What If the Skilled Labor Shortage Is Really a Training Shortage?

The construction industry says it needs approximately 349,000 additional workers in 2026 just to meet current demand. In 2027, that number is projected to jump to about 456,000 as spending on infrastructure and manufacturing begins growing again.

Those are not small numbers. They are large enough to delay projects, raise construction costs, and make an already serious housing shortage even more difficult to solve.

The usual explanation is that America has run out of people willing or able to work in the skilled trades. I became curious about that explanation because the country also has millions of unemployed people.

How can we have a shortage of hundreds of thousands of workers while millions of working-age Americans are unemployed?

Maybe the problem is not simply a shortage of people. Maybe it is a shortage of training, access, and coordination.

The Quote Was Accurate. So Where Did the Profit Go?

 A modular factory can estimate every stud, sheet of drywall, length of wire, and hour of labor required to build a project. It can add overhead, include a reasonable profit, and produce what everyone believes is an accurate quote.

Then the project begins—and the profit starts disappearing.

That does not necessarily mean the estimator made a mistake. The problem is that a factory quote reflects what everyone knows when it is prepared. The project may not enter production for several months, and plenty can change between those two dates.

Transportation costs increase. Permits take longer than expected. The site is not ready. An inspector wants something different. The builder changes a specification. A supplier cannot deliver the material originally quoted.

Individually, these changes may not appear serious. Together, they can turn a profitable project into one the factory is simply trying to finish without losing too much money.

The Five Words You'll Find on the Path to Offsite Startup Success

 Inspiration – Preparation – Perspiration – Dedication – Celebration

I was thinking recently about the words we use to describe starting a business. We talk about vision, innovation, disruption and all the other things that sound impressive in a presentation. But when I tried to reduce the journey to words that actually describe what a startup owner must go through, I came up with five: inspiration, preparation, perspiration, dedication and celebration.

They sound pretty good together. You could put them on the wall of a new factory, print them in an investor presentation or use them as the theme of a grand opening speech. However, the words only mean something if you are willing to do the work between them.

For someone starting an offsite construction business, that work begins long before the first module or panel leaves the building.

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.

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.

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.

The Fires We Remember

by Jorie Wisnefski

The current wildfires in Washington have made me reflect on old fears. 

As a little girl, I went through a phase where I wouldn't sleep over at friends' houses because I was convinced there would be a fire and I wouldn't be able to get back to my family. I understood that fire is a living, breathing beast, and it’s impossible to ignore. It still fascinates me.

As I thought about this week's Fresh Eyes article, I couldn't help but wonder about fire safety in the modular world.

As someone who has spent much of the last decade immersed in the wood industry, fire is never far from the conversation. Whether it's wildfires, lumbermills, mass timber, or new fire resistant technologies, the innovation question keeps resurfacing, How do we build safer?

Canada’s Wildfires May Be the Next Lumber Problem Offsite Factories Cannot Ignore

For years, lumber pricing has been one of those things that factory owners learned to live with. It went up, it came down, somebody blamed housing starts, somebody else blamed the weather, and the purchasing department spent a few more hours on the phone trying to get enough material to keep the line moving.

But Canada’s wildfires are beginning to look like something more than another summer headline with pictures of orange skies and firefighters standing in front of walls of flame.

The question every factory owner, builder, and developer should be asking is not whether the fires will cause a lumber shortage tomorrow morning. The bigger question is whether the wood supply system we have all depended on is becoming less dependable for the next year and a half.

I think the answer is yes.

The First Day of a Startup Should Not Begin With Designing a Logo

Every new business begins with a moment when someone says, “Let’s do this.”

For an offsite construction startup, that moment can be exciting. A new factory, an innovative product, a better way to build homes, or a service the industry needs can suddenly feel possible. Phones begin ringing. Someone starts looking at potential buildings. Another person begins working on the company name, the logo, and the first PowerPoint presentation for investors.

There is nothing wrong with any of that. But the first day a startup decides it is serious should begin with a few much more important questions. The answers will not guarantee success, but they can give the venture a far better chance of actually opening its doors and surviving long enough to matter.

What the Industry Told Me After Looking "Beneath the Floor"

When I wrote recently about the structural shift coming to factory-built housing, I expected some discussion about steel versus wood, permanent chassis versus no permanent chassis, and whether a stronger rim system could reduce foundation supports.

Those conversations happened.

But the comments took the discussion somewhere more important. They reminded me that the future of offsite housing is not really about replacing one material with another. It is about whether we are finally willing to design the entire home as one connected system instead of a collection of separate decisions made by separate people.

The floor system, the transportation method, the carrier, the foundation, the installation crew, the engineer, the builder, and even the homeowner’s impression of the home are all tied together. For too long, we have treated them as though they were not.

That may be the real structural weakness underneath factory-built housing.

Is Your Factory Healthy Enough to Implement Innovation?

I have watched manufacturing companies, including offsite construction factories, spend years talking about the next big thing. It may be a new production system, advanced machinery, robotics, software, a different framing method, a new transportation system, or an entirely new product line.

The conversations usually begin with optimism. Owners see a way to build faster, reduce labor, improve quality, open a new market, or get ahead of competitors who seem content to keep doing things the same old way.

Then the investment is approved. The equipment arrives. Consultants come in. Employees are told change is coming. A few months later, the excitement has been replaced by missed production dates, frustrated employees, rising rework, unhappy customers, and a bank account that seems to be shrinking faster than anyone expected.

Eventually, people begin saying the same thing: “That new system is what caused the company to fail.”

I do not believe that is usually true. More often, the new system simply exposed weaknesses that had been hiding inside the factory for years.

The Money That Can Build Your Factory…or Take Control of It

Very few people wake up one morning, look at their bank account, and say, “Well, I guess I’ll build an offsite factory this year.”

If that were true, we would have hundreds of new factories opening every month, and the housing shortage would be a much smaller problem. Instead, most people with a serious factory idea eventually run into the same cold reality: if you want to build something large in this industry, you will probably need someone else’s money.

That is where venture capital, private investors, private equity, and other forms of outside funding enter the picture. People tend to lump it all together, but the source of the money matters less at first than what comes with it.

Because money rarely walks in alone.

It brings expectations, deadlines, reporting requirements, board seats, opinions, lawyers, projections, and people who want to know exactly how every dollar will be spent before they agree to write the check. For a first-time founder, that can feel intrusive. For the investor, it is simply due diligence.

If I were about to put several million dollars into someone else’s factory, I would ask a lot of questions too.