Highlighting the thinkers and their ideas driving the evolution of Offsite Construction. 
Be inspired, be informed, be innovative!

Before You Build Your Startup Factory, Look for Good, Solid Advisors

Every offsite construction startup seems to begin with the same exciting conversation: “There is a housing shortage. We can build homes faster. Let’s open a factory.”

I understand the excitement. I have seen good people with fresh ideas, impressive technology, sharp PowerPoint presentations, and investors who truly want to be part of the answer to America’s housing problem. They see a need for more homes and assume that need automatically means there is enough business to support another factory.

That assumption has put more than one startup on a very expensive road.

A housing shortage is not the same thing as demand for your factory. Before a startup hires a management team, leases or buys a building, orders equipment, or begins chasing serious investment money, it has to answer one question honestly: Is there enough reachable, profitable demand to keep this factory busy?

Not someday. Not if everything goes perfectly. Not if every builder suddenly decides modular is the answer. Is there enough business in the market you can realistically serve?

It is easy to point to the national shortage of affordable housing and say the market is there. In a broad sense, it is. But a factory cannot ship homes to the entire country simply because people need them.

Your market is shaped by delivery distances, highway restrictions, escort requirements, crane availability, state and local codes, foundations, installation crews, and the cost of getting a module from your production line to a home site. A factory located in one part of a state may have a very different practical market than a factory only a few hundred miles away.

The better question is not, “How many homes does America need?”

It is, “How many homes can our factory produce and deliver competitively within the area we can actually serve?”

That answer has to be based on real numbers, not optimism.

A startup also has to identify its customer. That sounds simple, but it is where many business plans begin to lose their footing.

Will the factory sell to production builders? Developers? Independent home builders? Dealers? Affordable housing organizations? Public housing authorities? Consumers? Each buyer has different expectations, buying cycles, financing problems, product needs, and reasons for choosing offsite construction.

A developer building workforce apartments may need repetitive multifamily modules and predictable delivery dates. A regional builder may need single-family homes with enough design flexibility to satisfy homebuyers. A dealer may want a dependable product line, reasonable margins, and a factory that will support them after the sale.

Trying to be everything to everyone is a dangerous way to launch a factory. It creates too many product types, too much engineering, too many exceptions, and too much confusion on the production floor before the company has even found its rhythm.

The smartest startups narrow their focus early. They decide who their best customer will be, what problem they will solve for that customer, and why that customer would choose them over an existing supplier.

If you are considering a new factory, spend time talking with the people who could buy from you before you build a team around an idea.

Ask builders and developers what they are building today, how much they expect to build during the next two or three years, and where they are having problems. Ask them about current lead times, pricing, quality, transportation, site work, financing, and their past experience with modular or manufactured housing.

More importantly, ask what would make them change suppliers.

Many people will say they like modular. They may tell you they want to learn more. They may even tell you your concept is exciting. Those are encouraging conversations, but they are not sales.

There is a huge difference between interest and commitment.

A serious market study looks for customers willing to identify actual projects, expected quantities, locations, timing, and the type of home or building they need. A letter of intent is stronger than a handshake. A preferred-supplier relationship is stronger than a compliment. A builder or developer willing to reserve production capacity is stronger than a person who says, “Call me when you are open.”

That does not mean every unit has to be sold before the factory is built. It does mean the startup needs enough evidence to show that customers will be there when the lights come on.

One of the most important exercises a startup can do is work backward.

How many modules, homes, or square feet must the factory produce each month to cover its overhead, labor, debt service, materials, sales expenses, warranty exposure, and profit requirement? Then ask how many customers and projects are needed to reach that number.

If a factory has to produce 500 homes a year to break even, a vague collection of conversations with interested people will not get it there. The company needs a realistic pipeline of projects and buyers that can support that kind of volume.

This is where startup enthusiasm meets reality. A factory may have the capacity to build 1,000 homes a year, but capacity is not demand. In fact, building too much capacity too early can become one of the fastest ways to burn through investment money.

It is often wiser to begin with a factory sized for the business you can reasonably win, then expand when the market has proven itself.

Every startup should also study the factories already serving its proposed market.

Who are they? What products do they build? How long are their lead times? Are they full, struggling, or somewhere in between? What do their customers like about them, and what frustrates those customers?

If several established factories have open production slots, a startup has to explain why builders and developers will leave them. Lower prices alone may not be the answer. Lower prices can create a race to the bottom before the startup has learned how to control labor, material waste, rework, transportation, and warranty costs.

Sometimes the opportunity is not that existing factories are unable to build enough homes. Sometimes it is that they are not building the right product, serving the right geography, responding quickly enough, or making the customer experience easy enough. That can be a real opening—but it needs to be proven.

I believe the early market work should happen before a startup puts together a large, expensive team.

A small founding group can do a great deal in the beginning: define the market, speak with customers, study competitors, develop a realistic financial model, and determine what kind of factory truly fits the opportunity. At this stage, you need experienced people around the table, but you do not need a full payroll of executives before you know whether the business case is solid.

Once the demand begins to take shape, then you can recruit the people who will build and run the operation. At that point, you are not asking them to join a dream. You are asking them to help execute a plan that has customers, products, numbers, and a market behind it.

The same principle applies to investors.

Investors may listen to a polished presentation, but their attention changes when they see named customers, identified projects, credible letters of intent, a practical service area, and a believable path to profitability. Money follows confidence, and confidence is built on evidence.

Bill Murray and I work with startups, factory owners, and investors who want straight answers before they make costly decisions.

Bill brings decades of hands-on experience running modular operations, improving factories, evaluating production capacity, and understanding what it takes to turn a plan into a functioning operation. My role is often to ask the questions that need to be asked early—about the market, the customer, the product, the story being told to investors, and whether the opportunity is strong enough to deserve the next dollar.

Together, we can help a startup examine its proposed market area, identify the type of customers it should pursue, evaluate likely competition, pressure-test production and sales assumptions, and build a more realistic path from concept to first home shipped.

We are not there to simply agree with every exciting idea. We are there to help founders avoid the blind spots that can turn a good opportunity into an expensive lesson.

CLICK HERE for a Free Consultation

The time to discover there is not enough demand is before you sign a lease, hire fifty people, or accept investment money that has to be repaid somehow.

Too many startups begin by assembling a team, raising money, and finding a building. Then, when the factory is nearly ready to open, they begin asking where the orders will come from. That is backward.

Find the customers. Understand their real needs. Get as close to commitments as you can. Know what volume you need to survive and what makes you different from the factory already down the road.

Then build the team, raise the money, and build the factory that the market has already told you it needs.

..

..

..

..

..

..

When Did Bootstrapping Get Replaced by PowerPoint Presentations?

I have a sneaking suspicion that if I walked into a room full of twenty- and thirty-something offsite construction startup founders and asked, “What does bootstrapping mean?” I’d probably be met with a few puzzled looks and someone quietly asking ChatGPT.

Ask that same group about PowerPoint, AI, pitch decks, venture capital, robotics, or digital twins, and the conversation would be off and running. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I use AI almost every day, and I genuinely believe it will transform our industry in ways we can’t yet imagine.

What concerns me isn’t the technology. It’s that somewhere along the way, the order of things seems to have changed. We used to build companies first and presentations second. Today, it sometimes feels like we build presentations first and hope the company eventually catches up.

There was a time when no one talked about “bootstrapping.” It wasn’t a trendy startup philosophy or a chapter in an entrepreneur’s handbook. It was simply the way businesses got started.

If you wanted to own a modular factory twenty or thirty years ago, you looked for an opportunity that already existed. Maybe it was an older factory whose owner was ready to retire. Maybe it needed new equipment, a better sales strategy, or stronger leadership. Whatever its shortcomings, it was producing homes, employing people, and generating revenue.

You bought used equipment because new equipment was expensive. You hired experienced people because they knew things you didn’t. You watched every dollar because there wasn’t another investor waiting to write a larger check if things went sideways. Success wasn’t measured by how many people applauded your vision. It was measured by whether you could make payroll on Friday.

Nobody called that bootstrapping.

They simply called it running a business.

Today, I sometimes wonder if there’s an unofficial checklist for launching an offsite construction company.

Before you’ve built your first module, you should probably have a beautifully designed website, an inspiring mission statement filled with words like transformative, disruptive, and ecosystem, a LinkedIn page announcing you’ve emerged from stealth mode, several AI-generated renderings of neighborhoods that don’t yet exist, and, of course, a PowerPoint presentation polished to within an inch of its life.

If you’re really ambitious, you should probably have a valuation that exceeds companies that have been shipping homes for decades.

I’m exaggerating…

…but not by much.

Over the years, I’ve sat through presentations that were genuinely impressive. The graphics were stunning. The market projections climbed steadily upward. The founders spoke confidently about changing the housing industry forever.

Then I’d ask a few simple questions.

“Where’s your factory?”

“How many homes have you built?”

“Who’s running production?”

By this point, I’m never quite sure whether I’m talking with a manufacturing startup or watching auditions for the next season of Shark Tank.

A polished presentation can create excitement, but excitement isn’t the same as execution.

One of the great mysteries to me is why so many startup teams insist on building everything from scratch while quietly ignoring factories that already exist.

Across North America are modular factories owned by people approaching retirement. Some need modernization. Others need fresh marketing, new leadership, updated production systems, or additional capital. Nearly all of them represent something that no PowerPoint presentation can offer.

They have customers.

They have employees.

They have supplier relationships.

They have production history.

Most importantly, they’ve already survived the countless challenges that come with actually building homes.

An operating factory may not photograph as well as a sleek architectural rendering, but it offers something infinitely more valuable: proof that the business works.

I understand why investors become captivated by big ideas. Every investor hopes to discover the next revolutionary company that changes an industry forever. Vision is exciting. Innovation attracts attention. Bold predictions make headlines.

Reality is considerably less glamorous.

Reality means production delays.

Reality means warranty calls.

Reality means equipment breakdowns on a Tuesday morning.

Reality means customers changing specifications after production has already started.

Reality means finding a way to make payroll even when three employees call in sick and a supplier misses a delivery.

None of those things fit neatly onto a PowerPoint slide, yet they’re exactly where successful manufacturing companies earn their reputation.

Before anyone accuses me of becoming the old guy complaining that things were better “back in my day,” let me be perfectly clear.

I love AI.

I use ChatGPT—whom I call Chad—every single day. It has made me a better writer, researcher, and editor. Robotics will continue changing manufacturing. Artificial intelligence will improve design, planning, scheduling, and countless other processes throughout the offsite industry.

Technology isn’t the problem.

The problem begins when we mistake technology for experience or confuse a convincing presentation with proven execution.

No matter how sophisticated the software becomes, it still can’t replace the lessons learned by shipping hundreds—or thousands—of homes.

Imagine walking into an investor meeting carrying two items.

In one hand is a beautifully crafted 75-slide PowerPoint explaining how your company will revolutionize housing.

In the other is the financial statement from a modest modular factory that quietly shipped 400 homes last year while earning a profit.

One represents possibility.

The other represents proof.

Both have value, but if I were investing my own money, I know which one I’d study first.

I sometimes think the younger generation believes bootstrapping is an app they haven’t downloaded yet. That’s not a criticism; it’s simply a reflection of how entrepreneurship has evolved. They’ve grown up in a world where startup culture celebrates funding rounds, polished presentations, and bold announcements. My generation grew up believing you proved your idea by making something people would actually buy.

CLICK HERE for a FREE Consultation about starting or operating your offsite factory

The offsite construction industry absolutely needs fresh thinking, AI, robotics, automation, and entrepreneurs willing to challenge old assumptions. But perhaps it’s also time to rediscover one of the oldest startup principles of all.

Instead of asking, “Can I see your PowerPoint?”

Maybe we should start asking, “Can I see your production line?”

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Why the Name Quality Homes Fits This Ontario Modular Builder

For nearly four decades, Quality Homes has been building modular homes and cottages for Canadian families, primarily across Ontario. That alone is worth noting. In an industry filled with companies that come and go, a factory that has been serving homeowners since 1987 has had plenty of time to prove whether its name is simply good marketing or a promise it intends to keep.

In the case of Quality Homes, the name appears to be much more than a name.

The company builds custom homes and cottages in its 125,000-square-foot climate-controlled facility in Kenilworth, Ontario, then delivers the completed modules to the customer’s lot for installation and final site work. But that description, while accurate, does not tell the entire story. Many factories build modules indoors. What makes a homebuyer remember a company is how the entire experience is handled—from the first conversation through move-in day.

That is where Quality Homes seems to have found its place.

A buyer may start with one of Quality Homes’ existing designs, modify it, or work with the company to create a fully custom home or cottage. The company’s in-house drafting department develops the plans, while its design and décor people help customers make the hundreds of decisions that turn a house into their home.

That may not sound like factory work, but it is part of quality.

Too many homebuyers discover that choosing a builder means becoming the unofficial general contractor for their own project. They are left coordinating designers, permit offices, foundation crews, utility companies, subcontractors, and installers. When something goes wrong, everyone points to someone else.

Quality Homes has built its process around reducing that confusion. The company assists with permits, zoning and bylaw questions, site preparation, foundations, construction, delivery, installation, and the final steps toward occupancy. A homeowner still has decisions to make, of course, but they are not left alone to figure out who is responsible for what.

There is a reason modular construction, when done well, can produce an exceptionally well-built home. It is not because every factory-built home is automatically better than every site-built home. It is because a disciplined factory process gives a builder the opportunity to repeat good work, inspect it often, and protect materials from the weather.

Quality Homes builds indoors, away from rain, snow, mud, and long stretches of lost jobsite time. The same teams perform specialized work every day. Materials are protected, schedules are more controlled, and work can be inspected before the next stage covers it up.

The company says every home receives a 400-point CSA inspection during construction. That is not a slogan. It is a process. It means someone is looking at the details that a homeowner may never see once the drywall, flooring, cabinets, and trim are in place.

The end result is supposed to be a home that is tightly built, energy-efficient, structurally sound, and ready to handle Canadian weather for many years.

Most builders know how to make a promise. Fewer are willing to put one in writing and attach a consequence when they do not meet it.

Quality Homes calls its program the Homebuyer’s Ultimate Guarantee, or HUG™. It guarantees the contracted price, the completion date, and the quality of the home. If the company misses its guaranteed completion date, it says it will pay the customer $250 for every day it is late.

That is a strong statement in any form of homebuilding.

The company also offers a 10-year structural warranty, three years beyond Ontario’s Tarion standard. For a buyer making one of the largest investments of their life, that kind of protection matters. It says Quality Homes understands that a home is not just a product leaving a factory. It is where families will live, grow older, entertain friends, and make memories.

There was a time when many buyers thought of modular homes as limited choices pulled from a catalog. Pick a plan, choose a siding color, and hope it fits your life.

That is not what Quality Homes is offering today.

Its homebuyers can choose bungalows, two-story homes, custom cottages, and designs tailored to their lot, lifestyle, and preferences. Once the modules are delivered, craned into place, and finished on-site, the homeowner should see a well-designed home—not a collection of boxes that happened to arrive on trucks.

That is an important distinction. Modular construction is a method of building, not a style of home. When the design, engineering, factory workmanship, delivery, and site completion are all handled correctly, the homeowner gets what they wanted in the first place: a good home built for their family.

The name on the front of a factory matters. When a company calls itself Quality Homes, it had better be prepared to prove that name every day, on every production line, and on every homeowner’s lot.

Quality Homes has been doing that since 1987. Its reputation appears to rest not on a flashy claim, but on the quieter things that matter most to a buyer: careful planning, indoor construction, repeatable workmanship, thorough inspections, clear responsibility, and guarantees that mean something.

That is why the name Quality Homes seems so appropriate.

.

Why Do Modular Startups Always Want a Brand-New Factory?

Sometimes the smartest startup begins with something already working.

Whenever the idea of starting a modular home factory becomes the mission, I’m always surprised by how few startup principals seriously consider buying an operating factory instead of building a new one from scratch.

Most startup teams arrive with a vision of something different. They want advanced automation, robotics, artificial intelligence, sophisticated software, fewer employees, faster production and a building system unlike anything the modular industry has seen before. They imagine a sparkling new factory designed around their product, their equipment and their ideas.

I understand the attraction. Starting with a blank sheet of paper feels exciting, modern and limitless. Unfortunately, blank sheets of paper can also become very expensive.

A new factory allows startup founders to choose the location, design the production line, select the equipment and build the culture they want. They are not inheriting another owner’s processes, aging machinery, employee habits or outdated way of doing business.

To many founders, an existing modular factory represents the past. The building may not be in the ideal location, the production line may depend heavily on manual labor, and the company may build conventional modular homes rather than the innovative product the startup wants to introduce.

That is usually when we hear some version of, “We don’t want to inherit someone else’s old-fashioned ideas.”

What these teams sometimes fail to recognize is that they are not merely rejecting old ideas. They may also be rejecting experienced employees, trained production supervisors, established suppliers, proven quality-control procedures, state approvals, builder relationships and years of hard-earned manufacturing knowledge.

Not everything old needs to be thrown away.

Startup teams often focus heavily on the physical factory. They study square footage, ceiling height, column spacing, crane capacity, production flow, and access to major highways. All of those things matter, but the building is only one part of a modular manufacturing operation.

A functioning factory contains something much harder to purchase than equipment: institutional knowledge.

The people working there know how to receive materials, schedule production, resolve plan discrepancies, manage inspections, coordinate deliveries and keep houses moving through the line. They understand what happens when a supplier misses a shipment, a builder changes a specification or a module fails an inspection.

Those lessons were often learned through expensive mistakes. A startup building from scratch will probably have to learn many of them again—and pay for every lesson.

The cost of building or converting a facility is only the beginning. A new modular factory may require architectural and engineering work, permitting, utility upgrades, production equipment, material-handling systems, offices, software, code approvals and months of employee recruitment and training.

During all that time, money is flowing out while very little is coming in.

An existing profitable factory may already have a trained workforce, approved building systems, established vendor accounts, customers, projects in production and revenue arriving through the door. It may not be the founder’s dream factory on the day it is purchased, but it provides something most startups desperately need: a running start.

Automation, robotics and AI do not have to be abandoned. They can be introduced gradually where they provide measurable improvements instead of becoming enormous upfront investments based on assumptions that have not yet been tested.

A smaller profitable factory could provide an inexperienced startup team with a real-world education in modular manufacturing. Instead of attempting to learn everything while simultaneously designing a new product and commissioning a new factory, the founders could begin by understanding an operation that already works.

They would see where production slows, where labor is wasted, where material is damaged and where automation might genuinely improve throughput. They could test their ideas inside an operating business before spending millions of dollars building an unproven manufacturing system around them.

That approach may not produce as many exciting renderings or press releases, but it could produce better decisions.

There is nothing preventing a startup from buying an existing factory, learning from it, improving it and eventually expanding into a larger or more automated facility. The acquired company could become the foundation of the larger vision instead of being viewed as an obstacle to it.

Buying an operating factory is not without risk. Some factories are offered for sale because the owner is retiring or has no successor. Others may have declining sales, outdated approvals, deferred maintenance, environmental problems, employee issues or financial obligations that are not immediately obvious.

A factory that appears profitable may depend too heavily on one customer, one salesperson or one owner who personally holds the business together. Its backlog may look impressive until someone studies whether those projects are actually profitable and adequately funded.

That is why proper due diligence is essential. The buyer must examine the financial records, contracts, customer concentration, workforce, approvals, equipment, real estate, warranty exposure and reputation of the business. Buying the wrong factory can be just as dangerous as building the wrong one.

However, the existence of risk is not a reason to dismiss every acquisition opportunity. It is a reason to bring in people who know what to examine before the purchase is made.

Some startup founders want to point to a new factory and say, “We built this.” They want their own production system, their own technology and their own story. Investors may also be attracted to the excitement of a futuristic factory filled with automation and big promises.

Buying a modest operating factory does not always generate the same attention. It may look less visionary, even when it is the more financially responsible decision.

But the goal should not be to build the most impressive factory. The goal should be to build a sustainable company that produces quality homes, serves its customers and generates enough cash to survive.

A new factory can consume millions before the first home reaches a jobsite. An existing factory might begin teaching, producing and generating revenue on the first day of new ownership.

At Offsite Innovators, we believe many opportunities for startup companies are sitting inside existing factories. Over the years, Bill Murray and I have advised factory owners who were ready to retire, transition their businesses or simply leave the industry. We have also advised startup teams trying to assemble the right leadership, locate a facility and understand what it really takes to manufacture modular housing.

What continues to amaze both of us is how often younger startup teams refuse even to consider an existing operation. They would rather raise significantly more money, spend years preparing a new facility and accept all the risks of starting production from zero.

Sometimes starting from scratch is the right decision. A unique product, specialized process or geographic requirement may make an acquisition impractical. But that conclusion should come after existing factories have been investigated—not before they have even been considered.

The modular industry does not lack factories. It lacks enough serious buyers willing to look beyond the age of the building, the existing production line and the fact that somebody else started the company.

An older, smaller and profitable modular factory may not resemble the futuristic operation pictured in a startup founder’s presentation. However, it may contain the workforce, approvals, supplier relationships, customers and manufacturing knowledge needed to turn that presentation into a real business.

Before spending millions to pour floors, install equipment and learn modular manufacturing through trial and error, startup teams should at least investigate whether an existing factory could provide a faster, safer and less expensive path into the industry.

And if a factory owner is thinking about transitioning out of the business—or a startup team wants help determining whether buying an existing factory makes sense—Bill Murray and I are only an email away.

Before You Get in Over Your Head

There is something powerful about standing in an empty building, looking at a set of plans, and imagining production lines, finished modules rolling out the door, builders calling for more homes, and a company that finally solves the housing problem everyone talks about.

I understand the pull. You have probably spotted a need in your market. Perhaps local builders cannot get dependable factory capacity. Maybe housing demand is growing faster than site builders can keep up. Or you have spent years watching existing factories miss deadlines, build homes with too many problems, or treat their customers like they should be grateful for whatever they get.

You may honestly believe you can do it better.

You might be right.

But before you order the equipment, hire the first production manager, or sign a lease on a building that looks perfect from the interstate, I would like to offer you a little help.

Not because I think every new factory is headed for trouble. Far from it. Offsite construction needs new ideas, new leadership, better factories, and people willing to take a risk. The industry will not grow if everyone sits on the sidelines waiting for someone else to solve the problem.

The trouble is that many new owners do not realize they are not simply starting a construction company.

They are starting a manufacturing company that builds homes.

That one difference has swallowed up more good intentions, investor money, and promising startups than most people want to admit.

Most people do not wake up one morning and say, “I think I’ll build a factory because I have too much money.”

They see something missing.

They see a region that needs workforce housing, attainable housing, ADUs, apartments, cottages, or homes for developers who are tired of waiting two years for a conventional builder. They see shortages, rising prices, poor quality, and builders who need a better way to get homes completed.

Some founders have a new product. Some have a better process. Others have been developers, builders, transportation people, investors, or factory employees who have spent years thinking, “If I were running that place, I would do it differently.”

That insight can be the beginning of a very good company.

But insight alone does not keep the lights on.

Money may not be the first reason someone starts a factory, but it cannot be an afterthought. A factory with a wonderful mission, a strong sales story, and a full parking lot can still run out of cash long before it becomes profitable.

This is one I have seen too often.

The founders find a building. They begin talking about automated saws, panel lines, welding stations, robots, cranes, software, and how many modules they can build every week. There are drawings on the wall, a big opening-day announcement, and a lot of confidence.

Then reality arrives.

Who is buying the first 20 homes?

At what price?

Are those homes profitable after materials, labor, transportation, setting, warranty work, sales commissions, and all the little costs nobody put in the first spreadsheet?

Are there builders, developers, retailers, or customers already committed to buying them? Are the designs approved, repeatable, code-compliant, financeable, and practical to transport and set?

A factory should not be designed around the biggest production number you can put on a PowerPoint slide. It should be built around a clearly defined customer, a repeatable product, a realistic territory, and a dependable order pipeline.

The building is not the business.

The equipment is not the business.

The business is getting profitable homes sold, built, delivered, and paid for—again and again.

Construction people are often very good at solving problems on the fly. A jobsite changes. Something arrives late. A customer wants a different window, a new kitchen layout, or a last-minute change. People adjust and move on.

That can work on a jobsite.

It can destroy a factory.

A production line needs consistency. It needs complete drawings before production begins, materials that arrive when they are supposed to arrive, clear work instructions, trained people, quality checks, and designs that do not require the crew to reinvent the process every time another home enters the line.

When every home is a special project, every customer change becomes an emergency, and every department is waiting on somebody else, the factory becomes expensive chaos with a roof on it.

You cannot simply build homes indoors. You have to manufacture them.

That means knowing where the bottlenecks will appear, how long each station really takes, what happens when a supplier misses a delivery, how much rework is costing you, and whether the next module can move down the line without creating a traffic jam behind it.

A startup factory can be busy and still be in trouble.

That is one of the cruelest lessons in this industry. The order board can look terrific. The sales team can be celebrating. The production floor can be full. But if deposits are too small, customer payments are delayed, materials need to be purchased early, payroll arrives every week, and warranty or transportation problems begin eating into margins, cash disappears fast.

Being busy is not the same thing as being financially healthy.

Before a startup gets too far down the road, someone needs to ask the uncomfortable questions:

How much working capital is really needed—not just to open, but to survive the first year?
What happens if production takes longer than planned?
What happens if a developer delays payment?
What happens if the first several homes require expensive fixes?
How much margin is left after every cost is counted, including the ones people prefer to ignore?

These are not negative questions. They are survival questions.

If you are considering a new offsite factory, I am not here to tell you not to do it. I would never discourage the right people from bringing better ideas, better homes, and better leadership into this industry.

But I would encourage you to slow down long enough to test the idea before committing the money and opening the doors.

Bring in people who have operated factories, not just people who have visited them. Talk to transportation and set crews. Talk to builders. Talk to suppliers. Talk to code officials, lenders, and the people who will have to solve problems after the home leaves your plant.

Most importantly, invite someone to challenge your assumptions before the market does it for you.

The best time to ask hard questions is while the answers can still change the plan.

Because once the equipment is installed, payroll is running, and the first customers are waiting for homes, it is no longer a startup dream. It is a very expensive reality.

The offsite construction industry needs more startups—but it needs fewer startups that confuse enthusiasm with preparation.

A new factory can succeed. It can create jobs, solve housing problems, and become a company people are proud to work for. But it has to begin with more than a building, a business plan, and a belief that demand will take care of everything else.

If you are about to take that step, get the right people around the table now.

It is much easier to adjust a plan before you build the factory than to explain later why the factory never became the business everyone hoped it would be.

Whatever Happened to the Dream Factories of 2005?

Around 2005, just a few years before the housing collapse of 2008 changed the trajectory of our industry, there was one person who seemed to know just about everyone who wanted to start an offsite construction company.

His name was Don Carlson, publisher of Automated Builder magazine.

Don wasn’t a consultant, investment banker, or factory owner. Yet if someone had a dream of building a modular, panelized, or component manufacturing plant, there was a good chance they would call or write Don first. Over the years, he became much more than a publisher. He became a trusted resource, a connector, and in many ways, the unofficial clearinghouse for new ideas in offsite construction.

Recently, while going through some old files, I came across one of Don’s internal lists covering the period from May 2005 through June 2006. It wasn’t an article or a press release. It was simply a working list of people who had contacted Automated Builder looking for guidance, introductions, or simply someone who understood their dream.

Reading through it felt like opening a time capsule.

Some wanted to build modular factories. Others envisioned panelized plants. A few hoped to introduce new technologies or expand into international markets. Every name represented someone willing to risk time, money, and reputation to bring another offsite factory to life.

Twenty years later, I find myself wondering…

What happened to those dreams?

Did they build the factory?

Did the business survive?

Was it sold?

Did the idea evolve into something completely different?

Or did it simply become another business plan tucked away in a desk drawer?

Today, Bill Murray and I receive many of these same phone calls and emails. The questions have changed a little, but the dream hasn’t.

“Should I start a factory?”

“Should I buy an existing one instead?”

“Is now the right time?”

“Can offsite construction really make a difference?”

The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

So I’d like to begin a new series. Each week, I’ll feature a handful of names from Don Carlson’s list and ask our industry to help fill in the missing chapters.

1. Warren Harder – Igloo Building & Supply Group
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Reportedly planning a modular startup.

2. Lawrence C. Don – Lorwood Properties, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
Believed to have been planning a panelized housing operation.

3. Marcus Hepburn – Florida Catholic Conference
Tallahassee, Florida
Reportedly exploring a panelized housing startup.

4. Bob Congdon – The Home Co.
Suffolk, Virginia
Considering a possible panelized housing company.

5. Larry Maxwell
Marshall, Missouri
Interested in developing either a panelized or modular housing factory.

If you know what became of any of these people or their projects, I’d love to hear from you. Maybe the factory was built and is still operating today. Maybe it evolved into something completely different. Maybe the dream was interrupted by the housing collapse, financing, or simply life itself.

Whatever happened, their story deserves to be remembered because every successful factory—and every factory that never got built—started with someone willing to ask the same question:

“What if?”

modcoach@gmail,com

One of the things I admire most about Don Carlson was that he understood his job wasn’t just publishing a magazine. He understood that sometimes people simply needed someone who would listen, make an introduction, or point them in the right direction. Twenty years later, Bill Murray and I are discovering that entrepreneurs are still seeking the same guidance.

The faces have changed. The technology has changed. Even the challenges are different. But the entrepreneurial spirit that drives offsite construction hasn’t changed one bit.

Now it’s your turn. If you recognize one of these names or know what happened to their dream, please leave a comment or send me a message. Together, maybe we can finish a story that began more than twenty years ago.

In the Beginning: When Sears Decided to Sell an Entire House Through the Mail

The first article in the “In the Beginning” series from Offsite Innovators

There are moments in every industry’s history when someone proposes an idea so unconventional that most people dismiss it before it has a chance to prove itself. Looking back years later, those same ideas often seem obvious, even inevitable. But at the time, they were anything but.

The offsite construction industry has been built on those moments. Long before robotics, artificial intelligence, digital twins, or automated production lines, there were innovators who looked at the way homes were being built and quietly asked a simple question: “Why does it have to be done this way?”

This new Offsite Innovators series, In the Beginning, looks back at those people, companies, and turning points that changed how America builds. Some became legendary. Others faded into history despite remarkable accomplishments. Each has something to teach today’s entrepreneurs, factory owners, engineers, and innovators.

There’s no better place to begin than with the company that convinced tens of thousands of Americans they could buy an entire house from a catalog.

When people hear the name Sears today, they usually think about department stores, Craftssman tools, Kenmore appliances, or perhaps memories of flipping through the Christmas Wish Book. Few realize that between 1908 and 1940, Sears sold more than 70,000 complete homes that were shipped by railroad to customers across the United States.

It sounds almost unbelievable today, but in the early twentieth century it wasn’t nearly as far-fetched as it appears with the benefit of hindsight. Sears had already built one of the most efficient mail-order businesses in the country. Farmers and families living in rural America depended on its enormous catalogs to purchase everything from clothing and furniture to farm machinery and household goods. If the company could successfully deliver thousands of different products across the nation, someone eventually asked an obvious question.

Why not houses?

That question didn’t come from a homebuilder. It came from executives who understood distribution, logistics, customer service, and manufacturing. Sears wasn’t trying to reinvent residential construction. They were simply looking at their existing strengths and asking how those strengths could solve an even bigger problem.

Although Richard Warren Sears laid the foundation for the company’s mail-order empire, the Sears Modern Homes program is generally credited to Frank W. Kushel, who recognized that America’s growing railroad network created an opportunity unlike anything the housing industry had seen before.

Kushel understood something that many entrepreneurs still struggle to recognize today. A revolutionary product rarely succeeds because of the product alone. It succeeds because the systems surrounding it finally make the product practical.

Rail transportation had matured. Manufacturing techniques had improved. Customers already trusted Sears with major purchases. The timing was finally right to combine those pieces into something entirely new.

That timing proved to be just as important as the houses themselves.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Sears Kit Homes is that the company simply bundled together lumber and hardware, then hoped buyers could figure out the rest.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Creating a Sears home required architects, engineers, draftsmen, and manufacturing specialists to work together in ways that were remarkably advanced for their time. Every floor plan had to be attractive enough for families to proudly call home while also being engineered so every component could be manufactured efficiently, packed into railroad boxcars, shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles, and assembled with predictable results.

Each board was cut to size before shipment. Components were labeled. Windows, doors, trim, roofing materials, flooring, hardware, nails, and fixtures were all carefully inventoried before leaving the warehouse. Detailed instruction manuals guided local carpenters and homeowners through the construction process.

In many respects, Sears wasn’t simply designing houses. They were designing an entire building system.

That distinction still matters today.

Selling a house through the mail wasn’t Sears’ greatest achievement. Convincing people to trust the idea was.

Imagine opening a catalog in 1915 and seeing a complete home offered alongside kitchen tables, work boots, and farm equipment. Even if the price seemed attractive, most buyers naturally wondered whether such an ambitious purchase could really work. Sears recognized those concerns long before customers voiced them.

Instead of simply advertising affordability, the company focused on removing uncertainty. Homes arrived with pre-cut lumber that eliminated much of the measuring and cutting normally performed on site. Every shipment included carefully organized materials lists and construction instructions. Sears even introduced financing programs that allowed many middle-class families to own homes that would otherwise have remained out of reach.

Looking back, it’s easy to admire the engineering. But the real innovation may have been something less visible.

Sears systematically removed every reason customers had to say no.

More than a century has passed since the first Sears Modern Home was delivered, yet many of the same challenges continue to define today’s offsite construction industry.

Factories still spend enormous amounts of time educating buyers about unfamiliar building methods. Transportation remains one of the industry’s greatest logistical challenges. Financing, insurance, public perception, local acceptance, and regulatory differences continue to influence whether innovative housing systems succeed or struggle.

The technology has changed dramatically, but human nature has not.

Customers still want confidence before they embrace something new. They want to know that the product has been tested, that the company will stand behind it, and that the process is dependable from beginning to end.

Sears understood that long before anyone used terms like “customer experience” or “innovation adoption.”

Their greatest accomplishment wasn’t inventing factory-built housing. Others had experimented with prefabrication before them, and competitors such as Aladdin Company would become formidable rivals. Sears’ lasting contribution was proving that industrialized homebuilding could become mainstream when backed by organization, quality, and trust.

That may be the most valuable lesson they left behind.

One of the reasons I wanted to begin this series with Sears is because I see so many similarities between 1908 and where our industry finds itself today.

Every week I hear about another startup with an exciting product, a new manufacturing process, an innovative transportation system, or software that’s supposed to revolutionize housing. The enthusiasm is real, and in many cases the technology truly is impressive. Yet too often the conversation begins and ends with the invention itself.

Sears reminds us that inventions rarely change industries by themselves.

What changes industries is building an entire system that people can understand, trust, finance, transport, insure, and confidently recommend to someone else. That’s exactly what Sears accomplished over one hundred years ago. They didn’t just sell lumber packages. They created confidence in a completely different way of building homes.

As we continue this In the Beginning series, I hope we don’t simply admire the pioneers who came before us. I hope we study them. The challenges facing today’s offsite innovators may wear different names, but many of them are remarkably familiar. History has a way of reminding us that the biggest obstacle to innovation is rarely the technology itself.

More often, it’s earning the confidence of the people who are being asked to embrace it. And that’s a lesson that’s just as relevant today as it was when the first Sears house rolled out on a railroad boxcar.

They Laughed at Her Brick. Today, We Build with Her Idea

Innovation has never had an easy time finding acceptance in construction. In fact, many of the ideas we now take for granted were once dismissed as impractical, unnecessary, or simply impossible. Sometimes the resistance comes because a product is unfamiliar. Sometimes it comes because changing long-established methods makes people uncomfortable. And sometimes, unfortunately, it comes because of the person presenting the idea.

Nearly a century ago, one remarkable architect experienced all three.

Looking at a Wall Differently

During the 1920s, America was building at an incredible pace. Schools, theaters, factories, commercial buildings, and homes were all rising from solid clay brick. Each brick weighed roughly four and a half pounds, requiring enormous amounts of labor to manufacture, transport, and lay. Once the walls were completed, they provided structural strength but little insulation against heat, cold, or noise.

To most builders, that was simply the cost of construction.

Anna Keichline saw something entirely different. She believed the industry was wasting raw materials, transportation costs, and countless hours of labor. More importantly, she understood something many builders overlooked—air is a far better insulator than solid clay. Instead of accepting centuries-old construction methods, she began asking a simple question: Why does a brick need to be solid?

Anna Keichline was hardly an ordinary architect. Born in 1889, she had already established herself as a skilled woodworker while still a teenager, studied mechanical engineering, graduated from Cornell University’s architecture program, and served as a Special Agent for the Military Intelligence Division during World War I.

This is one of her earliest designs to improve cooking for women of the 1920’s

When she returned to Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, to open her architectural practice, she entered an industry where women were rarely welcomed on construction sites. Contractors often questioned her authority, and foremen weren’t shy about showing their skepticism as she climbed scaffolding to inspect projects she had designed herself.

Rather than arguing with them, Keichline paid attention to what she saw every day. Watching masons struggle with heavy, solid bricks convinced her there had to be a better solution.

Her answer became the K-Brick.

Instead of changing the material itself, she redesigned its shape. The exterior looked much like a traditional brick, but the interior contained large hollow chambers separated by structural webs. That simple change cut the brick’s weight nearly in half while requiring significantly less clay to manufacture.

The benefits didn’t stop there. Those hollow cavities trapped air, creating natural insulation while reducing outside noise. They also allowed masons to cover more wall area with less lifting, making construction faster and far less physically demanding. It was one of those rare innovations that reduced costs while improving performance.

On paper, the numbers were compelling.

Unfortunately, construction doesn’t always embrace good math.

Keichline confidently presented her invention to local brick manufacturers, expecting they would immediately recognize its advantages. Instead, they rejected it almost without discussion. Some insisted the hollow brick would collapse under its own weight. Others argued that masons would never accept it. Many simply couldn’t imagine replacing a product that had changed very little in hundreds of years.

There was another obstacle she couldn’t overcome with engineering calculations alone.

Construction in the 1920s was overwhelmingly controlled by men who had little interest in taking advice from a female architect. Pennsylvania had only recently licensed its first female architect, and that architect was Anna Keichline herself. The building supply industry, contractors, and trade organizations were deeply rooted in tradition, making it nearly impossible for an outsider—especially a woman—to introduce a revolutionary product.

Rather than abandoning her idea, Keichline decided to prove it herself. She invested her own money to have prototype K-Bricks manufactured and personally loaded them into her automobile.

Then she drove from construction site to construction site across Pennsylvania.

She met with foremen, explained the engineering, demonstrated the product, and asked builders to give it a chance. Time after time, she was turned away. Some refused even to examine the prototypes. Others dismissed the concept before hearing her explanation. Even when she offered to build demonstration walls, many contractors simply weren’t interested.

For anyone trying to introduce a new building system today, that story probably sounds all too familiar.

When manufacturers refused to listen, Keichline took her case to the federal government. Her patent application included engineering calculations, structural testing, thermal performance data, and manufacturing specifications.

On September 6, 1927, she received U.S. Patent No. 1,641,185 for the K-Brick.

The patent confirmed what she had been saying all along. The design was structurally sound, fire-resistant, dramatically lighter than conventional brick, and capable of helping bricklayers complete projects more efficiently while producing walls that were warmer and quieter.

She had official proof.

The industry still wasn’t interested.

Eventually, a handful of independent builders decided to test the blocks themselves. The walls performed exactly as Keichline predicted. They proved strong, durable, quieter, and more energy efficient. Masons appreciated lifting less weight, contractors appreciated completing projects more quickly, and owners appreciated the improved buildings.

The economics eventually became impossible to ignore.

Ironically, by the time hollow masonry units became widely accepted, the industry had begun transitioning from clay to concrete. Manufacturers adopted the very geometry Keichline had pioneered, replacing clay with concrete and creating what would become the concrete masonry unit of today.

The principle was hers.

The fortunes built upon it largely belonged to someone else.

Anna Keichline died in 1943 at just fifty-three years old, never witnessing the tremendous post-war construction boom that transformed America. Yet her idea quietly became one of the foundations of modern construction.

Today, hospitals, schools, warehouses, office buildings, and countless commercial structures rely on hollow masonry units based on the same engineering principles she carried from construction site to construction site in the trunk of her car. Millions of people see those blocks every day without realizing whose vision made them possible.

CLICK HERE to read more about Anna Keichline

Whenever I hear someone dismiss a new product because “nobody’s using it yet,” I think about Anna Keichline. The offsite industry has no shortage of innovators introducing better ways to build, transport, manufacture, and assemble housing. The real challenge has never been developing new ideas—it’s convincing an industry built on tradition to give those ideas an honest chance.

Whether it’s Uni-Frame, robotics, artificial intelligence, advanced transportation systems, or the next breakthrough none of us has seen yet, every innovation faces the same uphill battle. History has shown that truly valuable ideas are often questioned, criticized, and even ridiculed before they become standard practice.

Anna Keichline didn’t change the construction by winning arguments. She changed it by creating an idea that eventually became too practical—and too profitable—to ignore. That’s a lesson worth remembering every time someone says, “We’ve always done it this way “

The Problem Isn’t the Problem. Your Meetings Are.

I’ve sat through hundreds of meetings over the years. Factory meetings. Executive meetings. Crisis meetings. Strategic planning sessions. Special task force meetings. Most of them started with good intentions.

Someone identifies a problem, everyone agrees it’s important, the issue gets added to the agenda, opinions are shared, action items are assigned, and the meeting ends with a promise to revisit the topic later.

Then later arrives.

And nothing happens.

The same problem shows up on the next agenda, and the one after that, and eventually everyone becomes so accustomed to talking about it that they stop noticing the lack of progress.

Most factories don’t suffer from a lack of intelligence. They don’t suffer from a lack of data either. In fact, if you ask supervisors, managers, salespeople, production staff, and executives what the biggest challenge facing the company is, you’ll often hear remarkably similar answers.

Cash flow. Sales. Labor shortages. Quality issues. Customer service. Production bottlenecks.

Everybody knows what the problems are.

The mystery isn’t identifying them. The mystery is why they keep surviving every meeting.

I’ve often wondered what would happen if management changed the rules. Suppose a problem had appeared on the agenda for months with no resolution. Instead of holding another discussion, management announces that everyone attending the next meeting must submit a written recommendation to resolve the issue at least two days beforehand.

No recommendation. No participation.

Would some people complain? Absolutely. Would others say it’s unfair? Probably. But those reactions might reveal more about the company than the actual solutions being submitted.

Most people enjoy discussing problems. Far fewer enjoy owning a solution.

The moment someone must submit a recommendation, the conversation changes. The problem is no longer theoretical. There is now risk involved because recommendations can be challenged, questioned, criticized, or fail altogether. Suddenly, the discussion requires commitment instead of commentary.

That may be one reason organizations become trapped in endless discussions. Talking about a problem feels productive while avoiding the discomfort that comes with making a decision. The work gets done, just not the work that matters most.

One of the most dangerous forms of procrastination in business is productive procrastination.

The reports are current. The production schedule is updated. The dashboards are colorful. Meetings start on time. Everyone appears busy and engaged.

Meanwhile, the difficult decisions remain untouched.

A weak manager stays in place because nobody wants the confrontation. An outdated sales strategy survives another quarter because changing it feels risky. Customer concentration grows worse, quality issues linger, and cash flow concerns continue to surface month after month.

The factory is moving fast, but it may not actually be moving forward.

I’ve seen factories spend months improving processes that save a few minutes per shift while avoiding decisions that could dramatically improve profitability, culture, or long-term stability.

I believe most unresolved problems are not knowledge problems. They are decision problems.

People fear making the wrong call. They fear criticism from coworkers, disappointment from ownership, and blame if a solution doesn’t work as planned. As a result, the safest option becomes another meeting, another discussion, another analysis, and another month of delay.

The problem remains parked safely on the agenda while everyone convinces themselves that progress is being made.

If a problem has been discussed for six months, management should ask every person in the room two questions:

What is your recommended solution?

What decision are we avoiding?

The answers will reveal more about the health of the organization than a stack of management reports ever could.

Healthy organizations make decisions. They don’t always make perfect decisions, and sometimes they make mistakes, but they move forward. Unhealthy organizations become experts at explaining why decisions are difficult, why more information is needed, or why now is not the right time.

One approach creates progress.

The other creates meeting minutes.

I’ve yet to meet a factory that was talked into success. At some point, somebody has to make a decision. Not another study, another committee, another consultant’s report, or another strategic review.

A decision.

The longer a problem survives management meetings, the more likely it is that everyone already knows the answer and nobody wants to own it. That’s when the issue stops being operational and becomes cultural.

And culture is a lot harder to fix than production.

[email protected]

Why Cash Flow, Not Profit, Decides Who Survives

Over the years, I’ve talked with dozens of people who wanted to build the next great modular, panelized, or volumetric factory. They usually have impressive business plans, sophisticated equipment layouts, experienced advisors, and enough confidence to fill a convention center. Most of the discussion revolves around production capacity, automation, labor savings, and projected sales growth. Those are all important topics, but there is one subject that rarely gets the attention it deserves until it becomes a crisis.

That subject is cash flow.

For some reason, many people assume that if a factory is profitable, everything else will take care of itself. Unfortunately, factories don’t operate on accounting statements. They operate on cash. Suppliers want to be paid. Employees expect paychecks every week. Utility companies, insurance carriers, transportation providers, and landlords all expect their money on time, regardless of how many profitable projects are currently sitting in the backlog.

The result is that a factory can look successful from the outside while quietly struggling to keep enough cash in the bank to make it through the month.

One of the most common mistakes made by startup factories is confusing profitability with liquidity. A company can have millions of dollars in signed contracts and still face serious financial pressure because those contracts don’t immediately translate into cash.

Materials are purchased long before a project is completed. Labor costs accumulate daily. Equipment payments, insurance premiums, and overhead expenses continue regardless of when a customer payment arrives. If a developer’s financing is delayed, a draw request is held up, or a project schedule slips, the factory still has obligations to meet.

That’s where many businesses discover the difference between making money and having money.

I’ve seen factories celebrating record sales while simultaneously borrowing against lines of credit just to keep operations moving. On paper, they looked healthy. In reality, they were walking a financial tightrope.

Most factory owners dream about growth, and they should. Growth creates opportunities, expands market share, and generates revenue. However, growth also consumes cash, often much faster than people expect.

Every additional project requires materials, labor, transportation planning, quality control, and administrative support. As production increases, so do the demands on working capital. If cash reserves aren’t growing alongside the business, success itself can become a source of financial stress.

Some of the most painful conversations I’ve had involved factories that were busier than ever but couldn’t understand why they were constantly fighting cash shortages. The answer was usually simple. Their growth had outpaced their ability to finance that growth.

Being busy and being financially healthy are not always the same thing.

The offsite industry has never lacked ambition. Every few years, a new company announces plans for a massive facility packed with automation, robotics, and enough production capacity to transform the housing market.

Those announcements generate excitement, but capacity alone doesn’t guarantee success.

A large factory with insufficient working capital is still vulnerable to the same delays, financing challenges, and market fluctuations as a smaller operation. In fact, the larger the facility, the greater the monthly obligations. When project schedules shift or customer payments slow down, those obligations don’t shrink.

Many of the factories that have survived difficult markets over the years weren’t necessarily the largest or the most technologically advanced. They were the ones who understood the importance of protecting cash, controlling expenses, and growing at a pace their finances could support.

The best operators I’ve known pay as much attention to financial dashboards as they do to production reports. They know what’s owed, what’s coming in, and where the business will stand thirty, sixty, and ninety days from now. They understand that a healthy cash position provides flexibility, and flexibility allows a factory to survive unexpected challenges.

Every factory experiences delays. Every factory encounters projects that don’t unfold exactly as planned. The companies that navigate those situations successfully are usually the ones that prepared for them long before they occurred.

Cash doesn’t eliminate problems, but it buys time to solve them.

Whenever a factory closes its doors, people immediately start searching for a dramatic explanation. They blame labor shortages, transportation costs, regulations, market conditions, interest rates, or a lack of demand. Sometimes those factors contribute to the problem, but after spending decades around this industry, I’ve come to believe that many factory failures share a common root cause.

The company simply ran out of cash.

It wasn’t always because the business model was flawed. It wasn’t always because management made bad decisions. Often, the factory was producing a good product, had customers waiting for deliveries, and even showed a profit on paper. What it lacked was sufficient cash to bridge the gap between expenses and payments.

That’s why I’ve always believed that cash flow is the silent killer of factory dreams. You can survive a slow month, a delayed project, or even a bad decision. What you can’t survive for very long is an empty bank account. In the end, cash flow may not be the most exciting part of running a factory, but it is often the difference between celebrating growth and locking the doors.

[email protected]