A supply chain perspective of prefabricated housebuilding diffusion in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Globally, prefabrication in housebuilding has evolved as an innovative approach to attain sustainability and affordability. However, the SC, including non-producers and producers, of prefabricated housebuilding projects is still not perceptually aligned, hindering innovation diffusion. This paper investigates the contemporary industry perspective on PHB for conceptualisation, market share and growth, innovation diffusion and the producer's role in the context of New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory qualitative research design was chosen to learn the perceptual stance of the industry. A semi-structured survey was conducted, followed by interviews with selected supply chain participants, who were producers and non-producers and had relevant experience in the PHB industry. Findings This study reports the common terminologies used by supply chain members, with justification and explanation. Further, the perceived market share and growth of the PHB industry are obtained and compared with subsequent studies to determine the capability and capacity. The perception of the diffusion of PHB by type is reported to portray the overall trend of the industry. In the last, the role of producers as the suppliers of PHB projects is investigated to establish the stakeholder positional criticality. Practical implications This study can help researchers and practitioners gain insight into the PHB industry from a multi-dimensional perspective. This study is a potential first step to formalise the policy, programme, strategies and action plan for the uptake of the PHB in the New Zealand. Originality/value PHB diffusion in the supply chain perspective, considering multi-dimensional aspects, has not been considered in previous studies as government agencies produce most of the literature. This academic research establishes the theoretical linkage towards PHB diffusion and reports the current status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".