What’s on the Other Side of Change?

Fresh Eyes on Modular By Jorie Wisnefski

Now that the cat’s out of the bag, I can talk more about why I’m excited for the Offsite Factory Roundtable that Gary Fleisher and I are putting together.

Gary recently wrote about the challenge of moving innovation from a great idea into an actual working factory. His article made me reflect on my own experiences with innovation—and, more importantly, about what I’ve learned from watching people react to change.

At Urban Machine, I experienced this shift firsthand.

We were working on a robot designed to remove metal fasteners from construction wood waste so that the lumber could be reclaimed and reused rather than ground up and buried in a landfill.

The idea is pretty straightforward.

But then came the questions.

“How do you use the wood with holes in it?”

“Why should we slow down our quick process of just getting rid of old wood?”

And, ultimately, “Is changing the process worth it?”

Australia's Bella Modular Closes Its Doors, Leaving Customers and Deposits in Limbo

Another modular home manufacturer has closed its doors, but the unfinished buildings left behind may be easier to identify than the financial and contractual obligations now to be untangled.

Perth-based Bella Modular has notified customers that significant financial difficulties have made it impossible to complete their projects. The company has vacated its manufacturing premises in Hopeland, on Perth's southern fringe, Western Australia.

Bella Modular told customers that it had arranged for an independent modular builder to take over the management and construction of their homes. However, the notice did not identify the replacement builder, and customers were told they would receive additional information within 14 days.

That announcement may offer some hope, but it leaves several urgent questions unanswered.

Who is the new builder? Has it formally agreed to accept every project? Does it have the factory capacity, workforce and working capital required to complete them? What will happen to the deposits already paid to Bella Modular? Will customers be required to contribute more money before construction can resume?

Until those questions are answered, this is not yet a completed rescue plan. It is a proposed transfer involving customers who have already waited, paid substantial sums and, in some cases, lost confidence in the process.

The Quiet Revolution in Offsite Construction Is Being Built One Panel at a Time

 If you step back from the noise surrounding modular housing, robotics, artificial intelligence and highly automated factories, you may notice something important happening quietly beneath the surface.

The most practical momentum in offsite construction may not be coming from volumetric modules rolling down highways. It may be coming from advanced and emerging panelized systems: wall panels, floor and roof cassettes, structural insulated panels, mass timber assemblies and composite systems that move some of construction’s most labor-intensive and error-prone work into controlled factory environments.

Panelized construction has always been part of the backbone of offsite construction. Roof trusses demonstrated decades ago that a factory-built component could dominate an entire trade when its value was obvious to builders. Floor trusses and cassettes followed, reducing on-site labor while improving speed, safety, and coordination.

Wall panels—open, closed and structural—gained acceptance more gradually. Builders began using them because they offered labor relief without requiring the cultural, logistical and regulatory changes associated with volumetric modular construction.

What is happening now, however, is different.

Advanced panelized systems are no longer being promoted solely as a faster way to frame a building. They are becoming tools to improve performance, predictability, sustainability, resilience, and integration.

They are changing what it means to build offsite, and they may ultimately determine whether industrialized construction moves beyond its current limited share of the overall construction market.

Innovation Is Easy to Promote. The “Why” and “How” Determine Whether It Survives.

Something has been bothering me lately about the offsite construction industry.

We are seeing more innovative ideas reach the market than at almost any other time I can remember. New products, services, software platforms, building systems, automation tools and manufacturing processes seem to appear every week.

Each one arrives with an impressive collection of promises.

The innovation will save the factory money. It will increase production, reduce waste, solve labor problems, attract new customers and improve profitability. Some claim it will even let a factory produce more homes with fewer workers.

Then the marketing machine takes over.

Industry “experts” begin talking about the innovation on LinkedIn and other social media platforms. The founders appear on podcasts and participate in video interviews. They present at conferences and seminars. Professionally designed websites explain what the product does, who should use it, and when companies should begin thinking about adopting it.

Those presentations usually answer many of the who, what, and when questions.

What they often fail to explain are the two questions that matter most: Why should this work in my factory, and how are my people supposed to make it work?

Today’s Crazy Idea May Become Tomorrow’s Minimum Requirement

 Almost every story about disruption includes a moment when intelligent, experienced people dismiss an idea that later appears obvious.

Their skepticism is not necessarily caused by a lack of intelligence or imagination. Experienced people have learned how their industry works, what customers accept, what regulators approve, and which investments are likely to produce a return. When someone introduces a subtle change that does not fit those established patterns, the safest response is often to explain why it will not work.

The offsite construction industry has produced more than its share of these moments.

Factory-built housing itself was once treated as a questionable alternative to conventional construction. Panelization was considered too restrictive. Computer-controlled equipment seemed too expensive for factories accustomed to saws, tape measures and handwritten cut lists. Many viewed Building Information Modeling as an elaborate drafting system. Robots were expected to replace every worker—or prove useless because houses were too complicated to automate.

Artificial intelligence is now receiving much the same treatment.

Integrated carrier and structural framing systems are being met with familiar questions about engineering, codes, transportation, and factory disruption. Those questions are legitimate, but they can also keep us from recognizing when an apparently small change can alter an entire production system.

What If HUD-Code and Modular Homes Finally Shared the Same Frame?

Before the Road to Housing Act was passed, several of the nation’s largest manufactured home companies were already exploring a significant change beneath their homes.

They were looking at whether the permanent steel chassis traditionally required under a HUD-code manufactured home could be removed and replaced with wood rim joists. If approved, the change would allow manufactured homes to use essentially the same type of perimeter floor system commonly found in modular homes built to state and local building codes.

That possibility could reduce material costs, eliminate some of the visual and structural distinctions between manufactured and modular construction, and give HUD-code producers greater flexibility when designing homes for subdivisions and residential developments.

Then another question began to emerge.

Instead of removing steel from HUD-code homes so they can resemble modular homes, what if both HUD-code and modular factories could use a better steel perimeter frame that becomes a permanent part of the home?

That is the idea behind Uni-Frame.

What Can Happen When a Successful Offsite Factory Becomes Too Comfortable?

Most offsite factory owners, upper management teams, and boards do not lose momentum because business suddenly turns bad. In many cases, they begin losing momentum while the company still appears healthy.

The phones are ringing, homes are shipping, margins are acceptable, and the backlog looks reasonably strong. Nobody calls a special meeting to announce that the company has stopped building for the future. It simply happens, one comfortable decision at a time, as leadership gradually shifts from improving the business to protecting what already exists.

Modular Construction Has an Unfinished Sustainability Story

 

Fresh Eyes for Offsite by Jorie Wisnefski

Watch a modular construction facility in motion, and sustainability seems almost obvious.

Materials are stored in a controlled environment. Cuts can be planned and repeated. Workers aren't building in the mud, cold, or rain. Materials aren't sitting outside exposed to the elements. Waste is collected in one place instead of scattered across dozens of jobsites.

And when the building leaves the factory, a significant portion of the work is already done.

It's efficient.

But is it really more sustainable?

That’s a more complicated question—and one the modular industry could ask more often.