Systemised Design Group: Advancing DfMA for Smarter, More Efficient Construction
Housing affordability and construction efficiency are pressing challenges in Australia, and Systemised Design Group is tackling them head-on with Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA). Specializing in structural engineering and Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), the firm focuses on practical, scalable solutions that improve build quality while reducing cost and construction time.
In this interview, we explore how DfMA is shaping multi-storey housing, the gaps in industry understanding, and what’s needed to accelerate its adoption. Systemised Design Group shares insights on early collaboration with manufacturers, refining modular design, and how a more systematic approach to construction can help deliver better housing at scale.
Can you share some insights into your career journey and what led you to specialize in Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA)?
I am a Chartered Professional Structural Engineer and been practicing DfMA for the past 10 years.
The first project that introduced me to DfMA was working on a four-storey apartment building in 2015. The intention was to reduce the construction programme by manufacturing the apartment modules off-site (in the factory) while the basement was being excavated on-site. For quality assurance, a trial assembly of the modules was conducted in the carpark of the factory to check for any errors or tolerance issues before it was enclosed.
The four storeys of modules were stacked in less than two days (photo above).
I was instantly hooked!
I also loved the refinement in design and collaboration with the manufacture that resolved construction issues during the design phase.
I am still working closely with the same team on new projects 10 years later.
How has the concept of DfMA evolved in Australia over the past decade, and what role has Systemised Design Group played in this evolution?
The concept of DfMA has evolved slowly due to a lack of understanding and knowledge sharing. There is still low recognition of what DfMA means worldwide, yet alone in Australia.
The lack in understanding the benefits of DfMA has lead to a lot of manufacturers setting up their own design teams to work to their systems. However, this approach has lead to limited innovation, limited experience and a limit on the type of manufactured buildings that have been constructed to date. Hence why a lot of modular buildings have “a look” and are limited to single or double-storey.
It appears to me that there are still only a handful of design consultants who understand the difference between coordination and collaboration. They need to understand that:
– Collaboration means all parties working together at the same time.
– Coordination means taking turns of working on the same project (lots of back-and-forth).
Teams that are good at using DfMA appreciate the need for collaboration of not just designers, but manufacturers, logistics and assembly teams from concept to completion.
The most common use of successful DfMA to date is when design teams have engaged building manufacturers to collaborate with the design team from a very early stage, so the building can be designed to suit their system – as opposed to developing bespoke framing for the building.
Systemised Design Group are playing a role in the evolution of DfMA by:
– Sharing knowledge on innovation by presenting at industry events (prefabAUS, seminars, etc.)
– highlighting the benefits in public domain (LinkedIn, magazine articles, university lectures)
– highlighting the benefits over traditional construction (less errors, reduced cost and time, etc).
Your company focuses on multi-storey building projects. What attracted you to applying DfMA principles in the housing sector, and what specific advantages does it offer?
We need more housing and for construction costs to stabilise! The current approach to using traditional construction is clearly not delivering the quantity or quality required and their associated cost estimates are not accurate.
Applying DfMA principles to the housing sector will at the very least, document a more efficient structure (if offsite construction is not used, then traditional construction will still be able to utilise the regularity in grids, spans and heights to reduce waste and complexity).
In multi-storey apartment buildings, floor plans above level 1 are usually replicated.
The inherent adoption of the same layout multiple times, leads to standardised frames, wet areas, etc..
Refining the standard frames leads to modular layouts and efficient use of prefabrication (offsite).
The efficiency gained leads to reduced construction program, costs and early return on investment.
The effectiveness of the above combination addresses the need to deliver more affordable housing.
From a design perspective, what do you see as the key benefits of using DfMA in Multi-Storey Housing, particularly in terms of cost, sustainability, and construction speed?
Six storeys of housing on one site utilises one sixth of the land compared to six separate dwellings.
That’s six less roofs and footings, six less driveways and less urban sprawl. It gets more efficient with more storeys, hence the reason why various State Governments are implementing incentives to develop more mid-rise housing close to transport hubs.
The use of DfMA in multi-storey housing removes the need for each new building to start from scratch. Buildings can utilise the same construction system, but be adaptable to suit the site, environment, neighbourhood character, setbacks, etc.
DfMA in multi-storey housing enables greater predictability in cost and program.
DfMA also compliments sustainability initiatives. The consistency in building layout developed in collaboration with lean manufacturing principles reduces waste of materials and energy.
It also stimulates the ability to achieve net-zero carbon by documenting the disassembly of the building (DfMA-D) which allows for a whole lifecycle carbon assessment to be conducted.
With DfMA gaining momentum, where do you see the future of this approach in Australia’s construction industry? What changes or advancements do you expect to see in the next 5-10 years?
The public will have noticed an increase in the use of terms like Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), modular, prefab, kit-of-parts, panels, 3D printing, etc… in the media. However, a lot of construction companies and trade providers don’t understand how it works, don’t know how to implement these practices, do not invest in training and/or only feel comfortable doing what they have always done.
I believe that over the next 5 to 10 years, the public interest will eventually drive the construction industry to increase the use of MMC (traditional construction for new buildings will be seen as old-fashioned, slow and expensive).
In addition, the sheer number of houses to be built in the next 20 – 30 years cannot be delivered using traditional construction techniques (the industry has not been keeping up with the population increase for at least the last 20 years). Theoretically, every building company has ample work in the pipeline. I expect that progressive building companies will see MMC as a competitive edge – a way to construct a majority of houses (not all) using offsite construction to have greater control over their projects due to the increased predictability.
I also believe that funding of projects with a preference for MMC over traditional construction will increase. The recent announcement by PrefabAUS and CBA regarding improved access to funding of prefab buildings by qualified manufacturers will accelerate the implementation of MMC on building projects in Australia over the next 5 years.
Increased adoption of MMC can not start without increased adoption of DfMA. Over the next 5 years, we require significant training for our registered professional architects, engineers and certifiers to collaborate and not just coordinate in design. The increased adoption of AI, together with parametric and generative design capabilities will enable more designs to be considered in a shorter period of time compared to conventional design practices. The continued improvement of digital libraries and implantation of 4D and 5D will also become the norm.
Competition from international MMC companies is increasing and they are already delivering significant building components to the Australian market. Over the next 5 to 10 years, Australian Governments will need to continue to provide incentives to increase the capability of local housing manufacturers. Many building materials such as glass, fixtures and linings are already imported, but the volume of fully assembled building components is increasing. Local building companies need to have a short term plan for implementing MMC to maintain control over their local supply chain to avoid issues related to imports, such as non-compliance, poor quality, currency fluctuation, change in supplier priorities and shipping delays.
In your experience, how does Australia’s adoption of DfMA compare to other countries? Are there international developments or trends we could adopt to accelerate DfMA implementation here?
Australian companies that use DfMA / MMC look to international players for inspiration. When I speak with international colleagues, they look to Australia for inspiration – I think we should continue to share knowledge with transparency for continued improvement across the board.
The most successful companies in other countries all appear to have a solid pipeline of work and clearly mandate their standardised approach, rather than making changes on each new project.
The UK Government have instigated several measures of MMC to improve productivity in construction. I believe that their platforms approach to construction (P-DfMA) has significant potential to deliver efficiencies by utilising standardised building systems across various sectors while recording data from each of those buildings to set benchmarks on quality, cost, time, etc. This allows for continuous improvement to be recognised easily and shared on future projects.
Can you talk about a project where Systemised Design Group successfully utilized DfMA techniques? What challenges did you encounter, and how did you overcome them?
We were engaged as a DfMA Consultant for a client that was developing a business case for the funding of two new buildings on two separate sites in the same city – one seven storeys and the other five storeys. They specifically requested mass timber framing for both sites.
We provided advice on the conceptual block-and-stack models to show that consistency could be achieved in the grids, floor-to-floor heights and removal of complex cantilevers.
The structural engineering consultant was hesitant to provide advice on concept framing sizes at this early stage due to industry precedent of changes associated with non-DfMA projects. However, the efficient framing layout allowed for the design of member sizes to be streamlined.
The feedback from the project architect was that the implementation of DfMA provided guardrails for development of their design to progress with less ambiguity and allowed more time to be resourced on bespoke areas of the building.
Finally, how can DfMA help address the housing affordability crisis in Australia, and what role do you envision for your company in this effort?
One way to address the housing affordability crisis, is to improve construction productivity to:
(a) lower the cost of building a home and,
(b) increase the number of homes being developed each year.
Housing developers need to treat the design phase as an investment and encourage DfMA to control the method of construction. Plan construction during design to improve its productivity.
Systemised Design Group are contributing to the sharing of knowledge on DfMA and MMC in Australia by presenting at industry events and providing insights on publications and lectures.
We believe that designing buildings with DfMA will help address the housing affordability crisis by:
– utilising techniques to standardise framing
– reducing the complexity in building layout and construction techniques
– documenting consistency in connections to familiarise the assembly process that will ultimately reduce the rate of errors / defects
– using standard industry building grids to reduce waste of material
– encouraging safer work practices by documenting for construction offsite in controlled environments.
– using data to create benchmarks that leads to predictability in cost and program.
