Search

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

Great Ideas Are Everywhere in Offsite Construction—But Turning Them Into Successful Companies Is Another Story

Gary Fleisher on March 7, 2026

Every month in the offsite construction world, I hear about another promising new idea. Someone has developed an app that will streamline scheduling, a machine that promises faster panel production, or a digital tool that claims to simplify design coordination between factories and builders.

The process almost always starts the same way. One person—or maybe two or three partners—becomes convinced they’ve discovered the next breakthrough. They sketch out the concept, begin building a prototype, test an early version of their software, or casually run the idea past a few friends.

Then comes the moment when they decide it’s ready for the market.

And that’s where things often begin to unravel.

Not because the idea is bad. In fact, many of these ideas are genuinely innovative. The problem is that between the original spark of inspiration and the launch of the business, too many critical questions were never asked—and even more were never answered.

That’s where bringing in an advisor early in the process can make the difference between becoming another forgotten startup and building something that actually survives in the real world.

Advisor vs. Consultant: A Difference Most Startups Miss

Many entrepreneurs assume they need a consultant. Consultants are typically hired to solve a specific problem. They arrive with a defined assignment—optimize a process, write a marketing plan, redesign a workflow—and when the job is done, they leave.

An advisor plays a very different role.

Advisors aren’t there to execute tasks. They’re there to challenge assumptions. They ask uncomfortable questions, connect dots the founders didn’t see, and help bridge the gap between what the startup team knows and what they don’t yet realize they need to know.

In many cases, the advisor’s most valuable contribution is a simple but brutally honest observation:

“Your idea, as you envision it today, either won’t sell right out of the box—or it won’t scale.”

That kind of feedback can save years of frustration and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

1. The Industry Reality Check

Offsite construction is a specialized industry with its own culture, production methods, regulatory hurdles, and financial pressures. Many startups underestimate how different it is from traditional tech or manufacturing ventures.

An advisor with real industry experience can quickly identify whether a new product or system actually fits the way factories operate. What looks brilliant on paper may be completely impractical on a production line that already runs on razor-thin margins and tight schedules.

2. The Market That Doesn’t Exist Yet

Many startups build solutions for a market that should exist—but doesn’t.

An advisor forces founders to answer tough questions:

Who will actually buy this?
Who controls the purchasing decision?
And how long will it take before the industry is ready to adopt it?

Those answers often reshape the entire go-to-market strategy.

3. The Scalability Illusion

A prototype that works in a lab or on a single job site doesn’t automatically translate into something that can be produced, sold, and supported at scale.

Advisors frequently spot scaling problems early. Maybe the system requires too much customization. Maybe it depends on skilled labor that’s already in short supply. Or maybe the economics only work at volumes the startup may never reach.

Better to discover those issues before the company invests heavily in the wrong direction.

4. The Missing Business Model

This is one of the most common gaps I see.

Many founders focus intensely on the product but spend very little time designing the business around it. Pricing, support, distribution, installation, training, warranties—these aren’t small details. They determine whether the idea becomes a viable company or just an interesting invention.

An experienced advisor helps fill in these blanks before they become expensive mistakes.

5. The Network Gap

In offsite construction, relationships matter. Factory owners, developers, engineers, lenders, and code officials all play a role in whether a new idea gains traction.

Advisors bring more than opinions—they bring networks. A well-placed introduction can open doors that might otherwise remain closed for years.

This is one reason why platforms like Offsite Innovators exist: to spotlight emerging technologies and connect innovators with the people who can help move their ideas forward.

6. The Hard Questions Nobody Wants to Ask

Startup teams are usually optimistic by nature. That optimism is necessary—but it can also blind founders to serious weaknesses in their plan.

An advisor’s job is to ask the questions others avoid:

What happens if adoption takes five years instead of two?
What if the first factory says no?
What if your competitors copy the idea faster than you expected?

These questions aren’t meant to discourage founders. They’re meant to strengthen the idea before the real world starts testing it.

The Value of Experience

The offsite construction industry is filled with innovators, and new ideas are essential if we want to build housing faster, smarter, and more affordably.

But ideas alone don’t build companies.

The startups that succeed are usually the ones that bring experienced voices into the room early—people who have already seen what works, what fails, and what pitfalls lie ahead.

Through our work and the conversations we feature on Offsite Innovators, we regularly meet entrepreneurs with exciting concepts. Some are already on the path to success. Others simply need guidance to close the gap between inspiration and execution.

In many cases, the difference between an idea becoming another also-ran or becoming a real industry breakthrough comes down to one simple decision:

Did they bring in the right advisor early enough?

The Modcoach Observation

Great ideas are common in offsite construction. What’s rare are founders who are willing to let someone challenge those ideas before they go to market. The smartest innovators I’ve met aren’t the ones who believe their idea is perfect—they’re the ones who invite experienced advisors to poke holes in it until it becomes strong enough to survive the real world.

Gary Fleisher—known throughout the industry as The Modcoach—has been immersed in offsite and modular construction for over three decades. Beyond writing, he advises companies across the offsite ecosystem, offering practical marketing insight and strategic guidance grounded in real-world factory, builder, and market experience. 

[email protected]

Change Order Discipline

Gary Fleisher on March 3, 2026

The Quiet Profit Killer Nobody Wants to Talk About

There’s an old joke in factory management that goes something like this:

“We didn’t lose money on that job… we just didn’t make what we thought we would.”

Translation? Change orders.

Not the official, signed, documented, properly priced change orders. Those are fine. Those are business. I’m talking about the quiet ones. The “no big deal” ones. The “while you’re at it” requests. The internal changes that somehow never quite make it back to the accounting department.

And in an offsite factory, those little favors eat profit faster than bad lumber pricing ever could.

The $200 Decision That Costs $2,000

It usually starts innocently.

A builder calls sales and says, “Hey, can we just move that window over about a foot?”

Sales, wanting to keep the relationship warm, says, “Sure, that shouldn’t be a problem.”

By the time that “no problem” hits engineering, redraws begin. Framing layouts shift. Sheathing changes. Maybe a header changes size. Maybe it affects siding layout. Maybe it impacts a cabinet run. Nobody sends an invoice for engineering time. Nobody tracks the production delay when the module has to pause while drawings are clarified.

But the clock keeps running.

Multiply that by a dozen “small” adjustments on a project, and suddenly the margin you carefully built into the job is leaking out like air from a poorly sealed duct chase.

Internal Changes Are Even Worse

Now let’s talk about the changes nobody admits are changes.

Production decides to “improve” something mid-stream.
A supervisor swaps materials because “we had it in stock.”
Someone upgrades a component to avoid an argument.

No paperwork. No cost tracking. No pricing adjustment.

It feels helpful. It feels efficient. It feels like good customer service.

It’s not.

It’s uncontrolled scope creep inside your own walls.

The Lumber Myth

When lumber prices spike, everyone talks about it. It’s dramatic. It makes headlines. It’s easy to blame.

But in most factories I’ve walked through over the years, unmanaged change orders quietly cost more annually than lumber volatility.

Lumber might move 10% for a few months.

Undisciplined changes move your margin on every single house.

And because they’re scattered across engineering, purchasing, production, and field coordination, they’re hard to see. No one line item screams “We lost $180,000 here.”

It just shows up as, “We thought this job would do better.”

Discipline Doesn’t Mean Being Difficult

Change order discipline doesn’t mean telling builders “no” all the time.

It means:

Every change is documented.
Every change is costed.
Every change has a visible impact on schedule and production flow.

It also means sales and production are aligned before the promise is made—not after the drywall is hung.

Builders actually respect factories more when there’s clarity. When they understand that moving a window affects framing, sheathing, siding, trim, and sometimes transport. When you explain it professionally, most of them get it.

And the ones who don’t? They’re usually the ones costing you the most anyway.

A One Percent Story

If you’re looking for a full one percent added back to your bottom line, change order discipline is one of the fastest ways to find it.

No robotics required.
No capital raise needed.
No shiny software demo.

Just systems. Accountability. And the courage to stop giving away work because it feels polite in the moment.

In offsite construction, precision is our calling card. We talk about tolerances in sixteenths of an inch.

Maybe it’s time we applied that same precision to our margins.

Because in the end, the most expensive words in a factory aren’t “lumber went up.”

They’re “It’s just a small change.”

If you’d like to explore this possibilty for yourself, connect with me today.

Bill Murray, Co-Founder of Offsite Innovators

From Cool Innovation to Boring Execution: The New Reality in Offsite Construction

Gary Fleisher on February 26, 2026

For the past decade, the offsite and modular construction industry has lived in what I like to call the “cool innovation phase.” If you attended any conference, walked any trade show floor, or listened to any pitch, you heard the same words repeated over and over: disruption, robotics, AI, digital twins, automation, carbon neutrality, mass timber, platform housing. It was exciting. It was inspiring. And in many cases, it was necessary.

But something is changing. Quietly. Subtly. And in my opinion, permanently.

The industry is getting tired of hype.

Developers, lenders, investors, and even factory owners are beginning to ask a very different set of questions. Not, “How innovative is this company?” but instead, “How reliable are they?” That shift may not sound dramatic, but it will determine who survives the next decade and who becomes another case study in PowerPoint history.

The End of the Innovation Gold Rush

There was a time when simply being “innovative” could attract capital. A compelling vision, a sleek rendering, and a promise to transform housing were often enough to raise tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. We’ve all seen those stories. Some of them ended well. Many did not.

The result is that investors and developers have become more cautious. They’ve been burned by delays, changing designs, and factories that never reached full production. Now they want proof, not promises. They want factories that can deliver on time, every time. They want predictable pricing. They want partners that will still be in business when the warranty period ends.

This is not a rejection of innovation. It’s a demand for execution.

Predictable Factories Beat Brilliant Factories

If you ask developers today what keeps them awake at night, you won’t hear concerns about whether a wall panel was built by a robot or by a skilled worker. What they worry about is whether the panels will arrive when the crane is scheduled. They worry about whether the factory can maintain quality at scale. They worry about whether the production schedule will align with financing deadlines.

Predictability has become the new innovation.

Factories that understand this are investing less in flashy demonstrations and more in process control. They are tracking production metrics. They are refining workflows. They are standardizing designs. They are focusing on throughput, not just technology.

It’s not glamorous, but it works.

Stable Partners in an Unstable Market

The volatility of the housing market has made stability more valuable than ever. Interest rates move. Projects stall. Funding disappears. A factory that relies on a handful of large projects can suddenly find itself with empty production lines.

Developers are now asking, “Who can weather a downturn?” They want partners with diversified pipelines, strong balance sheets, and disciplined management. They want companies that don’t change direction every six months.

In other words, they want boring.

Repeatable Outcomes Are the New Competitive Advantage

Offsite construction was always supposed to be about repeatability. Yet much of the industry still operates in a project-based mindset. Every project is unique. Every design is customized. Every process is adjusted.

That approach undermines the very benefits offsite construction promises.

The shift now underway is toward product thinking. Platform housing. Standardized components. Repeatable designs. This is not about eliminating creativity. It’s about building systems that allow creativity to exist within a predictable framework.

The companies that master repeatability will scale. The rest will remain trapped in small-batch production.

Measurable Profits Over Vision

There is also a growing focus on financial discipline. For years, many startups prioritized growth over profitability. That model is now under intense scrutiny.

Factory owners are asking tougher questions:

  • Where are our margins?
  • Which processes actually add value?
  • Which investments improve the bottom line?

Incremental improvement, not massive transformation, is becoming the dominant strategy. A one percent gain in productivity. A two percent reduction in waste. A three percent improvement in scheduling accuracy. These small gains compound into real profit.

It’s not exciting. But it is sustainable.

The Winners Will Be the Most Reliable

Here’s the truth that may make some people uncomfortable. The companies that win the next decade will not necessarily be the most innovative. They will be the most dependable.

They will:

  • Deliver on time.
  • Meet budgets.
  • Communicate clearly.
  • Maintain quality.
  • Build trust.

Innovation will still matter. But it will be judged by results, not headlines.

This shift mirrors what happened in other industries. Early innovators create awareness. Mature companies create stability. The offsite construction sector is entering that maturity phase.

The Opportunity Ahead

For those willing to embrace this change, the opportunity is enormous. There is still massive demand for housing. There is still a shortage of skilled labor. There is still pressure for sustainability and efficiency. Offsite construction remains one of the most powerful tools available.

But the winners will not be the loudest voices. They will be the quiet ones, consistently delivering projects while others chase the next big idea.

The industry does not need fewer innovators. It needs more executors.

And that, perhaps, is the most exciting development of all.

If you’d like to explore this possibilty for yourself, connect with me today.

Bill Murray, Co-Founder of Offsite Innovators

Abandoned Malls, Empty Offices, and the Housing Crisis: Are We Finally Connecting the Dots? – with video

Gary Fleisher on February 26, 2026

The View From My Windshield

For years, I’ve driven past empty malls, dark office towers, and logistics buildings that look like they’re waiting for something to happen. In many cities, they sit quietly on valuable land while local leaders hold meetings about the housing shortage. It’s almost surreal. On one side of town, families can’t find affordable housing. On the other side, millions of square feet of real estate sit idle. The obvious question is finally being asked: Why aren’t we turning these buildings into homes?

From Empty to Opportunity

The answer is that we are—slowly. The trend has a formal name: adaptive reuse. It includes converting offices, retail centers, warehouses, schools, hotels, and churches into housing. Since the pandemic, the number of projects has surged. Remote work left downtown towers half empty. E-commerce changed retail patterns. Some logistics space is now underutilized. Meanwhile, housing demand has only grown stronger. Developers, cities, and investors are now looking at these abandoned or underperforming properties as opportunities rather than liabilities. For the first time in decades, adaptive reuse has moved from being a niche experiment to a mainstream strategy.

Not a Silver Bullet

But before we start celebrating, let’s be honest. This isn’t a silver bullet. Some projects are wildly successful. Others stall, collapse, or never get past the feasibility study. The difference between success and failure is usually not the building itself—it’s the early decisions. When the layout, structure, and location align with residential needs, the results can be impressive. Downtown revitalization happens. Communities regain energy. Affordable and workforce housing is created faster than ground-up construction. But when those factors don’t line up, costs explode and lenders run for the exits.

Design Realities Nobody Talks About

One of the biggest challenges is that most buildings were never designed to be homes. Office buildings, for example, often have deep floor plates. That means the center of the building has little or no natural light, which is a problem when you want apartments. Structural columns may be spaced in ways that limit unit design. Mechanical systems need complete replacement. In some cases, it’s cheaper to tear the building down and start over. That’s not what city leaders want to hear, but it’s the reality developers deal with every day.

The Financing Wall

Financing is another major obstacle. Traditional lenders still view adaptive reuse as risky. Construction costs are harder to predict. Unexpected structural issues are common. Zoning and code barriers can stop a project long before the first permit is issued. Local politics, community opposition, and lengthy approvals add time and uncertainty. In an industry that already operates on thin margins, those risks can kill deals quickly. It’s no surprise that many announced projects never move forward.

Malls and Warehouses: The Next Frontier

And then there are malls and warehouses—the next frontier. Across North America, there are hundreds of underperforming shopping centers and large-format retail sites. Some have already been redeveloped into mixed-income housing, walkable communities, and neighborhood centers. These projects have the potential to create entire new districts rather than just apartment buildings. Imagine turning a failing mall into housing, medical services, childcare, retail, and green space. When done well, the results can be transformative.

Why It’s So Hard to Get Right

But here again, the reality is complicated. Many malls are located far from public transit. They were designed for cars, not people. Infrastructure upgrades are expensive. Schools, utilities, and transportation systems must be expanded. Community resistance can be strong. People who oppose density suddenly become experts in zoning, traffic studies, and environmental reviews. The same communities that demand affordable housing often resist the changes required to make it happen.

Momentum Is Building

Despite all of this, the momentum is real. Cities are offering tax incentives, zoning changes, and faster approvals. Public-private partnerships are becoming more common. Nonprofits and faith-based organizations are stepping in, unlocking land that has been underused for decades. The private sector sees opportunity. Investors see long-term value. And younger generations, who are struggling the most with housing affordability, are more open to creative solutions.

Where Offsite Construction Fits

This is where the conversation gets interesting for the offsite and production construction industry. Adaptive reuse projects demand speed, cost certainty, and risk reduction. They require precision planning, early collaboration, and strong integration between design and manufacturing. In other words, they demand the very strengths that offsite construction has been promising for years.

Yet many developers entering adaptive reuse have little understanding of offsite methods. They know land. They know finance. They know entitlement. But they often do not know how to evaluate factory-built solutions, when they make sense, or how to structure projects to take advantage of them. The result is missed opportunities. Projects that could be faster and more predictable remain stuck in traditional processes.

The Opportunity Hiding in Plain Sight

This disconnect may be one of the largest untapped opportunities in the industry today. Adaptive reuse is not just about recycling buildings. It’s about rethinking how housing is delivered. It’s about integrating design, engineering, and manufacturing from the beginning. It’s about reducing risk and improving outcomes. Most importantly, it’s about aligning incentives so that every stakeholder benefits.

A Bigger Lesson for the Industry

There is also a deeper lesson here. For decades, the housing crisis has been framed as a supply problem, a labor problem, a zoning problem, or a financing problem. The truth is that it is all of these at once. Adaptive reuse doesn’t eliminate those challenges, but it forces collaboration in ways traditional development often avoids. When a project requires coordination between public agencies, developers, manufacturers, and communities, the industry either evolves—or the project fails.

The Turning Point

The irony is that the solutions have been sitting in plain sight. Empty buildings are everywhere. The need for housing has never been greater. Technology and manufacturing capabilities have advanced dramatically. The question is no longer whether adaptive reuse can work. The question is whether the industry is willing to change fast enough to make it scale.

If the answer is yes, abandoned malls and empty offices may become symbols of a turning point in how we build and deliver housing. If the answer is no, they will remain what they are today—silent reminders that knowing what to do and actually doing it are two very different things.

If you’d like to explore this possibilty for yourself, connect with me today.

Bill Murray, Co-Founder of Offsite Innovators

You’ve Got to Kiss a Lot of Frogs at IBS Before Finding a Prince

Gary Fleisher on February 18, 2026

Every year I walk into IBS with the same optimism. This is the year, I tell myself. This is the year I’m going to sit in sessions that change how I think about housing, construction, and business. This is the year I’ll hear something so practical and useful that I’ll be scribbling notes like a college freshman the night before finals.

And every year, by lunchtime on day one, I’m wondering if there’s a quiet hallway where I can sit and regroup.

Don’t get me wrong. IBS has some outstanding speakers. But, as my fairy godmother used to say, “You’ve got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince.” And at IBS, there are frogs of every shape, size, and PowerPoint color palette.

Let’s start with the first group. These are the speakers who know their product or service inside and out. They’ve built it, tested it, refined it, and in many cases, they genuinely believe it will help the industry. The problem is that their 30-minute session is really just a disguised sales pitch.

You know the type. The talk starts with “industry challenges,” moves quickly into “unique solutions,” and ends with a QR code and a special IBS discount. Halfway through, you realize you’re not attending an educational session. You’ve just walked into a live commercial.

The audience politely nods. Some even take notes. But deep down, everyone knows what’s happening. The real question is not whether the product works. The real question is whether anyone in the room will actually remember the session after their next cup of coffee.

The second group of speakers is much more passionate. These folks care deeply about their topic. Zoning reform. Workforce development. Sustainability. Missing middle housing. Pick a subject, and there is someone who has devoted years of their life to it.

These sessions can be inspiring, but they often turn into something else entirely. The Q&A portion becomes a stage of its own. Some audience members genuinely want answers. Others seem determined to test whether the speaker knows as much as they claim. It becomes less about learning and more about intellectual arm wrestling.

You can almost hear the mental dialogue. “Let’s see if this expert can handle my question.” Meanwhile, the rest of the audience just wants to know how to build a house faster, cheaper, and without losing their sanity.

Then we arrive at my two favorite types of speakers. And when I say favorite, I mean the ones that make me quietly exit the room before anyone notices.

The first is the scholar. This person has devoted decades to research. They have charts, graphs, and percentages for everything. They can tell you that 37.2% of homeowners prefer something over something else. Why 37.2%? Who knows? But it sounds impressive, and nobody questions it.

The problem is that by slide number six, the audience has mentally checked out. The room is full of builders, developers, and factory owners who haven’t had their second cup of coffee. They didn’t come to IBS for a graduate-level seminar. They came for ideas they can use on Monday morning.

The scholar, however, is in full stride. More charts. More graphs. More percentages. The audience nods politely while secretly wondering if there’s a donut break coming soon.

The final group is the one that fascinates me the most. These speakers include notes and credits for their facts and figures at the bottom of every slide. The font is so small you would need a telescope to read it.

Honestly, they could be quoting MAD Magazine, and nobody in the room would know the difference.

There’s something oddly comforting about this. It reminds me that in every industry, we sometimes take ourselves a little too seriously.

Now, before anyone sends me angry emails, let me say this. There are truly great presentations at IBS. Sessions that are engaging, practical, and memorable. Speakers who tell stories, share real experiences, and admit their mistakes. Those are the sessions people remember. Those are the ones that actually change behavior.

The common thread among the best speakers is simple. They don’t try to impress. They try to help.

They speak like real people. They use examples instead of percentages. They tell stories instead of showing charts. They focus on what the audience needs, not what they want to sell or prove.

And when you find one of those sessions, it feels like striking gold.

So next year, when you attend IBS, go in with realistic expectations. You will hear some sales pitches. You will see some charts that make your head spin. You will sit through at least one session where you question your life choices.

But if you’re patient, and willing to kiss a few frogs, you might just find a prince.

And that one session could make the entire trip worthwhile.

.

With more than 10,000 published articles on modular and offsite construction, Gary Fleisher remains one of the most trusted voices in the industry.

.

CLICK HERE to read the latest edition

Contact Gary Fleisher

Rules or Results? The Building Code Debate Reshaping Construction

Gary Fleisher on February 9, 2026

Building codes exist for one fundamental reason: to protect people and ensure that the buildings they live and work in are safe, durable, and perform as intended over time. These codes shape every aspect of construction, from structural integrity and fire protection to energy efficiency and indoor comfort. Compliance isn’t optional—it’s essential to occupant safety, long-term building performance, and legal approval.

At a high level, building codes fall into two primary categories: prescriptive codes and performance-based codes. Both approaches are widely used by builders, architects, and modular construction factories, often side by side, depending on local regulations and project complexity. Understanding the differences between these two systems—and when each makes sense—is critical for anyone involved in construction today.

Prescriptive Building Codes

Prescriptive building codes are rule-based. They provide detailed instructions that specify exactly how a building must be constructed. These codes spell out approved materials, dimensions, installation methods, and minimum requirements. For example, a prescriptive code might dictate insulation thickness, fire-resistance ratings for assemblies, or specific fastening schedules.

Compliance under a prescriptive system is straightforward: follow the rules as written, and the project meets code.

Advantages of Prescriptive Codes

Prescriptive codes offer clarity and predictability. Builders know exactly what is allowed, which reduces guesswork and can speed up permitting and inspections. Because requirements are clearly defined, there is little room for interpretation, minimizing disagreements between builders and inspectors.

These codes are also based on long-established construction practices. They have been tested over decades and are familiar to most builders, inspectors, and manufacturers. For smaller or less-experienced builders, this familiarity can reduce risk and simplify project execution.

Challenges of Prescriptive Codes

The biggest limitation of prescriptive codes is their rigidity. Builders must follow the rules precisely, even when alternative materials or methods could perform just as well—or better. This lack of flexibility can stifle innovation, particularly when new technologies or construction systems emerge faster than code updates.

Prescriptive codes can also be overly conservative. Requirements designed for extreme conditions may be applied universally, even in milder climates, driving up costs without delivering proportional benefits. As a result, builders may be forced to use materials or assemblies that exceed what the project actually needs.

Performance-Based Building Codes

Performance-based building codes take a fundamentally different approach. Instead of specifying how a building must be constructed, they define what the building must achieve. The focus is on outcomes—such as energy performance, structural capacity, fire safety, or moisture control—rather than prescribed methods.

Under this system, builders and designers are free to choose the materials, systems, and construction techniques they believe will meet or exceed the required performance targets.

Advantages of Performance-Based Codes

Flexibility is the defining strength of performance-based codes. Builders can use innovative materials, advanced systems, and nontraditional construction methods as long as they meet the stated performance criteria. This freedom often leads to more efficient designs, cost savings, and faster adoption of new technologies.

Performance-based codes also align well with sustainability goals. Because they emphasize outcomes like energy efficiency and environmental impact, they encourage creative solutions such as high-performance envelopes, renewable energy systems, and advanced insulation strategies.

Another benefit is adaptability. Performance-based approaches allow designers to tailor solutions to local conditions—whether that means seismic resilience, extreme weather resistance, or climate-specific energy strategies.

Challenges of Performance-Based Codes

With flexibility comes complexity. Demonstrating compliance often requires engineering analysis, modeling, testing, or third-party verification. These steps can add time, cost, and uncertainty to the approval process.

Performance-based codes also introduce subjectivity. Inspectors and authorities must evaluate whether a proposed solution truly meets performance objectives, which can lead to differing interpretations. This uncertainty can be frustrating, particularly in jurisdictions with limited experience reviewing alternative designs.

Finally, performance-based compliance demands a higher level of technical expertise. Builders and designers must understand building science, engineering principles, and system interactions. For smaller firms or those without in-house engineering support, this can be a significant hurdle.

Builder and Modular Factory Preferences

Preferences between prescriptive and performance-based codes often depend on project scale, organizational experience, and regulatory environment.

Traditional builders—especially smaller operations—tend to favor prescriptive codes. The certainty and predictability reduce risk and simplify interactions with local inspectors. When margins are tight and resources limited, following a clear rulebook can be the safest path forward.

Modular construction factories, particularly those focused on innovation and efficiency, often prefer performance-based codes. These codes allow factories to optimize designs, integrate automation, and adopt advanced materials without being constrained by rigid specifications. A modular factory, for example, may achieve superior energy performance through system-level design rather than by strictly following prescribed insulation values or assembly details.

This flexibility can provide a competitive advantage, enabling factories to reduce waste, improve consistency, and deliver higher-performing buildings.

Countries Using Performance-Based Codes

Many countries now use performance-based codes either fully or as part of hybrid systems that combine prescriptive and performance elements:

  • Australia incorporates performance-based provisions in its National Construction Code, particularly for fire safety and energy efficiency.
  • New Zealand allows performance-based design, with a strong emphasis on seismic resilience and sustainability.
  • The United Kingdom uses performance-based requirements in areas such as fire safety and energy performance.
  • Canada applies performance-based approaches in its National Building Code, especially for structural and fire design.
  • European Union countries, including Sweden and the Netherlands, rely heavily on performance-based standards to support sustainable construction.
  • The United States, while still largely prescriptive, is gradually expanding performance-based options, particularly in green building and resilience-focused projects.

Looking Ahead

As construction technologies, materials, and delivery methods continue to evolve, both prescriptive and performance-based codes will remain essential tools. Prescriptive codes provide stability and consistency, while performance-based codes create space for innovation and improvement.

The challenge—and opportunity—for builders and modular factories is knowing when to rely on proven rules and when to push boundaries responsibly. The future of construction will depend on striking the right balance between certainty and creativity.

If you’d like to explore this further, connect with me today.

Bill Murray, Co-Founder of Offsite Innovators

Why Visionaries Matter More in Offsite Than Almost Any Industry

Gary Fleisher on February 7, 2026

An offsite factory doesn’t simply manufacture buildings. It operates in a space where manufacturing discipline collides with construction realities, logistics constraints, regulatory oversight, and real estate economics. That intersection is messy, constantly shifting, and unforgiving. From day one, it demands someone who isn’t just running the business, but is continually questioning where the next failure point might appear. Visionaries in offsite are the ones who look beyond today’s production schedule and ask what will break tomorrow when volume increases, codes change, labor tightens, or customers expect something different. When that mindset disappears, the factory loses more than inspiration—it loses direction.

The “Boss Phase” Trap

Most founders don’t abandon vision intentionally. It happens gradually. After years of pushing uphill, the factory reaches a point of stability. Orders are coming in, production feels predictable, and the chaos that once defined startup life begins to settle. That’s when the visionary often shifts into protection mode. Decisions that were once driven by possibility become shaped by caution. The question subtly changes from “What should we try next?” to “How do we avoid disrupting what finally works?” In offsite construction, that shift is risky. Stability is not the same as sustainability, and protecting the current model can quietly prevent the next necessary evolution.

What Actually Breaks First

The early warning signs are rarely financial. They show up in behavior. Middle managers stop offering ideas because they’ve learned those ideas won’t be welcomed. Strong performers begin to disengage or leave, not dramatically, but quietly. Innovation starts to feel like a threat instead of an opportunity, and competitors appear more confident, more curious, and more willing to experiment. The factory may still be producing homes, but it has stopped learning how to build the next version of itself.

The Real Risk Isn’t Control—It’s Vacuum

Many founders believe that stepping away from vision is a sign of maturity, a way to professionalize the company. That only works if vision is intentionally handed off or built into the organization’s systems and culture. When no one is empowered to think ahead, challenge assumptions, or question sacred processes, a vacuum forms. The factory becomes extremely good at repeating what it already knows, even as the world around it changes.

The Hard Truth

Offsite factories rarely fail because of bad ideas. More often, they struggle because a once-successful idea is treated as untouchable. When the visionary becomes only “the boss,” the factory isn’t doomed—but it is exposed. The solution isn’t removing founders or forcing change for its own sake. It’s making sure that vision never leaves the room, even when the person who first carried it no longer does.

CLICK HERE for a free one-hour advisory video call

Gary Fleisher—known throughout the industry as The Modcoach—has been immersed in offsite and modular construction for over three decades. Beyond writing, he advises companies across the offsite ecosystem, offering practical marketing insight and strategic guidance grounded in real-world factory, builder, and market experience.

Great Idea. Wrong Assumption: You Don’t Have to Do This Solo

Gary Fleisher on February 4, 2026

When we were kids, most of us had toys that didn’t come with instructions—or if they did, we ignored them. We just knew how they worked. A toy truck got pushed. A ball got thrown. A set of blocks became a tower, then a pile on the floor. Instinct took over, and learning happened through trial, error, and the occasional skinned knee.

As we grew older, something changed. The toys got more complicated. The stakes got higher. And we learned a quiet but important lesson: if you want to do something new—and do it right—you probably need to ask someone for help.

Somewhere along the way, many adults forgot that lesson.

Today, Bill Murray and I regularly meet people who are convinced they have the idea to fix homelessness, solve affordable housing, streamline production, or eliminate labor shortages. And to be fair, these ideas are usually thoughtful. They’ve been debated over coffee and whiteboards. A few trusted peers have weighed in. A business plan has been written. A pitch deck polished. The language is entrepreneurial, confident, and full of promise.

The belief is simple: If we think this through carefully enough, we can make it work on our own.

Sometimes that belief gives an idea just enough momentum to get off the ground. But more often than not, reality shows up uninvited—and when it does, it has a way of letting the air out of even the most enthusiastic balloon.

What’s usually missing isn’t passion, intelligence, or effort. What’s missing is perspective.

Homelessness, affordable housing, factory production, and labor challenges are not abstract problems. They are lived, daily realities shaped by regulations, human behavior, logistics, weather, financing, politics, and a thousand small details that never make it into a pitch deck. These are problems that don’t fully reveal themselves until you’ve stood on a jobsite, walked a factory floor, sat across from a frustrated inspector, or tried to hire skilled workers when everyone else is fishing in the same shallow pond.

That’s why every startup—especially those aiming to “fix” big, messy problems—needs advice from people who have actually been there. Not theorists. Not résumé consultants. And not professionals who have only studied the industry from a distance.

I’m talking about people with boots on the ground.

People who’ve made payroll when cash flow was tight. People who’ve watched a great idea fail because one small assumption was wrong. People who understand how decisions ripple through production schedules, labor morale, and long-term profitability.

Bringing in that kind of experience early doesn’t weaken an idea—it strengthens it. It can shorten timelines, expose blind spots, and save enormous amounts of money before it’s spent in the wrong places. More importantly, it can turn a well-intentioned concept into something that actually works in the real world.

There’s nothing wrong with believing in your idea. But believing you don’t need outside, experienced guidance is a gamble—and it’s usually an expensive one.

Sometimes, the smartest move isn’t building a better pitch deck. It’s having a conversation with someone who’s already walked the road you’re about to travel.

And that conversation might be the most valuable first step you take.

CLICK HERE for a free one-hour advisory video call

Gary Fleisher—known throughout the industry as The Modcoach—has been immersed in offsite and modular construction for over three decades. Beyond writing, he advises companies across the offsite ecosystem, offering practical marketing insight and strategic guidance grounded in real-world factory, builder, and market experience.