ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 515

Discussion and conclusions
Despite of the fact that these housing schemes are designed for a standard household of a couple with children, a great diversity was found in household profile. Moreover, even though these
housing programs are conceived to fulfil the needs of low-income families, usually treated as a
homogeneous demand, variables representing income and level of education were found to be
dramatically different among households in both programs. This may represent a diversity of life
styles, which is not being considered. Hence, with such diversity, incremental costs to achieve differentiation may not imply in costumer dissatisfaction. The nature of customization requirements
was found to be similar in both programs. Common modifications after occupancy are the extension of dwelling for a barbecue place or other leisure purposes, as well as the personalization of
finishing materials.
Considering the findings on major customization requirements, as well as the different practical approaches found in the literature, it was found that mass customization could be adopted
through three different approaches: (a) Custom tailor or combination of components to provide
more adequate spaces for the diversity of life styles; (b) Customization through additional work,
in which the companies could offer personalized finishing materials or the addition of complementary elements, such as barbecues of safety systems; (c) Enable customization during use by
delivering houses without finishing materials and/or providing instructions to add or change elements in the future.
However, by analysing the programs’ developing processes, it was observed that in spite of the
opportunities to adopt mass customization in this context, there are many barriers to overcome.
Regarding general aspects, it was observed that the CCA context provides better supporting elements: (a) most activities are performed by the construction company; (b) there is high competition among companies in this market segment, thus high susceptibility to demand risks; (c) the
company that develops the product has a close contact with costumers; (b) the company has a
system for capturing costumers information to feedback the development process; (c) dwellings
can be priced differently, according to size and number of bedrooms; (d) dwellings are produced
in small batches and delivered to costumers; (e) there is a major concern to compete in the market
and to develop attractive products.
Conversely, in the PAR program, the development process is highly fragmented and mainly driven
by governmental rules. In this context, a larger number of stakeholders perform activities in a less
integrated manner. For instance, the company that develops the product does not have any contact with final users. It is the city government and the financial institution that selects and gives
support to households throughout the process.
Along with the fragmentation, the activities are also heavily based on rules. Thus, Companies that
are developing the housing schemes tend to limit themselves on following those rules and aim
at lower costs rather than focusing on costumers expectations. A major distinction between the
two programs also contributes for this fact. Differently from the CCA case, companies in the PAR
program are not as susceptible to demand variations, as such demand is previously analysed by
the government, which takes the responsibility of it. Further findings regarding the opportunities
and challenges are summarized in Table 3.

Opportunities and challenges to mass customize low-income housing in Brazil

513