one)

Figure 4: In your opinion, which sector has seen the greatest uptake of pods in recent
years? (Please select one)

22
As shown in Figure 3, the majority of respondents had either worked on projects
that used bathroom pods ‘one to two’ times (41%), or ‘ten or more’ times (43.6 %).
Only 15.4% had used pods on ‘three to ten’ projects, and none had never used
them before. Due to the survey being sent to a range of main contractors, this
indicates that certain main contractors promote the use of pods heavily whereas
others are less likely to use pods on projects in the student accommodation sector
and have been slower in the implementation of OSP, as highlighted by Pan, Gibb
and Sellars, (2008). In addition, there may be many other reasons for this,
including bad previous experiences and lack of opportunity to implement pods in to
the design. The survey results shared similarities with the interview results, with
four out of six having been heavily involved with pods in the past (‘ten or more’).
This equates to 66.6%, but to draw conclusions from such a small dataset would
be irresponsible and so the qualitative data will be focused on rather than
quantitative for the interviews. Another reason for the relatively high proportion of
those previously involved with pods was due to the applicants not being chosen at
random and having to have had previous experience of working with pods. Were
this not implemented, the interview time may have been wasted and no results
collected. However, it is clear that pods are growing in popularity and this
challenges the view that uptake has been slow.

Furthermore, Figure 4 shows, over 90% of respondents felt that the student sector
had seen the biggest growth in the recent years, with the residential sector gaining
the remaining votes. Again, the interview results echoed this, with 100% of
respondents claiming the student accommodation sector had seen the greatest
rise, with residential in second place. A Project Manager for a main contractor said
“student accommodation is flying at the moment and the majority of these use
bathroom pods”. A key reason given was that student accommodation is “generally
a lower specification and is GRP so pods are a lot smaller,” repeating the findings
of Nimako and Bondinuba (2012). Other reasons for increased uptake included
delivery logistics being more achievable with smaller bathrooms in student
accommodation, and less variations among GRP student bathroom pods. These,
among others will be expanded in the following chapters, but already begin to
target answering the RQs, in particular RQ3 on quality and its importance, or lack
of, to the student sector.

23
4.2 Time

Figure 5: On a scale of 1 to 9, how effective is the use of bathroom pods in comparison to

traditionally built bathrooms when working to time constraints and sticking to programme?

Figure 5 shows a mean response of 7.89, highlighting a vast majority of the

participants felt bathroom pods were more effective than traditionally built
bathrooms when working to time constraints and sticking to programme. Although
the range of six was medium, with a maximum of nine and a minimum of three, the
standard deviation was low at 1.2. This meant that the data was clustered around
the mean, and a median of eight supported these findings. The interviews all
reiterated the findings of the survey, with a key benefit of pods being their ability to
be constructed before they are needed so that they can be called off just-in-time.
Zimmer (2002) reiterated this, adding that just-in-time delivery is a key component
when aiming for a timely finish of a project.

Another advantage that was not found in the study of literature was the simplicity of
procurement with bathroom pods. All design work is completed by the pod
manufacturer and the client only has to decide on final specification, which can free
up a lot of time to elsewhere on the project. This adds another dimension to the
delivery time-saving aspects indicated by Rios and Rios-Solis (2012) and Rogan,
Lawson and Bates-Brkljac, (2000) and adds great value to pods when looking at
RQ1.

However, there are disadvantages associated with building early and sticking to
6
programme with several of the interviewees mentioning vesting - again a concept

6
Payment for off-site goods or materials that are the property of the contractor but stored
with the manufacturer

24
not previously explored in the literature. Generally, this is only implemented if the
original programme slips, whereby the pod manufacturer will have incurred the cost
of building the pod and so payment will need to be made if delivery dates are
missed. In traditional construction, this is not the case as payment for subcontract
works will only be processed once the work is complete. Another issue with
building early that was noted during the interviews was having to decide on the
specification and design of the bathroom at a very early stage, however there were
opposing views as to whether this was an advantage or disadvantage. Interestingly
this was an area of debate in the Literature as well and there appeared to be a
split-decision on the benefits (Smith, 2011) and problems (Blismas, 2007)
associated with early design freeze. One of the problems raised in the interviews
was that “important decisions such as bathroom colour finishes are decided
possibly in advance of the complete student accommodation design which can limit
later decisions for the whole accommodation.” An advantage of this, however, is
the fact that variations tend to crop up earlier in design process which can prove
more time and cost effective than they would be later in the project (Chan and
Chan, 2004; Oladapo, 2007).

Another time benefit highlighted in the interviews was that due to the bathroom
being a complete package it was “much easier to manage.” The commercial aspect
is simpler and there is far less contract administration due to the bathroom being
delivered as a single package rather than having to organise individual sub-
contractors. In addition, this resonates on site and there are far less trades-people
to organise and manage, supporting the findings of Lovell (2003) and Cox and
Piroozfar (2011). One interviewee likened the bathroom pod to a block of Lego on
site, that just needs to be installed “correctly, at the right time and in the right
place.” Interviewee’s highlighted the benefits of this not only from a time
perspective, but also a health and safety perspective as there are far less
accidents on site. It has been found in previous studies that the use of
preassembly and moving work offsite reduced the amount of 100 accidents studied
by up to half (Haslam, et al. 2005). An example given in an interview was of an
electrician installing cabling in a ceiling void receiving a cut from a metal grid; in a
pod this would not happen due to electric works being performed safely off site.
Bahamon (2002) summed this up well, saying “once [the pod is] there, it is
necessary only to join and anchor the parts”. This is an area of scope for further
research, looking in to comparative accident rates and health and safety records
between onsite and offsite bathroom construction in the student sector.

Traditional bathrooms can be built with certain components missing and this has
been a criticism of pods in the past as they are delivered as a complete unit.

25
However, one interviewee focused on this point and stated when the program is
tight, pods can still be delivered to site with items missing such as radiators or
mirrors, and these longer lead-time items can be delivered and installed when the
pod is on site. Whilst in agreement with Cox and Piroozfar (2011) that it is
counterproductive, it does overcome the disadvantage and give a solution in the
rare instances this happens.

To conclude, the time-saving attributes of bathroom pods made them preferable to

traditional bathrooms. While the necessity of freezing design early caused mixed
emotions, the construction schedule improvements were an invaluable addition
and gave a definitive answer to Q1 in favour of bathroom pods.

26
4.3 Cost

Figure 6: On a scale of 1 to 9, how would you rate the cost effectiveness of pods in
comparison to traditionally built bathrooms?

Figure 7: Which bathroom type is easiest to keep control of costs and ensure costs do not
overrun?

The survey results in Figure 6 show that from it a cost perspective, bathroom pods
are more effective than when compared to traditionally built bathrooms, albeit not
as important as important as the time-saving properties. A mean of 6.74 was
slightly lower and there was a large range of eight, with results from both ends of
the spectrum, highlighting disparity of views from those that partook. It is noted that
five participants skipped the question as well but the reasons for this are unclear.

27
Figure 7 aided further research in to cost control, with a 95 percent majority in
favour of bathroom pods over traditional bathrooms.

Several reasons were given in the comments section and through the interviews
that require further development. Firstly, a key advantage of bathroom pods raised
in the interviews that had not been previously discussed was that there is less risk
of theft and accidental damage in bathroom pods during the construction phase on
site. Lawson, Ogden and Goodier (2014) also note this, and according to an
7
interviewee, pods are usually delivered with a OSB door and padlock in place for
security purposes. This is only removed once the pod is handed over to stop
unauthorised persons entering the pod. In addition, pods are delivered without
shower hoses and lamps, two items that are most regularly stolen, and these are
then delivered with the last delivery of pods and fitted shortly after, minimising their
exposure time on site and potential to go missing.

In addition, pods being a set cost simplifies cost planning and projecting cash-flow,
exemplified by Figure 7 showing an overwhelming 95% majority in favour of
bathroom pods when controlling cost. One interviewee stated that “as they [pods]
are a specific procurement item, the budget is based on unit cost and an order will
not be placed if costs are over budget,” developing on the view of Lovell (2003).
Pods can also be described as a form of milestone payment, as once they are
complete and delivered to site they are invoiced. This is not the same for in-situ
bathrooms as all sub-contractors will apply for payment independently and while
there may be a fixed-price, the construction costs are more difficult to manage and
predict at an early stage, increasing risk. Offsite manufacture, as one survey
respondent stated, instead means that “variables are easier to control in a factory
environment and so there should always be better cost control due to optimisation
and planned production runs, along with waste and quality controls,” to which
Rogan, Lawson and Bates-Brkljac (2000) concur. Furthermore, cost certainty is
added due to clients being in contact with the pod manufacturer before the main
contractor and so it is often a set cost that the main contractor will then add an
overheads and profit percentage to. This results in no hidden surprises and a fixed
lump sum for the bathroom package, simplfying the tendering process.

Despite an overriding theme of the Literature being the up-front cost savings of
traditionally build bathrooms, one interviewee recalled a project on which the pods
were shipped from Germany to London, but they “still worked out as a cheaper
alternative to traditionally built bathrooms.” Although this is an interesting concept,
the reliability of the comment must be questioned without evidence of real cost

7
Oriented strand board. A widely used, versatile structural wood panel

28
savings and so was disregarded. On the other hand, if the Literature is to be
believed and in-situ bathrooms return a cheaper cost, then the inclusion of
overheads, access and reworks that are hidden in preliminary costs of in-situ
bathrooms must also be considered when analysing tenders (Blismas, Pasquire
and Gibb, 2006).

There was a comment made in an interview about negative cost implications due
to the delivery aspect of pods and the point was put back to the interviewee of
being able to fit more pods on a load due to the relatively small size of student
pods. In response to this, the interviewee agreed but noted that the access
restrictions of the site also determine the amount of pods on a load, as certain sites
can only receive smaller lorries which will carry less pods and only be slightly less
expensive. On the project he noted, this meant the average pods per load rate
dropped from ten to four, adding substantial expense when considering an average
load rate of £500. This had not been considered before and is an example of how
hidden costs can appear even when it is thought all bases are covered. Additional
costs can also arise if there is a breakdown in communication between parties and
disputes become a possibility. However, this is as much of a risk with bathroom
pods as it is with traditionally built bathrooms according to Khavari (2015).

Finally, there were comments of a pod price increase of around 5% by the

interviewees, but this was not seen as a disadvantage to pods as the rise was not
disproportionate to material and wage increases. It was also noted that labour
rates in and around London were growing disproportionately to the rest of the
country and outsourcing the bathrooms to offsite companies realised real cost
savings, despite exact figures not being available, another area perhaps warranting
further study.

In summary, bathroom pods can offer significant cost savings over traditionally built
bathrooms. Despite the initial costs often proving more expensive, it has been
argued by both Literature and those who were interviewed and took the survey that
bathroom pods provide an ‘all-in’ cost without the hidden costs of preliminaries and
access, among others. This also makes cash management on the project more
straightforward, which is critical to project success and should not be
underestimated, answering RQ2 of the Research Objectives.

29
4.4 Quality

Figure 8: On a scale of 1 to 9, how would you rate the quality of bathroom pods in
comparison to traditionally built bathrooms when aiming for a high quality product?

The quality of bathroom pods received preferable results to traditionally built

bathroom pods, with an average of 6.89 (Figure 8). Again, there was a relatively
large range of seven, and a standard deviation of 1.86. Again, the data was
clustered around the mean highlighted by the median and mean giving very similar
results of 6.86 and seven respectively.

These results go against the findings of the Literature Review, with previous
studies highlighting the quality of bathroom pods being the key disadvantage and
reason for the apparent slow uptake. Although some scholarly opinion such as
Anderson and Anderson (2007) stated that OSM “increases the availability of
better designed and high-quality built environments”, the general consensus was
that quality needed to be improved to match that of traditionally built bathrooms.
However, the interviews raised a key factor that may have steered respondents
towards voting for bathroom pods and this was that student accommodation is
generally associated with a lower specification than that of the residential sector,
agreeing with Nimako and Bondinuba (2012), due to its end user and the cost
generally being considered as more important to students. There is therefore less
of a negative emphasis on fewer skilled tradespeople being involved with bathroom
pods. Although it depends on the manufacturer, factories generally employ a range
of tradespeople, but less specialist trades. An interviewee gave the example of a
specific subcontractor being employed to mastic the joints in a traditional build, but
for a bathroom pod it may be the plumber or whoever is available. Therefore,
although this is not to say it has not been done in the past, some high-end

30
residential projects will not use bathroom pods for the quality risks and lack of
skilled labour (Pann, Gibb and Dainty, 2005).

A key advantage of bathroom pods, that became a reoccurring theme in the

interviews, was the single point of contact in contrast to chasing individual
subcontractors for issues with the bathrooms when they are built in-situ. This was
undeniably one of the factors for 80% of respondents preferring bathroom pods to
traditionally built bathrooms (Figure 8). An interviewee stated “if anything is wrong,
we just go back to the supplier rather than messing around with different
subcontractors to get it put right.” In their example, a project had an anti-slip finish
on the shower floors that was peeling off. As a result, the main contractor refused
to pay the invoice but the pod manufacturer tried to blame the shower tray supplier.
Eventually the issue was sorted, but the relationship was slightly tense for a while.
The interviewee developed the point by likening the pod to a new car, and
indicated that if the handbrake snapped on a new car it is taken back to the
dealership, not the handbrake supplier. This gives the main contractor or client a
set contact in the event of a problem, making it much easier to ascertain who is at
fault and get the issue fixed, simplifying the problems caused by maintenance and
defect issues (Osirin and Wornell, 2015).

Figure 9: Do you believe that bathroom pods or traditionally built bathrooms provide the best
solution when looking at the whole life of a bathroom, including defects and maintenance
issues?

Another advantage of bathroom pods, as shown in Figure 9 above, is that there are
less maintenance issues with GRP, with comments on the survey including “it
never needs grouting,” “no tiles to crack,” and “easy to clean,” as well as “pods

31
manufactured within a controlled environment limits the risk of defects and re-
work.” This replicates the findings of several notable scholars in the field (Pann,
Gibb and Sellars, 2008; Taylor, Fisher and Wamuziri, 2009). Notwithstanding this,
there was a considerable importance placed on the end user and how the pod is
treated throughout its life as well which had not been considered before. It can be
argued that those living in student or welfare accommodation may not treat their
accommodation with the same care of someone in a high-end residential
accommodation due to knowing their position is temporary, and this can mean the
bathroom is prone to more damage from poor maintenance and abuse. Also, an
interviewee made the point that if the student causes the damage through
mistreatment, they are less likely to report the damage due to having to pay for it,
and as a result the damage may develop in to more something more serious if it is
left. However, it is imperative to note that there will always be maintenance and
defects issues with either bathroom type chosen and while the advantages of GRP
are evident, it is not a problem-free alternative.

The interviews also raised the issue of keeping the amount of variations between
pod types on one project to a minimum, which was discussed in the Literature
Review (Pasquire and Gibb, 2002). One interviewee recalled a recent example
where a project had over twenty different pod types. While the job was considered
a success, the suitability of pods for the project had to be questioned. For pods to
achieve a higher quality product the retooling of production lines must be kept to a
minimum so that the quality of an individual’s work can improve through repetition
(Gibb, 2001) and economies of scale can be achieved. Therefore, anything too
bespoke or with varying degrees of complexity and variation lead the interviewee to
prefer traditionally built bathrooms. This again may promote traditional bathroom
construction in hotels and high-end residential projects. The survey raised the
importance of a proven design being chosen as well. Comments stressed that
newer, unproven designs can lead to issues in pods with design flaws that may not
have been spotted in the design phase. A poor design that needs remedial works
on site can impact the time, cost and quality of the bathroom pod and must be
avoided to achieve best value.

In conclusion, the responses of those interviewed and surveyed have overcome

the initial concerns of bathroom pods surrounding quality but the split in decision
makes it difficult to answer RQ3 definitively. It is clear though, that GRP inhibits
excellent cleaning and maintenance qualities which have also been noted as a key
reason for the use of bathroom pods in student environments where cleaning may
not be as frequent or thorough. As long as the quality is to an acceptable standard,
which OSP is more than capable of, GRP pods will continue being used for student

32
accommodation projects in the future and the uptake of OSP will likely continue to
grow.

33
4.5 Environmental

Figure 10: Which option creates the least waste and promotes best sustainable practice?
(Please select one)

Figure 11: When using projects that require environmental accreditations, such as BREEAM, as is
often the case in the student accommodation sector, which bathroom type provides the best option
for success?

As shown from the results in Figure 10, 100% of respondents chose bathroom
pods when considering which option creates least waste and promotes best
sustainable practice. In addition, 100% chose bathroom pods on projects that
required certain environmental accreditations (Figure 11). These views were
largely echoed in the interviews as well, with the exception of a couple of concerns.

Of these concerns, the first, and most frequent, was that there is still too much

34
waste from wrapping. An interviewee described the process of unwrapping a pod
when it is delivered to site, and this can often include a layer of DPM, then double
wrapped in polyethylene, and potentially a fire sleeve as well. Notwithstanding this,
the general consensus was still that there is no better alternative as wrapping must
be durable enough to provide protection during transport and prevent water ingress
in to the pods when placed inside a building that is not yet watertight. Therefore, it
would be advisory to research alternative ways of wrapping pods to reduce
wastage and improve their environmental credentials.

Once wrapping is taken out of the equation though, there is not a great deal of
waste involved with bathroom pods and as highlighted in the Literature (Goh and
Loosemore, 2016), many of the waste-saving exercises take place in a factory that
are impossible on site. The surveys noted additional waste as a small amount of
8
Corex used for temporary flooring and cardboard to secure fixtures and fittings.
Also, if a temporary OSB door is fitted it should be recycled.

A critical waste saving exercise that sets pods apart from bathrooms built in-situ is
that offsite manufacture allows for factory optimisation. Minimising the amount of
waste produced by offsite manufacture goes hand-in-hand with optimizing its use
of raw materials and this is achieved through the repetition of design. These
findings emulate those of Jaillon and Poon (2008) who found an average reduction
of 65 to 70 percent of waste in some projects. In the example of pods, this
includes the measuring and cutting of materials such as chipboard and
plasterboard, for maximum optimisation of the material, whereas on site the
material will be cut as and when it is needed with the excess discarded. Designing
out waste in this way enables the use of production waste on one line to
complement another, effectively creating an internal recycle and reuse scheme, as
highlighted by Ermoli (2007). This precise knowledge of assembly times and of the
materials required allows the manufacturer to rationalise and optimise the use of
resources, which has a direct environmental and cost benefit. Research has shown
that the use of pods has the potential to reduce the generation of waste to less
than 1% of the material used (WRAPNI, 2016).

In addition to creating less waste, there were also those in both the surveys and
interviews who felt that when projects require environmental accreditations, the use
of bathroom pods could also be helpful, however there was less conviction in
responses. A reoccurring theme developed of responses that stated they did not
know or were not able to comment due to lack of knowledge on the subject area.
This may be because the data collection targeted Project and Site managers – had

8
Lightweight corrugated plastics designed to offer impact protection

35
it been more aimed at Designers, for example, there may have been a more
convicted response as this is usually where environmental factors are considered.
Therefore future study should either change the question or the target audience to
collect better quality data. It may even go out at the tender stage, stating for
9
instance that the project must receive BREEAM ‘Excellent’ status. The survey
comments also highlighted that design control is key, as often the pods are
designed and built ahead of other aspects of the project. It therefore must be
incorporated in to the design at the earliest point possible to ensure success. Other
10
accreditations mentioned included FSC for timber that may be used for flooring
and pattressing. Looking in to bathroom pod manufacturers portfolios, many, such
as Off Site Solutions (RT) Ltd and Elements Europe Ltd have FSC requirements,
and ISO 14001 is also an important environmental accolade that may be seen as
favourable when contractors are selecting tenders.

In summary, there are certainly environmental benefits to be realised through the

use of bathroom pods and OSM promotes this through factory production lines
designing out waste. Although the knowledge of environmental accreditations
associated with bathroom design was poor and further study is needed to compare
the practicalities of pods and in-situ bathrooms when considering them, this is still
the case when discussing traditional pods as well. Therefore, as shown above, in
answer to RQ4 the waste saving of bathroom pods makes them far more
environmentally sustainable.

9
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
10
Forest Stewardship Council

36
4.6 Bathroom Pod Net Promoter Score (Recommendation
Likelihood)

Figure 12: How likely is it that you would recommend bathroom pods to a friend or colleague?

A high Net Promoter Score (hereafter NPS) was achieved of fifty-one, which is
considerably greater than the Global Benchmark score of thirty-seven, scoring in
the top 50-75% (Figure 12), highlighting the popularity of bathroom pods by those
surveyed. It was considered that there may have been correlation between those
with less experience giving a lower NPS and vice-versa, and so a one-tail Students
t-test was conducted. A null hypothesis was stated – “there is no relationship
between amount of experience and NPS”. The results of this were insignificant
however, with a score of 0.0000000000000000000000037370 and so the null
hypothesis was accepted. The test was conducted again using only those who had
no experience of pods to see if this made a difference, but the result was still
insignificant at 0.0000000000000000000014610814. A bigger sample size must be
used for future tests of correlation. Also, there was not a ‘comment’ section allowed
on this question which would have been useful for respondents to given an option

37
for their choice, especially for ‘Detractors’ and ‘Promoters’ to understand their most
prominent reasons for the answers given.

38
5 CONCLUSION

To conclude, the triangulation of data sources has been compiled together and
proven the hypothesis to be correct, in that the advantages do outweigh the
disadvantages when using bathroom pods over traditionally built bathrooms in the
student accommodation sector. In addition, all of the RQs have been answered
promoting the use of bathroom pods over traditionally built bathrooms, with the
exception of RQ5 which focused on the quality comparisons. Contrasting
information from both the Literature and participants of the Project made it difficult
to come to a reasoned conclusion with the qualitative data so equally divided, but
the survey data was in favour of bathroom pods for their quality purposes. Time
was slightly easier to assess, with the benefits of programme improvement and
surety far outweighing the potential frustrations of early design freeze, resulting in a
mean score of 7.89. In addition, cost, the final pillar of the Iron Triangle, was
realised for its advantages due to the whole-life-cost of the asset being assessed
rather than a crude measurement of upfront costs that has often been the case
when measuring OSM performance. The surveys and interviews reflected this and
supported the findings of the Literature Review as well. Finally, environmental
policy is constantly evolving in the construction sector and the OSM sector is set
up to incorporate the changes made on a large scale. Of those who took the
interview survey, 100% viewed pods as a better environmental alternative to in-situ
bathrooms from an environmental perspective, but the knowledge of environmental
accreditation and procedure among industry professionals was poor, again not
giving enough quality in response. Despite arguments for and against pods in each
of the RQ categories, the results of the survey were all in favour of bathroom pods,
potentially highlighting that they may become even more of a major player in the
UK construction industry output.

For a relatively new industry, bathroom pods are growing on a large scale and
while some seeing them as the panacea to the construction industry (McCarney
and Gibb, 2012) may be a little optimistic at this stage, there is certainly demand
being filled in the student accommodation sector at the moment by pods. The
general consensus among those interviewed and surveyed was extremely
complimentary of OSM as a whole, highlighted by the NPS score of fifty-one
(Figure 12), fourteen higher than the national average. Although the project would
have benefitted from a larger data set, interview responses added substantial
qualitative depth to the quantitative data and formulated the basis of new
discussion that was not considered in the Literature, such as the implementation of
vesting and its effect on cash flow, and the simplicity of procurement with a pod
package as opposed to individual subcontract packages. In addition, while Pann

39
and Gibb (2009) gave a good comparison of the maintenance costs of bathroom
pods and in-situ bathrooms, other factors had never been compared before, and so
this study successfully contributed to the field by developing and widening the
knowledge base surrounding the growing phenomenon of OSP. The projected
growth of OSP will only seek to improve the production of bathroom pods in areas
that they are currently failing, namely quality in this study, and promote the further
use and development of pods as they continue to supply the demand for a cost
effective, time saving, environmentally sustainable alternative to traditional
bathrooms in the student accommodation sector.

40
6 RECOMMENDATIONS

Future research on the topic should start by conducting further data collection to
gain a larger sample size for more statistical significance and accuracy which will
allow more detailed conclusions to be drawn. Currently, the sample size is too
small to conduct any statistical analysis and test for correlation between the
variables, so a further extension of the survey would be beneficial.

In addition, a broader range of professionals would be targeted in the data

collection to gain a new insight in to the industry. Quantity Surveyors and
Designers would especially be picked due to their involvement in the early stages
of a project and knowledge in areas that might have been lacking information such
as environmental.

A final recommendation of future research would be to incorporate the bio-data in

to the more analysis and test for correlation between years of experience and how
they rate pods, for example. This was attempted in the study but as previously
mentioned the dataset was too small.

41
7. REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akintoye, A., Goulding, J. and Zawdie, G., 2012. Construction Innovation and
st
Process Improvement, 1 ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Akintoye, A. and Fitzgerald, E., 2000. A survey of current cost estimating practices
in the UK, Construction Management and Economics, 18(2), pp.161-172

Alexander, S. and Tasker, J.S., 2002. Modular Building Construction System,

United States Patent

Anderson, M. and Anderson, P., 2007. Prefab prototypes: site-specific design for
offsite construction. New York: Princeton Architectural Press

Antillon, E.I., Morris, M.R. and Gregor, W., 2014. A Value-Based Cost-Benefit
Analysis of Prefabrication Processes in the Healthcare Sector: A Case Study,
Proceedings IGLC-22, June 2014. Oslo, Norway [online] Available at:
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Antillon/publication/282778094_A_Valu
e-Based_Cost-
Benefit_Analysis_of_Prefabrication_Processes_in_the_Healthcare_Sector_A_Cas
e_Study/links/561c164108ae044edbb38e71.pdf> [Accessed 2 October 2016]

Azman, M.N.A., Ahamad, M.S.S. and Wan Hussin, W.M.A., 2012. Comparative
Study on Prefabrication Construction Process, International Surveying Research
Journal, 2(1), pp.45-58

Bahamon, A., 2002. PreFab: prefabricated and moveable architecture. New York:
Hearst Books

Blismas, N., 2007. Off-site manufacture in Australia: Current state and future
directions, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation for Icon.net
Pty Ltd., Brisbane

Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A., 2006. Benefit evaluation for off-site
production in construction, Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), pp.
121-130

Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A., 2006. Benefit evaluation for off-site
production in construction, Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), pp.
121-130

Blismas, N. G., Pendlebury, M., Gibb, A., & Pasquire, C. 2005. Constraints to the
use of off- site production on construction projects, Architectural Engineering and
Design Management, 1, 153-162

Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R., 2009. Driver, constraints and the future of offsite
manufacture in Australia, Construction Innovation, 9(1), pp.72-83

Boyd, N., Khalfan, M.M.A., Maqsood, T., 2013. Off-Site Construction of Apartment
Buildings, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 19(1), pp.51-57

Britten, N., 1995. Qualitative Research: Qualitative interviews in medical research,

Bmj, 311, pp.251-253

Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, A.P.L., 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2), pp.203

42
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), pp.235–244

Cook, S., 2013. A Field Study Investigation of the Time-Value Component of Stick-
Built vs Prefabricated Hospital Bathrooms. Wentworth Institute of Technology

Cox, A.G. and Piroozfar, A., 2011, February. Prefabrication as a source for co-
creation: an investigation into potentials for large scale prefabrication in the UK. In
Proc., 6th Nordic Conf. on Construction Economics and Organisation: Shaping the
Construction/Society Nexus

Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L., 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry,
Theory into Practice, 39(3), pp.124-131

Danby, A. and Painting, N., 2007. Interface problems with volumetric

prefabrication, In: Construction Management and Economics 25 year Conference,
16-18 Jul 2007, University of Reading, UK. [online] Available at:
<http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/5703/1/_%20cme25-model-v2%20-
%20Danby%20%26%20Painting%20revised%20%281%29.pdf> Accessed 5
October 2016

Dawes, J.G., 2008. Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of

Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5 Point, 7 Point and 10 Point Scales,
International Journal of Market Research, 51(1), pp.1-7

Dearnley, C., 2005 A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews, Nurse

Researcher, 13(1), pp.19-38
th
Denscombe, M., 2010. The Good Research Guide, 1 ed, Maidenhead: Open
University Press.

Denscombe, M., 2015. The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social
th
Research Projects, 5 ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press

Doran, D. & Giannakis, M., 2011. An examination of a modular supply chain: a

construction sector perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 16, pp.260 – 270

Eastman, C.M. and Sacks, R., 2008. Relative Productivity in the AEC Industries in
the US for On-Site and Off-Site Activities, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 134(7), pp.517-526

Egan, J., 1998. Rethinking Construction, The Report of the Construction Task
Force, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, London

Ermolli, S.R., The environmental benefits of the Off-Site Manufacturing, University

of Napoli, Naples Italy http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB11824.pdf Ermolli, S.,
2007. The environmental benefits of the off-site manufacturing. In CIB World
Conference.

Galesic, M. and Bosnjak, M., 2009. Effects of Questionnaire Length on

Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 73(2), pp.349-360

Gibb, A., 2001. Standardisation and pre-assemby – distinguishing myth from reality
using case study research, Construction Management Economics, 19, pp.307-315

Gibb, A. and Pendlebury, M., 2006. Buildoffsite: Promoting Construction Offsite,

London

43
Goad, P., Gollings, J., Clarke, P. and Snape, D., 2016. Monash University halls of
residence, Architecture Australia, 105(5), pp.104-112

Golafshani, N., 2003. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.

The Qualitative Report, Ontario: University of Toronto. (N. S. University o.
Document Number)

Goodier, C. and Gibb, A., 2004. The value of the UK market for offsite, Buildoffsite
[online] Available at: <http://www.voltimum.es/files/gb/others/7/200907302320.pdf>

Hall, M. and Tomkins, C., 2000. A cost quality analysis of a building project:
towards a complete methodology, University of Bath School of Management
,Working Paper Series,

Hancock, G.R. and Klockars, A.J., 1991. The effect of scale manipulations on
validity: targeting
frequency rating scales for anticipated performance levels, Applied Ergonomics,
22, pp.147-154

Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gui, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. and Duff,
A.R., 2005. Contributing factors in construction accidents, Applied Ergonomics,
36(4), pp.401-415

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), pp.953–966

Khavari, H., 2015. Investigation use of light prefabricated panels in buildings, World
Rural Observations, 7(3), pp.1-6

King, N. and Horrocks, C., 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research, London:

SAGE Publications

Laborde, M. and Sanvido, V. (1994), Introducing new process technologies into

construction companies, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
120(3), pp. 488-508

Lovell, H., 2003. Postnote, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, U.K,
Number 209, Dec. 2003

Lawson, M., Ogden, R. and Goodier, C., 2014. Design in Modular Construction,
Florida: Taylor & Francis Group

Mackova, D., Spisakova, M., Mesaros, P. and Mandicak, T., 2012. Case study of
construction waste reduction by modern methods of construction, Universal
Journal of Management & Information Technology, 1(1)

Manley, K. and Miller, W., 2014. Innovative design: developing strategies to

improve developer attitudes to sustainable housing. In World Sustainable Building
Conference (SB14), 28-30 October 2014, Barcelona, Spain

Martinez, S., Jardon, A., Navarro, J. M., and Gonzalez, P., 2008. Building
industrialization: Robotized assembly of modular products, Assembly Automation,
28(2), pp.134–142

McCarney, M. and Gibb, A., 2012. Interface management from an offsite

th
construction perspective In: Smith, S.D (Ed) Procs 28 Annual ARCOM
Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, 775-784 [online] Available at:<

44
http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2012-0775-
0784_McCarney_Gibb.pdf> Accessed 2 October 2016]

Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J., 2015. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
th
Implementation, 4 ed. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass

Mills, A., 2001. A systematic approach to risk management for construction,

Structural Survey, 19(5), pp.245-252
nd
Morton, R. and Ross, A., 2008. Construction UK: Introduction to the industry, 2
Ed. Oxford: Blackwell publishing, pp.152

Nadim, W. and Goulding, J.S., 1994. Offsite production: a model for building down
barriers: A European construction industry perspective, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 18(1), pp.82-101

Nadim, W. and Goulding, J.S., 2001. Offsite production in the UK: the way
forward? A UK construction industry perspective, Construction Innovation, 10(2),
pp.181-202

Nimako, S.G. and Bondinuba, F.K., 2012. Relative Importance of Student

Accommodation Quality in Higher Education, Current Research Journal of Social
Sciences, 5(4), pp.134-142

Now, N., 2010. Pods offer greater privacy and flexibility. Nursing Standard, 24(40),
pp.13

O’Cathain, A. and Thomas, K.J., 2004. "Any other comments?" Open questions on
questionnaires – a bane or a bonus to research?, BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 4(25), pp.1-7

Off Site Solutions, 2016, Factory Built Bathrooms. [online] Available at:
<https://www.offsitesolutions.com> [Accessed 20 December 2016]

Oladapo, A.A., 2007. A quantitative assessment of the cost and time variation
orders on construction projects, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology,
5(1), pp.35-48

Olsen, W.K., 2004. Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative

methods can really be mixed. In: Hussen, A., 2009. The use of Triangulation in
Social Sciences Research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined?
Journal of Comparative Social Work, 4(1), pp.2-3

Osrin, D. and Wornell, P., 2015. Backing Innovation, RICS Building Surveying
Journal

Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C. and Aouad, G., 2011. Design, process, and service
innovations to achieve sustainability, Management and Innovation for a
Sustainable Built Environment MISBE 2011, 20-23 June, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands

Pan, W., Gibb, A. and Dainty, A., 2005. Offsite Modern Methods of Construction in
Housebuilding: Perspectives and Practices of Leading UK Housebuilders [online]
Available at:<
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31957350/Offiste_modern_m
ethods_construction_housebuilding.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMT
NPEA&Expires=1476370953&Signature=s77uDjGqcOrm7RxzdRMGThgokHw%3
D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DModern_Methods_of_Construction_in_Hou
seb.pdf>

45
Pan, W., Gibb, A. and Sellars, A., 2008. Maintenance cost implications of utilizing
bathroom modules manufactured offsite, Construction Management and
Economics, 26(10), pp.1067-1077

Pan, W. and Gibb, A.G.F., 2009. Maintenance performance evaluation of offsite

and in situ bathrooms, Construction Innovation, 9(1), pp.7-21

Pasquire, C. & Gibb., A.F., 2002. Considerations for assessing the benefits of
standardisation and pre-assembly in construction, Journal of Financial
Management of Property Construction, 7(3), pp.151-161

Rowley, J., 2014. Designing and using research questionnaires, Management

Research Review, 37(3), pp.308-330

Ransley, J. and Ingram, H., 2001. What is “good” hotel design?, Facilities, 19(1/2),
pp.79-87

Rios, R. and Rios-Solis, Y.A. 2011. Just-in-Time Systems, New York: Springer-
Verlag

Rogan, A. L., Lawson, R. M., and Bates-Brkljac, N., 2000. Value and benefits
assessment of modular construction, Steel Construction Institute, U.K

Sarhan, S. and Fox, A., Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction in the UK

Construction Industry, The Built & Human Environment Review, 6, pp.1-8

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2009. Research Methods for Business
th
Students, 5 ed. Essex: Pearson Education

Scofield, R., Potangaroa, R. and Bell, P., 2009. Offsite Unplugged: The Potential
for Offsite Production in New Zealand. [online] Available at: <http://12219-
portal.memberconnex.com/PDFs/CSA/Offsite%20Unplugged.pdf> [Accessed 13
December 2016]
th
Silverman, D., 2013. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook, 4 ed.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Smith, R.E., 2011. Prefab architecture: A guide to modular design and

construction. John Wiley & Sons.

Tang, W., Duffield. C.F. and Young, D.M., 2006. Partnering Mechanism in
Construction: An Empirical Study of the Chinese Construction Industry, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), pp.217-229

Taylor, M., 2010. A definition and valuation of the UK offsite construction sector,
Construction Management & Economics, 8, pp.855-896

Tennant, S., McCarney. M. and Tong, M., 2012. Re-engineering the Construction
Supply Chain: Transferring on-site activity, off-site. 28th. Annual ARCOM
Conference, 3-5 September 2012, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Association
of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 2, pp. 739-749

Taylor, M., Fisher, A. and Wamuziri, S.C., 2009. A comparison of modern methods
th
of bathroom construction: A project case study. 25 Annual ARCOM Conference,
Nottingham. 1173 [online] Available at:
<http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/7756/1/Taylor_et_al_MMC_bathroom_cons
truction_27052009.pdf> [Accessed 2 October 2016]

46
Winch, G.M., 2000. Institutional reform in British construction: partnering and
private finance, Building Research & Information, 28(2), pp.141-155

Whiting, L.S., 2008. Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers,

Nursing Standard, 22(3), pp.35-40

Wrap NI, 2016. Waste reduction potential of offsite manufactured pods. [online]
Available at: <http://www.wrapni.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/PODS%20-
%20Full%20case%20study.pdf> [Accessed 27 November 2016]

Zayed, T. and Liu, Y., 2014. Cash flow modelling for construction projects,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 21(2), pp.170-189

Zimmer, K., 2002. Supply chain coordination with uncertain just-in-time delivery,
International Journal of Production Economics, 77(1), pp.1-15

47
8. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Survey Questions Template

Past Experience
Main Questions Additional Questions Clarifying questions
• When was this?
• Can you expand a little on this?
• Where was this?
• Can you tell me anything else?
• Bathroom pods are a relatively
new concept, can you remember • Were members of the project • Can you give me some
the first project you used team apprehensive about using examples?
bathroom pods on? pods for the first time?

• Did the project run smoothly?

• What if any, were the key

advantages?
• Since then you have been
involved with bathroom pods on
other projects, can you tell me • What, if any, were the key
your overall experience of pods? disadvantages?

• As a result of those experiences,

have you preferred projects using
traditionally built bathrooms or
pods?

Cost
Main Questions Additional Questions Clarifying questions
• In terms of cost, do you consider • If only primary costs are
bathroom pods or traditionally mentioned, ask about
built bathrooms to be more maintenance costs?
effective? • Can you expand a little on this?
• Have you found bathroom pods • What was the value of the
to be effective when sticking to a saving/overrun? • Can you tell me anything else?
desired budget, or have costs • Did this have implications on the • Can you give me some
overrun? overall project budget? examples?
• Off-site manufacturing practises • Have these changes made you
have progressed greatly over the less likely to use bathroom pods
last few years, have you seen an on future projects?
increase or decrease in bathroom
pod prices, or have they remained
relatively stagnant?
OR
• Have these changes made you
more likely to use bathroom pods
on future projects?

48


Past Experience
Main Questions Additional Questions Clarifying questions
• When was this?
• Can you expand a little on this?
• Where was this?
• Can you tell me anything else?
• Bathroom pods are a relatively
new concept, can you remember • Were members of the project • Can you give me some
the first project you used team apprehensive about using examples?
bathroom pods on? pods for the first time?

• Did the project run smoothly?

• What if any, were the key

advantages?
• Since then you have been
involved with bathroom pods on
other projects, can you tell me • What, if any, were the key
your overall experience of pods? disadvantages?

• As a result of those experiences,

have you preferred projects using
traditionally built bathrooms or
pods?

Cost
Main Questions Additional Questions Clarifying questions
• In terms of cost, do you consider • If only primary costs are
bathroom pods or traditionally mentioned, ask about
built bathrooms to be more maintenance costs?
effective? • Can you expand a little on this?
• Have you found bathroom pods • What was the value of the
to be effective when sticking to a saving/overrun? • Can you tell me anything else?
desired budget, or have costs • Did this have implications on the • Can you give me some
overrun? overall project budget? examples?
• Off-site manufacturing practises • Have these changes made you
have progressed greatly over the less likely to use bathroom pods
last few years, have you seen an on future projects?
increase or decrease in bathroom
pod prices, or have they remained
relatively stagnant?
OR
• Have these changes made you
more likely to use bathroom pods
on future projects?

49


Past Experience
Main Questions Additional Questions Clarifying questions
• When was this?
• Can you expand a little on this?
• Where was this?
• Can you tell me anything else?
• Bathroom pods are a relatively
new concept, can you remember • Were members of the project • Can you give me some
the first project you used team apprehensive about using examples?
bathroom pods on? pods for the first time?

• Did the project run smoothly?

• What if any, were the key

advantages?
• Since then you have been
involved with bathroom pods on
other projects, can you tell me • What, if any, were the key
your overall experience of pods? disadvantages?

• As a result of those experiences,

have you preferred projects using
traditionally built bathrooms or
pods?

Cost
Main Questions Additional Questions Clarifying questions
• In terms of cost, do you consider • If only primary costs are
bathroom pods or traditionally mentioned, ask about
built bathrooms to be more maintenance costs?
effective? • Can you expand a little on this?
• Have you found bathroom pods • What was the value of the
to be effective when sticking to a saving/overrun? • Can you tell me anything else?
desired budget, or have costs • Did this have implications on the • Can you give me some
overrun? overall project budget? examples?
• Off-site manufacturing practises • Have these changes made you
have progressed greatly over the less likely to use bathroom pods
last few years, have you seen an on future projects?
increase or decrease in bathroom
pod prices, or have they remained
relatively stagnant?
OR
• Have these changes made you
more likely to use bathroom pods
on future projects?

50

Appendix 2 Key points from interview table
First project you used • About 2005/2006
pods on? • Healthcare project in south of Scotland
• 2010
• Residential tower in London
• German manufactured pods of varying standards
• Cheaper even though from Germany
• Program time saved
• 2002
• Mid 2000’s
• Central London the prelims are quite high and had a
lot of hoists and quite a lot of scaffold so gave an
opportunity to save a few weeks of program
Did it run smoothly? • Pretty painless but the odd issue.
• They were positioned out of level and so the doors
didn’t fit – remedial works by carpenter
• Easy to manage as a complete package rather than
loads of trades on site at the same time
• Yes, pretty smoothly
• From what I remember
• A few snagging items but they had teams in the
country to come and snag off pods should there be
issues
• Some of the materials needed to be shipped –
missing items and long lead-in items
• E.g. replacement toilet pans, a few cracked tiles
Any more • Loads in the last 5 years
involvement with • Bigger projects
pods & Overall • Student accommodation is flying at the moment
experience of pods and vast majority of these use bathroom pods
• Really like them – far easier to manage
• Like a block of lego on site and just have to make
sure installed correctly, at the right time and in the
right place and that all our joining trades are done
correctly
• If anything is wrong with the pod, we just go back to
the pod supplier rather than messing around with
different subcontract packages
• One point of contact and it’s easier to get to the
bottom of whose fault it is
• A number of projects
• Mainly student accommodation where there is a
lower spec and it is GRP so pods are a lot smaller
• Built offsite so can be built ahead of program which
offers a benefit of saving time in prelims and things
on-site
• Pods easier as less trades to manage, less issues on-
site, less program issues
• Traditional much more likely to affect program and
more risk of accidents as more bodies onsite
• Only on-site to test and commission them
• A couple in the last few years
Disadvantages of • Vesting - Pay for materials stored offsite. If program
bathroom pods slips the pod manufacturer will still go ahead and

51
 build pods to the original program and then vest
pods or pay for storage
• Deciding specification very early on
• Independently tested when on-site and you are
reliant on factory workforce to build them
• If there are leaks (in the unlikely event you do get
leaks), there are sometimes problems because
obviously some of the units will be sealed, and if
they haven’t got access to all you can only access
the back of the pod through the riser or whatever
Prefer using • Pod is far easier to manage in terms of time and
traditionally built programme
bathrooms or pods? • Something nice about having the certainty of a pod
being delivered which can take the pressure off
when so many other things to manage
• Pods
• As a PMy ou don’t get much of a say as its done at a
higher commercial level but I certainly wouldn’t not
use pods because the issues are small and
infrequent and massive time-saving and cost saving
with pods over traditional
Cost – pod or trad? • Costs more likely to overrun with traditional
• Pods spec is nailed down early and built ahead of
programme normally
• Some manufacturers build & deliver JIT but a most
build in advance
• Variations tend to crop up early in the process and
get resolved before the issue occurs on site
• More cost certainty with offsite
• A lot of clients talk to bathroom pod manufacturers
before the MC and so spec/cost can be nailed down
before MC involvement
• Pod as built offsite
• London particularly as cost of labour higher
• Stick with key manufacturers we have worked with
in the past (partnering?)
• Some high-end resi people prefer traditional
• Pods becoming more and more popular
• Delivery expense bad when not taking full loads

Pod price • Increase minimal - everyone’s costs have gone up

• Slight increase – 5%
• Around 5%
Issues easy to • Always a possibility of disputes
manage or disputes • Usually because of poor communication which
regular? allows costs to increase without both parties being
kept informed
• Who is at fault when something goes wrong
• Student accommodation project and the anti-slip
finish on the showers was peeling off. Didn’t want
to pay the invoice but the pod manufacturer tried to
blame the shower tray supplier. All got sorted in the
end but made the relationship a bit tense. Same
principle as buying a ford Mondeo and the
handbrake snaps after 2 days

52
 • If there are issues can be difficult to manage as you
have to go through the pod or get the pod
manufacturer back because it is a specialist item
• Some normal plumbers who aren’t experienced
with pods don’t necessarily want to touch them, or
they are not familiar with the construction method
or how things are fixed
• Once achieved PC it goes to the after-care team
who manage the building
• May be finishing-off items where asked to come
back and fix leaks or problems
• Confusion over connections of pod and M&E
pipework – whose fault? Grey area
• Dispute – pod manufacturer supplied the doors ,
specification changed and high value change and a
large dispute on who paid – just as easy on trad
though
• Pods left unopen between delivery and handover –
any damage in this period and it’s hard to prove
who cause it e.g. cracked mirror
Cleaning and • Far easier for pods than traditional
maintenance • Everything can be wiped down and is very easy to
clean
• No complex shapes or corners due to the way GRP
has to be moulded
• Fixed shower heads cause cleaners to moan
• Steel frame not many differences to traditional as
tiles, grout etc
• GRP far more simple to clean, wall face is smooth
and tile effect can be included which doesn’t
contain grout lines but they are moulted
• Wash and wipe finish
• Popular for students (filthy!)
Quality? • Traditional would just edge it
• More skilled tradespeople
• Damage by students
• Depends on manufacturer but one reason they are
cheaper is less skilled tradespeople
Any issues with pods • Times when it is obviously damaged in transit or
delivered to site with loaded incorrectly
internal or external • Can also damage them when unloading and
damage that requires installing – unlikely and rare
repair? Snagging? • Pods delivered on bearers and strapped down
• Can stick forks through a pod
• Pods fairly hardy. Seen one dropped on its head and
all that was broken was a mirror and a bit of GRP
repair. Pod supplier knows repairers to contact
• GRP excellent in timber frame buildings that can
warp. GRP moves whereas tiles ping off the wall and
grout lines crack
• Occasionally but not a big issue
• Pods delivered that have had their connections
damaged in transit such as water pipes and waste
pipes

53
 • However, these are often protected with baton and
wood
• Mirrors susceptible but not often

• 50/50
• Best way to avoid is working with manufacturers
you know and trust (partnering)
• Tight programs mean that pods can be delivered to
site with things missing such as radiators, mirrors
etc due to long-lead items not being in stock
• Can be the same with traditional
Whole life • Pods – easier to maintain and keep in GWO
environmental – pod • Riser areas to access all the connections and access
or traditional? points
• Never thought about it
• Need to look at carbon footprint and environmental
sustainability of delivering pods BUT 10 a load for
GRP student
• BUT a lot of items are sourced from outside the UK
and come on separate deliveries etc so pods may be
better from delivery perspective
• Pods generally outlast traditional by 5-10 years,
especially GRP
Best to use when • Wouldn’t know without looking in to it but pods
passing • Pros and cons to both
environmental • Building offsite definitely reduces waste.
accreditations and • A lot of waste on site through wrapping and
criteria?
protection pods are sent with
• GRP isn’t great for the environment BUT went to a
pod manufacturer for a pre-start meeting and good
systems. Technical but Have to monitor parts per
million level and they were at way below acceptable
so that’s good
• Traditional – different trades people travelling to
and from site every day, deliveries to site of all
components
• Easier to hit targets, especially in student – FSC
timber and then BREEAM for flow restrictions etc so
much easier in pods as can be incorporated in
design and then it’s the pod manufacturers
responsibility
• Way easier to include for BREEAM
• FSC timber needed sometimes
• Not just environmental but uni wants to keep flow
rates low for costs etc
Environmental • Wrapping – removing it and filling skips with a few
concerns? pods worth of wrapping
• Use of cranes to lift a finished package is really neat
and tidy and definitely the way for the future
• Too much plastic used
• Layer of DPM, then wrapped and double wrapped in
a polypropylene material, plus maybe a fire sleeve
• Seems excessive but necessary to shelter the pods
from elements when stored outside

54
 In what instance is • If you want a lot of variations
traditionally built • Project a couple of years ago that had over 20
better than a pod? variations and while it was fine it felt pointless
• The whole point of pods is to achieve high quality
and when the production lines are re-tooling this
definitely has an effect on quality
• That’s why student accommodation projects are so
suited to GRP, because you only have a couple of
varying pod types which offsite manufacture is best
suited to
• Anything too bespoke or with varying degrees of
complexity and types will lean me towards
traditional
• Large luxury high spec or residential
• Can be too large to fit on a load or will be so big only
1 or 2 can be delivered which can become very
costly when paying for multiple deliveries for not
many pods

55

Appendix 3 UCEM Research Ethics: Information Sheet

Dear Sir or Madam:

UCEM Research Ethics: Information Sheet

Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research is to assess whether the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages when using bathroom pods in the
student accommodation sector.
Aims of the Research
The research aims to give a reasoned assessment of both
traditionally built bathrooms and bathroom pods, developing a
reasoned judgement on which is most successful for
implementation in the student accommodation sector. The
research objectives are:
1. What are the time implications of bathroom pods in comparison
to traditionally built bathrooms?
2. What are the cost implications of bathroom pods in comparison
to traditionally built bathrooms?
3. What are the quality implications of bathroom pods in
comparison to traditionally built bathrooms?
4. What are the environmental implications of bathroom pods in
comparison to traditionally built bathrooms?
5. What are the experiences of main contractors (teams) and
clients when using bathroom pods?
How you are involved
You are attending and partaking in an interview to give your
personal experience on bathroom pods and any notable
advantages and disadvantages you have encountered since first
using them.
Possible Ramifications
All data is private and there are no possible ramifications.

It is your right at any time before or during this interview to stop

responding and leave. All answers given/data is anonymised and/or
does not deal with critical or personal data. Nothing you say will use
a company name or your own personal name. Your welfare, privacy
and dignity is paramount and this will be remembered at all times.

Yours sincerely

…………………..

56
57