Modular Versus Conventional Construction: An Analysis of Cost and Benefits via a Case Study

Abstract

This paper presents a broad analysis of the cost and benefits of the two main construction methods currently in use in North America––the conventional construction and the modular construction. The main goal is to provide a cost estimate of the implications of both construction methods for low-rise apartment buildings as well as to determine which one is more cost-effective. The methodology consists of a qualitative analysis that outlines the benefits of each construction method over the other, and a quantitative analysis that compares the cost of the finished building per square foot. Both analyses are conducted by evaluating a case study of a five-story low-rise senior residential building with similar characteristics, one built using conventional method and the other built hypothetically with modules. The benefits identified for the conventional low-rise building include later design changes, easy to understand for investors, less logistics, and easy to manage. On the other hand, the benefits for modular low-rise are higher quality control, less on-site work, and less on-site trades. The quantitative results show that the modular construction method is only marginally more cost-effective than the conventional construction method under the same circumstances. Through the proposed method, the contractors and developers can assess the cost-effectiveness of the two construction methods for low-rise residential apartment projects to make informed decisions.KeywordsConventional constructionModular constructionConstruction costsPrefabricationDecision making