Introduction

In order to increase living standards, housing is essential. More than a billion people lack proper housing, and international human rights law stipulates that housing be accessible everywhere. Conditions in overpopulated slums and unregulated areas can be life-threatening1. Uganda faces a significant housing shortage due to rapid urban growth, increasing population, and limited construction capacity. Recent data show that urban areas like Kampala, Wakiso, and Entebbe have over 1 million housing units missing2,3. Informal settlements are expanding because of high costs and slow traditional building processes. This issue has led the construction industry to seek faster, cheaper, and high-quality solutions. Offsite construction, which involves making building parts in factories before assembling them on-site, has emerged as a promising method. Its potential benefits include shorter construction times, better quality control, environmental savings, and lower costs4,5,6,7. However, there are ongoing concerns about the durability, structural stability, and long-term performance of offsite housing, especially in Uganda, where regulations and technical standards are still developing8,9.

The main issue this study addresses is the lack of a systematic way to evaluate the quality and durability of offsite housing in Uganda. Without standard assessment tools, problems like quality differences, early material failure, and tenant dissatisfaction go unmeasured. This hampers policy making and industry improvements10. This study aims to evaluate the quality and durability of offsite housing in Uganda using a Composite Quality Index (CQI). Specific objectives include: (i) identifying important quality indicators, (ii) examining differences in stakeholder perceptions, and (iii) creating an overall quality measure to assist policymakers, developers, and practitioners. The research questions focus on which indicators most impact perceived quality, whether professional roles affect these perceptions, and how the CQI can shape housing policy and its implementation. This study is unique as the first application of the CQI to the Ugandan housing sector, contributing to Vision 2040 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals by promoting affordable, safe, and durable housing3,11.

Globally, offsite construction has been widely adopted in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia. This approach speeds up project delivery, improves accuracy, and reduces material waste4,12,13. Despite these benefits, there are still challenges regarding long-term durability, stakeholder acceptance, and integration with traditional construction methods14,15. In Africa, countries like South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya are exploring offsite methods to tackle urban housing shortages. Studies indicate that these methods can save costs and time, but concerns remain about material quality, limited technical skills, and inconsistent regulatory oversight8,9,16. Stakeholder views, especially from engineers, contractors, and end-users, have a significant impact on adoption17,18.

In Uganda, offsite housing initiatives driven by government programs and public-private partnerships, including NHCC projects, have gained attention. However, issues like quality inconsistencies and limited durability persist due to weak regulatory frameworks, inadequate inspections, and inconsistent construction standards19,20,21. While earlier research mainly focuses on project outcomes or technical details, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of housing quality using combined indicators. Various methods, such as the Relative Importance Index (RII) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), help prioritize key performance indicators22. The Composite Quality Index (CQI) has been used internationally to merge structural integrity, environmental resistance, material durability, finishes, and user satisfaction into a single evaluation metric23,24. However, CQI has not yet been applied in Uganda. This study aims to fill that gap by adapting the CQI framework to fit the Ugandan context. It combines expert assessments, material testing, and user surveys to offer a systematic, comparable, and useful measure of offsite housing quality. This will help shape policy, practice, and future research.

Materials and methods

This study used a quantitative research design to evaluate stakeholder perceptions of offsite-constructed housing quality in Uganda. The methodology is divided into three sections: survey development, data collection, and data analysis.

  1. i.

    Survey Development: Key quality indicators, such as structural integrity, environmental resistance, estimated lifespan, and durability compared to traditional housing, were identified through a thorough literature review and consultations with engineers, architects, and construction managers25,35. A structured questionnaire was created and tested with 30 respondents to ensure clarity, reliability, and validity. Reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.82) and composite reliability (CR = 0.85), showing acceptable internal consistency26. The final instrument included Likert-scale items ranging from 1 (excellent) to 3 (poor) to evaluate each indicator.

  2. ii.

    Data Collection: The target population included stakeholders involved in offsite construction in Uganda, such as engineers, architects, contractors, and homeowners. The inclusion criteria required professionals or homeowners to have at least one year of experience or residence in offsite housing projects28,29; respondents without enough experience were excluded. A sample size of 384 was determined using Cochran’s formula to achieve a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error27,30. Stratified random sampling ensured representation across stakeholder groups. Questionnaires were given in-person and online between March and May 2025, achieving a response rate of 92%. Demographic details, including gender, age, education, years of experience, role, and organization type, were recorded as shown in Table 1.

  3. iii.

    Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics summarized the data, including mean (xˉ) and standard deviation (SD) for each indicator26.

$$\:\bar{{x}}=\frac{\text{1}}{\text{n}}\sum\:_{\text{i}\text{=0}}^{\text{n}}{\text{x}}_{\text{i}}$$
(1)

where xi​ represents each individual rating and n is the number of respondents.

A weighted Composite Quality Index (CQI) was calculated to obtain an overall quality score using the formula(2):

$$\:CQI\text{=}\sum\:_{\text{j}\text{=1}}^{\text{m}}wj\times\:\bar{x}j$$
(2)

where wj is the assigned weight for indicator j, xˉj is the mean score of indicator j, and m is the number of indicators10. To assess differences in perceptions across stakeholder roles, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the F-statistic formula:

$$\:\text{F\:=\:}\frac{\text{Between}\text{-}\text{group}\text{}\text{variance}\text{}}{\text{W}\text{ithin-}\text{group}\text{}\text{variance}}$$
(3)

where MS means mean squares. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the dimensional of the data and extract principal components that explain the variance. The eigenvalues and loading from PCA identified key factors that shape quality perceptions. Correlation coefficients (r) measured relationships between stakeholder roles and indicator scores using Pearson’s formula11:

$$\:r = \frac{{\sum {(X - \bar{X})} ({\text{Y} - \bar{Y}})}}{{\surd \sum \: (X - \bar{X})2\sum \: (Y - \bar{Y})2}}$$
(4)

All statistical analyses were conducted using [statistical software, e.g., SPSS, R]. Ethical approval and informed consent were secured before data collection.

Table 1 Respondent Profile.
Full size table

Results and discussion

Table 2 Stakeholder perceptions of key quality Indicators.
Full size table

Table 2 presents a summary of stakeholder views on key quality indicators of offsite-constructed housing in Uganda, based on responses from 384 participants. The data includes mean scores, standard deviations, and the percentage of respondents who gave favorable ratings in the top two scale points. Structural integrity and durability both received a mean score of 2.02, with over 60% of respondents rating them positively. Environmental resistance stood out as the strongest aspect, achieving a mean score of 1.88 and nearly 69% favorable perception. Although 25% reported structural defects, the overall results suggest that offsite housing is viewed positively regarding quality and durability.

Table 3 Weighted composite quality index (CQI).
Full size table

The CQI of 2.01 combines the four indicators, with weights based on their importance as revealed in Table 3. Structural integrity has the highest weight (0.30), followed by environmental resistance (0.25), which contribute most to the overall quality score. A CQI close to 2 means that offsite housing is generally seen as equal to or better than traditional construction. This composite measure is useful for policymakers and developers. It offers a single quality measure that includes both technical and perceived evaluations, allowing for tracking and improving quality over time.

Table 4 ANOVA of perceived quality across stakeholder Roles.
Full size table

ANOVA in Table 4 examined whether stakeholder roles affected quality perceptions. Only environmental resistance showed a significant difference (F = 4.257, p = 0.0022). This means that engineers, contractors, architects, and homeowners see environmental performance differently. This difference may stem from varying priorities: engineers focus on structural strength, while homeowners may prioritize weather resistance in daily use. Other indicators, like structural integrity, estimated lifespan, and durability, did not show significant differences, indicating a general agreement among roles.

Table 5 Variance explained by principal components (PCA).
Full size table

PCA in Table 5 shows that four principal components account for most of the variance in stakeholder perceptions. PC1 (28.5%) and PC2 (25.6%) are the leading factors. This implies that several aspects—structural, environmental, and durability-related—together influence quality perceptions rather than just one dominating factor.

Table 6 PCA loading for quality Indicators.
Full size table

Structural integrity (+ 0.652) and estimated lifespan (+ 0.646) load strongly on PC1, confirming their main role in perceived quality as shown in Table 6. Environmental resistance has a moderate negative loading (–0.354), suggesting that opinions about this indicator vary among stakeholders. This may be due to differences in exposure to harsh weather or professional viewpoints. Durability shows a weak positive loading (+ 0.180), meaning that while it matters, it has less impact on overall perception compared to integrity and lifespan.

Table 7 Correlation between stakeholder role and quality Indicators.
Full size table

Correlation analysis in Table 7 shows a weak but significant link between stakeholder role and environmental resistance (r = 0.1074, p = 0.035). This suggests that professional backgrounds slightly shape how environmental resilience is viewed, pointing to the need for tailored communication and engagement. Other indicators did not show significant correlation, indicating that perceptions of structural integrity and durability are fairly consistent across stakeholders.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the physical condition of offsite-constructed housing and perceived structural integrity. Structures are categorized as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. The blue bars represent the number of structures in each category, decreasing from 140 in Excellent to 40 in Poor condition. The orange line indicates the structural integrity rate, which also decreases steadily—from 35% in Excellent to 15% in Poor. This pattern confirms a strong connection between overall structural condition and integrity: as condition worsens, the number of well-performing structures declines, and the integrity rate falls. The findings highlight that timely maintenance and consistent quality control are crucial for maintaining the structural reliability of offsite housing.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Structural integrity by condition.

Full size image

Structural defects on quality

Figure 2 looks at how structural defects affect overall housing quality. The horizontal axis shows defect levels (10% to 50%), while the vertical axes represent Quality Rating (%) and Defect Rate (%). The blue line shows that as defect prevalence increases, the quality rating falls—from 60% at 10% defects to 30% at 50%. In contrast, the orange line shows the defect rate rising sharply with higher defect levels, reflecting the negative impact of poor workmanship or material issues. This inverse relationship highlights the importance of defect prevention and regular inspections for maintaining high-quality offsite housing.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Impact of structural defect on quality.

Full size image

Environmental resistance

Figure 3 represents stakeholders’ views on offsite housing performance under environmental stressors, such as rain, humidity, and UV exposure. Nearly 69% of respondents rated environmental resistance as very good or moderate, indicating general confidence in these homes’ ability to deal with climatic challenges. However, a few noted weaknesses—likely due to material selection, assembly practices, or maintenance issues. This figure shows that while offsite housing generally performs well against environmental factors, ongoing monitoring and improved construction standards are essential for ensuring long-term durability.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Environmental resistance.

Full size image

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Quality Indicators: Stakeholders generally viewed offsite-constructed housing in Uganda positively (Table 2). Environmental resistance had the highest mean score of 1.88, with 69% favorable ratings. Structural integrity and durability both scored 2.02, with over 60% positive perception. About 25% reported structural defects, which is moderate compared to 10–15% in well-regulated UK and Australian contexts12,30,31, but lower than Ghana’s 30–35% 29,6,8. Likely causes include inconsistent adherence to standards, cost, material variability, and limited worker skills1,13,32.

Composite Quality Index: The weighted CQI of 2.01 (Table 3) suggests that offsite housing is seen as comparable or better than traditional methods. Structural integrity (weight 0.30) and environmental resistance (0.25) are the main factors. The CQI gives policymakers and developers a useful tool to track trends, find improvement areas, and support affordable housing programs.

Stakeholder Role Differences: ANOVA (Table 4) shows that only environmental resistance varies significantly across roles (F = 4.257, p = 0.0022), with a weak positive correlation (r = 0.1074, p = 0.035). Other indicators do not show significant differences. This suggests stakeholders have similar views on structural integrity and durability, likely due to awareness campaigns and NHCC initiatives.

PCA Findings: PCA identified four components that explain nearly all variance (Tables 5 and 6). Structural integrity (+ 0.652) and estimated lifespan (+ 0.646) dominate perceptions, while environmental resistance (–0.354) shows mixed opinions. This supports the CQI’s importance in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting structural performance and longevity as key quality aspects33,34.

Structural Condition, Defects, and Environmental Resistance: Figures 1, 2 and 3 show a decline in integrity with worse conditions, an inverse relationship between defects and quality, and overall confidence in environmental resistance (69%). Compared to high-income areas, moderate quality performance highlights gaps in training, regulation, and monitoring. This emphasizes the need for preventive quality control and building capacity.

Practical Implications and Future Research: Recommendations include improving regulatory frameworks, providing targeted training, ensuring continuous monitoring, and communicating specifically to stakeholders. Limitations include reliance on perception-based data and a focus on urban areas. Future research should include long-term CQI tracking and objective performance measures to strengthen evidence for policy and practice.

Conclusions

This study provides a quantitative assessment of stakeholder views on offsite-constructed housing in Uganda, using the Composite Quality Index (CQI) for the first time in this setting. The results show that offsite housing is generally seen as comparable to or better than traditional construction. Structural integrity and estimated lifespan are the main factors influencing perceived quality. Environmental resistance received the highest overall rating at 68.8% favorable, but opinions varied significantly based on stakeholders’ roles. This emphasizes how professional experience and priorities affect quality evaluations. About 25% of respondents noted structural defects, which highlights the need for better quality control and adherence to standards. Principal Component Analysis confirmed that structural measures and longevity are the most significant factors influencing overall quality perceptions. Durability and environmental resistance vary depending on context.

Practical and Theoretical Contributions: This study shows that the CQI framework is applicable in Sub-Saharan Africa. It offers a multi-dimensional tool for combining technical and perceptual quality measures. It informs policymakers, developers, and regulators by pinpointing key areas for intervention, improving stakeholder engagement, and supporting decisions based on evidence in delivering sustainable housing.

Recommendations

Developers and authorities should enforce strict quality control measures during production and assembly. They should also conduct standardized inspections to address reported defects. Targeted training for engineers and contractors can improve technical execution, while communication strategies tailored to different stakeholders can set clear expectations, especially regarding environmental performance. Ongoing monitoring and feedback systems are crucial for maintaining performance, building long-term trust, and encouraging wider acceptance of offsite construction in Uganda.

Limitations and future research

The study relied on perception-based data from urban stakeholders, limiting its general applicability. Future research should include objective performance measures, track CQI over time, and explore rural or flood-prone areas to validate findings and enhance policy relevance.