Stop Telling Modular Construction to Be More Like the Auto Industry

I am tired of hearing modular construction compared to automobile manufacturing. I am even more tired of consultants, automation salespeople, and self-appointed experts telling factory owners that our industry needs to become more like the auto industry.

They usually point to the assembly line, robotics, automation, standardized parts, computerized production, and cars moving smoothly from one station to the next. Then they look at a modular factory and wonder why we cannot build houses the same way Ford, General Motors, Toyota, or Honda build automobiles.

If the auto industry is so damned efficient and should be our model, let me tell you what I see when I look at it.

Thirty-Two Service Departments for One Small County

I live in Washington County, Maryland. Our estimated population is 157,731 people. In this relatively small market, I have 15 new-car dealerships to choose from, and every one has a service department.

Try scheduling an appointment with one. Depending on the dealership and the problem, the waiting time can be anywhere from one to 10 days. Every service department is busy. Their parking lots are full, their service bays are occupied, and customers are sitting in waiting rooms drinking bad coffee while watching daytime television.

In addition to those 15 dealership service departments, approximately 17 independent auto-repair businesses serve this area. That gives us roughly 32 service departments serving a county of only 157,731 people.

And they all appear to have plenty of work.

If automobile manufacturing is the shining example of production quality and efficiency that modular construction is supposed to emulate, why does my small county need 32 places to repair what the auto factories produce?

That question never seems to make it into the PowerPoint presentations.

Fifty-Five Housing Factories Serving 76 Million People

Now let’s look at factory-built housing.

From Maine through Virginia—what I loosely call New England and the Mid-Atlantic—about 55 active modular and manufactured-home factories exist. Together, they serve a region with roughly 76 million people.

Compare those numbers. My county has 32 automotive service locations serving 157,731 people. A huge section of the eastern United States has approximately 55 factory-built housing plants serving a population nearly 500 times larger.

More than 50 modular and manufactured-home factories can ship into my part of Maryland from different locations across the eastern United States. Over the years, many of those factories have delivered homes into this area.

Some of those homes have never required the builder to call the factory’s service department. Not once.

Think about that. A house leaves the production line, travels hundreds of miles on public roads, is lifted by a crane, placed on a foundation, joined to one or more modules, finished by local crews, exposed to every kind of weather, and then occupied by a family for decades.

Yet many of those homes never generate a factory service call.

Meanwhile, my relatively new car has already required four “Check Engine” repairs in three years. Two were covered under warranty, which was nice, but warranty coverage does not make the problem disappear. It just determines who pays.

And yes, I have the car serviced regularly.

What About All Those Recalls?

Here is another question for everyone who believes modular housing should emulate automobile manufacturing: When was the last time you heard about a nationwide recall of factory-built houses?

I cannot remember one.

I am not saying modular and manufactured homes are perfect. They are not. Factories make mistakes. Suppliers send defective products. Workers miss things. Builders damage modules during installation. Set crews create problems. Homeowners discover cracks, leaks, adjustments, and warranty issues after occupancy.

But where are the daily recall announcements?

Automotive trade publications report recalls constantly. Defective airbags, failing fuel pumps, faulty software, electrical problems, brake issues, battery fires, engines that may seize, and components that can fail without warning are routine industry news.

Every morning brings another recall notice.

That is one part of the automotive industry I have no desire to emulate.

Automotive Service Is a Profit Center

Another major difference that auto-industry comparisons conveniently ignore is this:

An automobile dealership’s service department is a profit center. Dealerships want customers returning for oil changes, inspections, tires, brakes, diagnostics, warranty work, and repairs. Service departments create recurring revenue long after the original vehicle sale.

The dealership sells the car once, but it may service that car dozens of times.

A modular factory’s service department operates under a completely different business model. Factory service is usually an expense. Every trip requires labor, transportation, hotel rooms, meals, materials, scheduling, documentation, and time pulled away from production.

The factory generally does not make money sending a service technician several states away to adjust a door, investigate a leak, repair drywall, or settle an argument over whether the factory, transporter, set crew, builder, subcontractor, or homeowner caused the problem.

I cannot think of a single modular factory service department that its owner proudly describes as a major profit center.

The best service call is the one that never has to be made.

That is precisely the opposite of the automotive service model.

Modernization Does Not Eliminate Problems

“Modernize the factory” has become another popular industry battle cry. In some cases, modernization is badly needed. Better equipment, improved material handling, accurate cutting systems, digital plans, production tracking, and selective automation can improve quality and productivity.

But modernization is not magic.

The automobile industry modernizes constantly. Every model year brings new electronics, software, safety equipment, engines, drivetrains, interiors, sensors, cameras, screens, and optional features. Manufacturers spend billions on research, robotics, testing, automation, and quality control.

Yet dealership service departments remain packed.

In fact, each new electronic feature creates another component that can malfunction, another sensor that can fail, another software problem that must be diagnosed, and another warning light capable of ruining someone’s morning.

My car’s “Check Engine” light doesn't care how sophisticated the factory that built it was.

Houses Are Not Cars

Automobiles and houses are both assembled products, but that does not make them the same business.

Cars are mass-produced in enormous quantities, built from tightly controlled components, completed inside one manufacturing system, and delivered as finished products. Modular homes are customized, transported as oversized loads, installed on separately constructed foundations, completed by independent builders and subcontractors, and connected to local utilities under thousands of different site conditions.

A car factory controls almost everything until the vehicle leaves the plant. A modular factory controls only part of what eventually becomes the finished home.

That does not mean modular factories cannot learn anything from automotive manufacturing. Of course they can. Material flow, workstation organization, error-proofing, supplier management, documentation, training, preventive maintenance, and quality checks are worth studying.

But learning from another industry is not the same as worshipping it.

Before another expert tells a modular factory owner to become more like an automobile manufacturer, perhaps that expert should spend a morning sitting in a dealership service department. Look at the full schedule, the occupied bays, the diagnostic equipment, the warranty claims, and the customers waiting for someone to explain why a three-year-old vehicle needs another repair.

Then ask whether this is really the model we want to copy.

Gary’s Observation

The modular industry does not need to become the automobile industry. It needs to become a better version of itself.

We should modernize where modernization produces measurable value. We should automate repetitive work where the investment can be justified. We should improve material flow, training, quality control, engineering, and communication with builders.

But we should stop pretending the auto industry has solved manufacturing.

Thirty-two automotive service departments stay busy serving my county of 157,731 people. Approximately 55 factory-built housing plants serve a region of 76 million people, and countless homes go decades without anyone calling the factory for service.

Maybe the automobile industry should start asking what it can learn from us.

Modular Doesn’t Need a Better Slogan. It Needs Better Proof.

 

For more than three decades, I have listened to people in the offsite construction industry debate why modular construction hasn't grown faster. Some believe we have never developed a strong enough message. Others say the public still confuses modular homes with manufactured housing. Some people still assume anything built in a factory must be cheaply made, while others expect modular construction to cost substantially less simply because it happens indoors.

Now I am hearing renewed talk that what the industry really needs is a catchy motto and a powerful 30-second commercial. If we could just find the right words, show a few modules being lifted by a crane and add some inspiring music, perhaps buyers and developers would finally understand what we have been trying to tell them.

I wish it were that simple.

A clever slogan might generate attention, and a polished commercial could spark curiosity, but neither addresses the real obstacles holding modular construction back. After watching this industry for more than 30 years, I believe we are still trying to solve operational and credibility problems with marketing.

Successful Factories Are Already Telling Us Something

Some modular factories are doing quite well. Their production schedules are full, their customers return with additional projects, and they have developed reputations for delivering what they promise. Other factories continue to flounder, struggle to produce acceptable profits, and wait for the market to discover them.

Is BOXABL Shopping for a New Future?

 

BOXABL recently announced that it is open to mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, land contributions, talent additions, and technology partnerships across the housing industry.

On the surface, this sounds like an ambitious expansion strategy. It may also signal that BOXABL wants to evolve beyond manufacturing its Casita product and become a broader housing platform.

The company completed its merger with FG Merger II Corp. in July and now trades publicly on Nasdaq under the symbol BXBL. Having publicly traded stock potentially gives BOXABL another way to structure acquisitions and partnerships without relying entirely on cash.

Buying What Takes Years to Build

A carefully selected acquisition could give BOXABL capabilities that normally take years to develop. Those might include experienced factory leadership, established sales channels, approved building systems, entitled land, installation operations, or an existing workforce.

The challenge will be execution. Housing companies are difficult to combine because every factory has its own products, approvals, production methods, customers, and culture. Acquiring those capabilities is only the beginning; successfully integrating them is where the real work starts.

BOXABL’s public filings also show why discipline will be essential. For the first quarter of 2026, the company reported approximately $1.56 million in revenue, a $3.35 million gross loss, and a $7.6 million net loss. Those figures do not prevent BOXABL from pursuing transactions, but they make the terms, financing, and quality of any potential deal especially important.

Strategy or New Narrative?

This announcement could represent a legitimate strategic shift. BOXABL may believe it can combine its brand recognition, public-market access, patents, and promotional reach with established housing companies that already possess manufacturing experience and market presence.

The industry should watch what happens next. One well-chosen acquisition could considerably strengthen BOXABL. A collection of unrelated factories, technologies, and land deals could create greater complexity without solving its central challenge of achieving profitable production at scale.

Gary’s Observation

BOXABL has attracted attention more successfully than almost any housing startup in recent memory. Its next chapter, however, will not be judged by the number of partnership announcements it makes.

It will be judged by whether those partnerships produce homes, sustainable margins, satisfied customers, and a business capable of supporting its ambitions. Opening the door is easy. Choosing who walks through it—and successfully building something together—will be the real test.

Factory Transportation Has to Change. But Will Management Change With It?

Walk through the storage yard of almost any manufactured or modular housing factory, and you will see a transportation system that has changed very little in decades. Carriers are parked in rows, tires are slowly losing air, maintenance costs continue to increase, and valuable capital remains tied up in equipment waiting for its next assignment. Everyone accepts it because this is how modules have traditionally been transported.

Factory owners and managers know the system is far from perfect. They deal with carrier shortages, return trips, breakdowns, storage problems, scheduling conflicts, and completed modules waiting for transportation. Every transportation delay can eventually become a production problem, especially when a factory has more modules ready to ship than it has dependable carriers available.

Now imagine presenting those same managers with a completely new transportation system designed to reduce carrier dependence, eliminate unnecessary return trips, free up factory storage space, and save both time and money. Would they embrace it, support a pilot program, or quietly return to the system they already know?

I believe most factory managers would agree that something needs to change. Whether they would be willing to become early adopters is another question entirely, and the answer will depend heavily on how well the new system is explained, demonstrated, and supported.

Do Gen Z and Gen Alpha Really Look Down on Skilled Labor?

 

There is a growing belief among factory owners, contractors and older workers that Gen Z considers manual and skilled labor beneath them. According to that argument, younger people want to work from home, become influencers, or sit behind computers rather than build houses, wire electrical panels, weld steel, or operate production equipment.

There is some truth behind that perception, but it is also an oversimplification. Gen Z is not universally rejecting skilled labor, and Gen Alpha may eventually become even more receptive to it. What both generations appear to be rejecting is work that looks physically punishing, poorly managed, underpaid, and without a clearly defined future.

That is an important distinction.

Questioning Efficiencies

By: Jorie Wisnefski

One of the things I’m learning from Gary Fleisher is to stop looking at the obvious problem and start asking a different question.

Gary recently wrote about why promising innovations often don’t make it to the factory floor. His point was that the industry doesn't need to be pitched more products. It needs more education which offers more opportunities for the people who run factories and production lines to understand the problems and determine whether a solution can really work in their world.

That article sent me down a rabbit hole.

I started watching factory tour videos.

I wanted to see what these factories do to be more efficient, and I kept seeing the same thing.

Efficiency is everywhere.

Most of the factories have more than 30 production stations. They demonstrate how materials are organized, how workers move through a consistent process, and how each stage of construction happens in a controlled environment.

And the advantages of building indoors are certainly compelling. 

Weather won’t stop indoor production. Living in Chicago, I understand those benefits quite well.

Workers aren't spending time loading and unloading tools or driving from jobsite to jobsite. They show up to the same place every day, and the tools and equipment they need are already there.

Materials are staged. Tasks are repeated. Processes are standardized. The factory can control variables that are incredibly difficult to control on a traditional construction site.

There is a tremendous amount of thought going into how efficiently homes can be built.

Then the home is ready to move, and that's typically where these videos end.

I kept seeing modules being prepared for transportation. I saw completed units sitting outside factories. I saw plenty of discussion about “preparing the module for the road” and “preparing the foundation” for its arrival.

But I didn't see videos on the efficiency of moving the finished module to its final home.

That made me wonder: is the focus solely on making the factory more efficient without including the efficiency of getting the home or building to the foundation?

It feels like making a beautiful dinner without eating it. It’s really pretty to look at, but the job isn’t finished. 

To be clear, I'm not saying I’ve unearthed a transportation crisis.

I don't know that yet.

With completed modules stacked up outside a factory, it could mean there’s a transportation bottleneck. Or it could simply be part of a carefully planned staging process with reasons I don’t understand.

That's why I'm asking the question, not making an accusation.

The factory is only one part of the system.

They can build a home faster, but somebody still has to move it.

There are trucks, routes, permits, escorts, weather, traffic, cranes, installation crews, and site schedules. The factory controls what happens inside its walls. It has considerably less control once that home enters the transportation system.

And if we're serious about offsite construction helping address the housing shortage and affordability, I think the whole system needs to be addressed.

I'm still trying to understand the bottleneck. What happens if a factory becomes significantly more efficient at producing modules, but transportation capacity doesn't increase at the same pace?

Does production have to slow down? Does the factory need more storage space? Doesn’t this affect scheduling and the production line?

Or have manufacturers already figured this out, and I just don't understand yet?

I'm grateful to be learning from Gary. He's teaching me to look beyond the obvious answers to ask questions I don't know enough to answer.

People are smart, and factories are innovative, but the housing problem is bigger than any one factory or technology.

If offsite construction is going to help us build more affordable housing quickly, we have to keep looking for the places where the system slows down.

Maybe it's production, labor, materials, transportation, and installation all interacting with each other.

And if the people experiencing those challenges aren't talking to one another, it’s tough to find answers.

That's part of what Gary and I are trying to create with the upcoming educational summit. It’s not another conference where we put innovative products in front of an audience.

It's about bringing people together who understand different pieces of offsite construction and giving them an opportunity to talk about the problems they're experiencing.

To ask the uncomfortable questions. To share what has worked. To admit what hasn't. To challenge assumptions. And to look at an old problem from a completely different angle.

Solving the housing crisis isn't going to happen because someone invents one amazing product. It will happen when we start figuring out how all the pieces can work better together.

I'm going to keep watching the factory videos and asking questions because after seeing all those carefully designed production stations, I still don’t understand why the modules sit outside the factory. 

If someone in the industry already has the answer to making the journey to the foundation just as efficient as the journey through the factory, I want to hear it.

And if they don't, that's the kind of question we should be discussing together.

The home isn't finished when it leaves the factory. It still has to make it home.

Fresh Eyes on Offsite Construction

Questioning Efficiency explores a simple question: if modular factories have become highly efficient at building homes, what happens to that efficiency once the home leaves the factory? 

Jorie Wisnefski’s article for the series, Fresh Eyes on Offsite Construction, looks at transportation, staging, and installation as potentially overlooked parts of the offsite construction system. It also argues that solving housing challenges requires examining how all those pieces work together, not just optimizing the factory.

Where Did Modular’s 20% Savings Go?

Twenty years ago, the modular housing industry walked around with quiet confidence. Sales representatives stood at home shows, builder meetings, and industry events and proudly explained that modular construction could deliver a home for as much as 20% less than conventional site-built construction.

At the time, many of them were right.

Factories were relatively lean, transportation was manageable, building codes were less complicated, overhead was lower, and most modular buyers were satisfied with homes that did not test the limits of architectural design or transportation logistics. Factories could build similar floor plans repeatedly, purchase materials in volume, and move modules through production without stopping for constant engineering revisions.

Today, that story has changed.

In many markets, modular construction comes in at approximately the same price as site-built construction. In some cases, it costs more. Developers, investors, builders, and prospective homeowners are now asking an obvious question: What happened to modular’s promised 20% savings?

Having watched this industry grow, stall, innovate, reinvent itself, and occasionally break its own heart, I believe the answer is relatively simple.

The world changed, and modular did not change fast enough.

The reasons behind the disappearance of that cost advantage, however, reveal something important about where modular construction is today and where it needs to go next.

Changing the Code Is the Easy Part. Changing the Factory Is Not.

After writing two articles about how the Road to Housing legislation could open new opportunities for modular factories to build homes under the HUD Code, I decided to send them to several people whose opinions I trust. I wasn’t looking for compliments or confirmation that I had everything figured out. I wanted the kind of honest response that might expose what I had overlooked.

One of those responses came from Bob Bender, an experienced advisor to both the modular and manufactured housing industries. Bob agreed that the articles raised important observations, but he also reminded me that changing federal rules and changing the realities inside a factory are two very different things.

The legislation may open a door, but Bob’s response made one thing very clear: a modular factory cannot simply put a HUD label on one of its existing homes and declare itself ready to compete in manufactured housing.