A Time Capsule from Offsite Construction’s Past

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.

This Week’s Five Dream Factory Builders

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?”

Gary’s Observation

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.

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.

Profit Doesn’t Pay the Bills

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.

Growth Can Create Its Own Problems

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.

Bigger Buildings Don’t Solve Cash Problems

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.

Watch the Cash as Closely as the Production Line

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.

Modcoach Observation

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]

For decades, the story was the same: graduate high school, go to college, get a degree, land a career. But for many of today’s young people—especially Gen Z—that story no longer feels like the right fit. Instead, they’re taking a serious look at trade schools, particularly in the MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) and construction trades.

And here’s the kicker: it’s not just a fallback option. For many Gen Zs, it’s a first choice.

The AI Factor

Let’s face it: automation and artificial intelligence are reshaping industries faster than most people realize. Tasks that are repetitive, data-driven, or “mundane” are being handed over to machines. In manufacturing, we’re already seeing AI-driven robotics assemble components. In construction, software is taking over project scheduling, estimating, and compliance checks.

But here’s the catch—no robot or AI system is ready to crawl into an attic to wire a house, or sweat copper pipes under a sink, or troubleshoot an HVAC unit in the middle of winter. Skilled trades are hands-on, problem-solving, human-centered work. Gen Z recognizes this. They see that these jobs are safe from being replaced and, in many cases, are becoming more valuable as older generations retire from the trades.

Hands-On Work, Hands-On Satisfaction

Something else is driving this shift: pride. Gen Z isn’t just chasing a paycheck; they want work that feels meaningful. After years of being told that coding or sitting behind a desk was the future, many are discovering that creating something with their hands is incredibly satisfying. Building a wall, wiring a panel, or fixing a system has instant feedback—you see and feel the results of your labor.

For a generation raised on screens, that kind of tactile accomplishment is a powerful motivator.

Training Models That Work

Trade schools are responding with fresh, fast-paced programs. Instead of four years of college and six figures of debt, many programs are structured as six-week to six-month certifications, often tied directly to internships or apprenticeships. Some schools even run accelerated bootcamps where students learn by doing from day one.

And here’s where it gets really interesting: many companies are stepping up to cover tuition fees, offer stipends during training, and guarantee positions once students complete their program. Imagine finishing school with zero debt, a job offer in hand, and a starting salary that often competes with or surpasses the income of recent college grads. That’s not a hard sell to an 18-year-old weighing their options.

The Financial Reality

The economics are clear. While the average college student graduates with more than $30,000 in debt, a trade school graduate can often walk out debt-free—or close to it—and into a job paying $50,000 to $70,000 to start. Add overtime, union benefits, or specialized certifications, and those numbers climb quickly.

Gen Z is also realistic about housing costs, inflation, and job stability. They’re doing the math and realizing that the trades don’t just make sense—they make dollars.

Why Offsite Factories Should Pay Attention

Here’s where offsite construction factories come in. These facilities are in the middle of their own transformation, adopting automation and AI to speed up processes while still relying heavily on skilled labor to actually build, assemble, and finish homes.

For offsite factories, the Gen Z trade school trend is a lifeline. It means a growing pool of young workers trained in carpentry, electrical, HVAC, and plumbing—all trades essential inside the factory walls. Unlike traditional construction, factory work can offer steady, year-round work in a climate-controlled environment, which appeals to Gen Z’s desire for stability and balance.

At the same time, offsite companies have a chance to shape this workforce by partnering directly with trade schools. Offering internships, sponsoring classes, and even embedding factory-specific modules into training programs can create a pipeline of job-ready talent. Imagine a trade school graduate who not only knows how to run conduit but also understands how their skills plug into an assembly line that produces homes at scale. That’s the kind of synergy this industry has been craving.

Supporting the Trend

Offsite companies don’t have to sit on the sidelines. They can:

• Sponsor scholarships or tuition reimbursement for students willing to work at the factory after graduation.
• Offer tours and open houses to show trade school students what factory work looks like—fast, precise, and collaborative.
• Develop apprenticeship programs in which students split their time between school and the factory floor.
• Highlight career progression within factories to show Gen Z that their skills can grow into supervisory and management roles, not just entry-level positions.

By investing in these partnerships, factories not only fill their labor pipeline but also elevate the reputation of offsite construction as a career destination, not just a job stop.

Modcoach Observation

Gen Z isn’t rejecting higher education altogether—they’re simply redefining what education means. For them, a welding certificate, an HVAC license, or a journeyman card carries as much value (if not more) than a bachelor’s degree. And they’re right. In an AI-driven future, the ability to fix, install, and build is as irreplaceable as it gets.

For offsite factories, this is the moment to double down. These young workers are eager, debt-free, and ready to put their hands and talent to work. With the right outreach, factories can not only benefit from the trend but help accelerate it.

High-paying jobs. No college debt. Skills that matter. And now, a factory-built future that Gen Z can be proud to help construct.

Over the past several months, I’ve spoken with several modular factory owners, managers, and developers considering vertical integration into manufacturing.

In almost every conversation, I hear some version of the same statement:

“I’m buried.”

“There just aren’t enough hours in the day.”

“Things are completely crazy right now.”

Anyone who has spent time in manufacturing understands that pressure comes with the territory. Modular factories are complicated operations. Production schedules shift. Vendors miss deliveries. Service issues arise. Engineering changes happen. Customers want answers immediately.

Busy is normal.

But after more than 40 years around manufacturing operations, I’ve learned there’s an important difference between productive pressure and organizational dysfunction.

Oftentimes, the problem is not the workload.

Sometimes the problem is the organizational chart.

THE ORG CHART REVEALS MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE THINK

Most people look at an organizational chart as little more than boxes, titles, and reporting lines.

Experienced operators tend to see something very different.

A good organizational chart reveals:
• delegation,
• accountability,
• communication flow,
• leadership depth,
• and operational maturity.

More importantly, it reveals whether the organization is built to function through managers — or whether everything still depends on ownership.

That distinction matters.

Especially in modular manufacturing, where operational complexity compounds quickly.

Factories rarely struggle because of one major issue. More often, they struggle because too many decisions, too many problems, and too much responsibility are handled by too few people.

Eventually, the organization becomes dependent on the owner or GM for nearly everything.

That is where exhaustion begins.  “Too busy” is a reality.

WHEN OWNERSHIP WEARS TOO MANY HATS

One of the most common situations I encounter is an owner or GM simultaneously acting as:
• sales manager,
• production manager,
• problem solver,
• customer relations department,
• and operational traffic controller.

In startup operations, some overlap is unavoidable. Financial realities often require people to wear multiple hats early on.

But many companies never evolve beyond startup structure.

That is where trouble begins.

At a minimum, even smaller operations need clear accountability around:
• production,
• purchasing,
• sales,
• and financial management.

As companies grow, engineering management, service management, and quality assurance quickly become essential leadership roles.

Without those layers, nearly every operational issue eventually flows upward to ownership.

And over time, employees unintentionally become conditioned to stop solving problems independently.

The response becomes:

“Ask the boss.”  (And the boss really is “too busy”.)

“ASK THE BOSS” IS USUALLY A WARNING SIGN

I’ve walked through factories where ownership could barely move through the facility without being interrupted every few minutes.

Questions about production scheduling.

Questions about purchasing approvals.

Questions about service issues.

Questions that should have already been solved lower in the organization.

At first glance, some people interpret that constant interruption as leadership or dedication.

I often see it differently.

I see an organization lacking sufficient delegation and management depth.

Healthy manufacturing organizations are not built around one exhausted person making every important decision. They are built around trusted managers who understand and have agreed to their responsibilities and have the authority to act on them.

That is what a healthy organizational chart actually reflects.

Not titles.

Trust.

WHEN SALES AND PRODUCTION REPORT TO THE SAME PERSON

This is another issue that quietly creates problems inside many modular operations.

Sales and production naturally operate with different priorities.

Sales focuses on:
• customers,
• commitments,
• customization,
• and backlog growth.

Production focuses on:
• scheduling discipline,
• labor efficiency,
• consistency,
• throughput,
• and execution.

That tension is healthy when responsibilities are clearly separated.

But when one individual controls both sales and production, accountability lines quickly blur.

Production delays become harder to evaluate objectively. Scheduling problems become easier to rationalize. Operational discipline begins to erode quietly within the organization.

And eventually, the factory starts reacting instead of operating.

That disconnect may not show up immediately on financial statements.

But it almost always shows up eventually on the production floor.

THE TRUE TEST OF ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH

I’ve always believed the real test of a company’s organizational health is simple:

What happens when the boss leaves the building or takes time off?

Can the company continue operating effectively when ownership is traveling?

Can managers solve problems without constant approval or looking over their shoulder?

Can production continue moving without daily intervention from the owner or GM?

Or does decision-making slow down until the boss returns?

Developers considering modular manufacturing often focus heavily on equipment, production capacity, automation, and backlog.

Experienced operators often study the organizational structure first.

Because machinery alone rarely determines whether a factory succeeds.

People, delegation, accountability, and leadership depth do.

And when those things are missing, owners eventually find themselves saying the same thing over and over again:

“There just aren’t enough hours in the day.”

But sometimes the problem is not time.

Sometimes the problem is structure.

So here’s the real question:

If you stepped away from your operation for a week, would the company continue to function effectively — or would everything begin to bottleneck around your absence?

At Offsite Innovators, we continue exploring the operational realities, risks, and opportunities shaping the offsite construction industry. We welcome conversations with factory owners, developers, and industry leaders navigating growth, operational challenges, and the evolving realities of offsite manufacturing.

Bill Murray

Contact Bill

Bill Murray has over 40 years of operational management experience in the Modular industry.  Bill began his Offsite career as a contractor/builder.  He then entered the manufacturing side, quickly advancing through the sales ranks to become a General Manager/COO of multi-plant operations.  Bill provides professional advisory service to owners, prospective owners and builder developers considering Offsite construction.  He has consulted throughout the U.S., and Mexico, as well as overseas assignments.

If you’re evaluating offsite construction—whether LGS, wood, or hybrid—and want a clear, experience-based perspective before making a commitment, reach out. A short conversation upfront can prevent costly assumptions later.

Wes Moore recently approved the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development’s 2026 Qualified Allocation Plan, a move that will direct more than $300 million in state investments and federal tax credits toward affordable housing projects across Maryland.

On paper, that sounds impressive.

The plan includes incentives for projects that are ready to move quickly, expanded loan products, higher federal tax credit allocations per project, support for mixed-income developments, and encouragement for projects that include community amenities. State officials say the changes are designed to help developers build more affordable housing while creating stronger communities at the same time.

The real question, however, is one many Maryland residents are quietly asking.

Will any of this actually make a noticeable dent in Maryland’s affordable housing shortage?

Or is this another well-intentioned housing announcement that sounds enormous until it collides with the realities of land prices, labor shortages, zoning restrictions, infrastructure costs, financing delays, and neighborhood opposition?

Three Hundred Million Dollars Sounds Huge — Until You Start Building

Most people hear “$300 million” and immediately picture thousands upon thousands of new homes appearing almost overnight. Unfortunately, affordable housing development does not work that way anymore.

Construction costs across much of the Mid-Atlantic remain stubbornly high. Land prices near employment centers continue climbing. Interest rates have dramatically changed project financing calculations over the past few years, while labor shortages continue affecting nearly every segment of construction.

Then comes the difficult math.

A single affordable housing project can easily consume tens of millions of dollars between land acquisition, site work, infrastructure, environmental requirements, permitting, utility hookups, legal costs, financing, and construction itself. In some urban or suburban Maryland markets, affordable units can cost nearly as much to build as market-rate housing.

That means $300 million, while meaningful, may not stretch nearly as far as the public imagines.

Mixed-Income Housing: Smart Policy or Political Compromise?

One of the more interesting aspects of Maryland’s new plan is the increased emphasis on mixed-income housing developments. Instead of concentrating only low-income housing into isolated areas, mixed-income projects attempt to blend affordable units with workforce and market-rate housing.

Supporters argue this creates healthier neighborhoods, reduces stigma, and improves access to schools, transportation, and employment opportunities. Critics sometimes argue mixed-income developments reduce the total number of deeply affordable units because part of the project is reserved for higher-income residents.

Still, many developers increasingly prefer mixed-income models because they are often easier to finance, politically easier to approve, and sometimes more sustainable long term.

That may be the uncomfortable reality affordable housing advocates and policymakers continue running into. Purely low-income housing projects often face the strongest resistance from local communities, while mixed-income developments can sometimes gain broader acceptance.

The Bigger Problem Nobody Likes Talking About

Affordable housing discussions almost always focus on funding.

Far fewer conversations focus on speed.

Even when funding exists, projects can spend years moving through zoning hearings, environmental reviews, permit approvals, financing layers, and legal challenges. By the time some projects finally break ground, construction costs have already increased dramatically from original projections.

Maryland’s new plan attempts to reward “project readiness,” which may prove more important than many people realize. Incentivizing projects that are already positioned to move quickly could help avoid some of the delays that quietly kill affordable housing developments long before the first foundation is poured.

But there is another question worth asking.

If local communities continue resisting density increases, apartment developments, smaller lots, and higher-volume housing solutions, can any state housing plan truly keep pace with demand?

Where Offsite Construction Could Enter the Conversation

This is where the offsite and modular construction industries may eventually play a larger role. Faster build times, factory-controlled production, reduced weather delays, and potentially more predictable costs continue attracting attention from affordable housing developers nationwide.

Maryland, like many states, faces pressure to build housing faster while controlling costs. That combination naturally creates interest in modular construction, panelization, volumetric systems, and repeatable housing designs.

The challenge is that affordable housing developers still face many of the same zoning, financing, and approval roadblocks whether homes are built onsite or inside factories. Offsite construction can help compress construction schedules, but it cannot solve every political and regulatory issue slowing housing production.

At least not yet.

Will Maryland Residents Actually Feel the Difference?

That may ultimately become the real measuring stick for this new housing initiative.

Five years from now, will working families, seniors, young professionals, and low-income residents actually feel relief in Maryland’s housing market? Will rents stabilize? Will more starter housing appear? Will waiting lists shorten?

Or will this simply become another large housing announcement absorbed by the enormous scale of the problem?

There is no doubt Maryland officials are trying to address affordability. The willingness to commit more than $300 million certainly signals that state leaders understand the seriousness of the housing shortage.

But housing shortages are rarely solved with a single funding package.

They are solved through years of consistent policy, faster approvals, cooperation between state and local governments, infrastructure expansion, private investment, and, perhaps most importantly, communities willing to accept that growth and change are inevitable.

Modcoach Observation

Affordable housing has become one of those issues where almost everybody agrees there is a problem, but agreement quickly disappears when specific solutions arrive in their neighborhoods.

People want affordable housing.

They just often do not want it next door, taller than existing homes, denser than existing zoning, or adding traffic to already crowded roads.

Maryland’s new housing plan may absolutely help move some important projects forward. It may create thousands of much-needed units over time. But the real question is whether programs like this are keeping pace with the speed at which affordability is disappearing for average families.

Because if the hole in the boat is growing faster than the bucket can remove water, eventually even $300 million starts looking surprisingly small.

photo – Quality Homes “The Bluewater” elevation B

photo- Eco-Panels

There’s a growing narrative that factory-built housing might be the future. In Vermont, that conversation is getting louder as the housing shortage tightens its grip on families, workers, and entire communities. But here’s the part that gets lost in all the policy talk and media coverage—this isn’t some experimental idea waiting to be proven. It’s already working inside factories like Huntington Homes, and if more people actually walked a production line instead of sitting through presentations, the conversation would sound very different.

What a Real Modular Factory Looks Like

I had the opportunity to visit Huntington Homes in Vermont a while back, and I walked away genuinely impressed. The factory was clean, organized, and efficient in a way most onsite builders would struggle to match. You could see quality being built into the home at every stage instead of being inspected later. This wasn’t marketing language or a polished tour—it was real production, happening in real time.

Jason Webster, co-president and owner of Huntington Homes

If I were building a new home in Vermont today, they would be at the top of my list. That opinion isn’t based on a brochure or a sales pitch. It’s based on what I saw firsthand on that factory floor.

The Assembly Line That Changes Everything

Huntington builds in modules ranging from 400 to 700 square feet, which can stand alone or be combined into larger homes and multi-unit buildings. Each module begins at one end of the factory and moves steadily from station to station, with the final stop adding doors, kitchens, and bathrooms. What looks like construction from the outside is actually a controlled manufacturing process on the inside.

That distinction matters because manufacturing brings consistency. Every crew works in sequence, every step is repeatable, and every module benefits from the same level of oversight. That’s a completely different approach from the variability of a traditional jobsite.

Ninety-Six Hours and a Predictable Schedule

It takes about 96 hours to build a house in the factory, but the real advantage isn’t just speed—it’s predictability. Houses come off the line at a regular pace, unaffected by the conditions outside. Unlike site-built homes, where weather can shut down progress for days at a time, Huntington keeps building regardless of rain, snow, or cold.

As one team member put it, they don’t have to shovel snow to start the day or wait for driveways to be sanded before deliveries arrive. They don’t lose time because of weather, and that alone changes how projects can be planned and executed. Builders and developers gain something they rarely have in traditional construction—a schedule they can actually trust.

Why Vermont Is Paying Attention

Vermont isn’t looking at factory-built housing because it’s fashionable. The state is dealing with a serious housing shortage, a limited labor pool, and rising construction costs that continue to slow development. Traditional methods are struggling to keep up, and factory-built housing offers a different path—one that emphasizes speed, consistency, and controlled conditions.

However, the benefits only materialize when the factory itself is understood and supported properly. This isn’t a plug-and-play solution where you simply switch from site-built to modular and expect everything to improve. The factory becomes the center of the entire process, and everything else—design, financing, scheduling, and site work—has to align with it.

The Factory Is the Engine

In modular construction, the factory isn’t just a supplier. It’s the engine that drives the entire project. When it’s running efficiently, like Huntington Homes, it produces a steady flow of high-quality modules that allow projects to move forward with fewer surprises. Developers can plan with more confidence, timelines tighten, and the overall process becomes more predictable.

But factories also require consistent demand and strong management. They are manufacturing operations, not jobsite operations, and they don’t adapt well to stop-and-start project pipelines. That reality needs to be understood by anyone who expects factory-built housing to scale in a meaningful way.

What Too Many People Still Miss

There is still a disconnect between how factory-built housing is discussed and how it actually works. Too many conversations frame it as a new or unproven idea, when in reality the systems, processes, and quality have already been established. The issue isn’t whether modular construction works—it clearly does.

The issue is whether decision-makers truly understand the level of coordination and discipline required to make it successful. A few tours and public hearings won’t provide that understanding. It comes from spending time on the factory floor, watching how production flows, and seeing firsthand how every part of the process is connected.

Modcoach Observation

If Vermont wants factory-built housing to play a serious role in solving its housing shortage, the focus needs to shift from theory to execution. Factories like Huntington Homes demonstrate what’s possible when the process is done right—clean environments, efficient workflows, consistent quality, and predictable schedules.

I’ve seen it, and it works. The question isn’t whether factory-built housing can deliver. The question is whether policymakers, developers, and lenders are willing to take the time to understand that the factory isn’t just part of the solution—it is the solution. Until that happens, we’ll keep talking about the future of housing instead of building it.

In my previous article, I introduced what I refer to as the scope gap—the difference between what the modular factory delivers and what must still be completed on site to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.

That gap is not theoretical.

I’ve seen it play out on real projects over the years in many different ways, but this recent example is a simple one to understand—and one that illustrates the issue clearly.

A Small Detail That Wasn’t So Small

I was working with a developer who was putting together a proposal for a 180-unit single-family modular project.

As part of his budgeting, he had included the cost of the factory, transportation, and set crew. On the surface, the developer thought all was covered.

But there was one assumption built into the proposal that turned out to be incorrect.

He assumed that the set crew’s scope of work included completing the roofing.  The proposed set crew contract said “buttoned up” and he didn’t ask what that actually meant.

That phrase sounds clear enough—but in practice, it can mean different things depending on how the scope is defined.

In this case, the manufacturer was providing 24-inch roof overhangs that were shipped as “flipped” assemblies. The set crew would flip those overhangs into place and install a waterproofing membrane.

Technically, the structure would be “buttoned up.”

But it would not be fully finished.

The installation of the final two rows of shingles on those overhangs was not included in the set crew’s scope.

That responsibility fell to the builder.

The cost to complete that work was approximately $160 per home.

Not a large number on its own.

But across 180 homes, that added up to $28,800 in additional site cost that had not been included in the original proposal.

What This Example Reveals

Nothing about this situation was unusual. I’ve seen similar examples dozens of times over the years.

The factory performed as expected.
The set crew performed as contracted.

The issue was simply this:

The scope was not defined with enough precision.  The manufacturer’s building system was neither explained nor understood. 

A single phrase—“buttoned up”—was interpreted differently by different parties.

And that difference created a gap.  A potentially costly gap.

Not in construction.

But in understanding.

Why These Gaps Matter

In traditional construction, gaps like this sometimes get worked out over time.

In modular construction, they don’t.

The factory is moving.
The schedule is compressed.
Decisions happen earlier.

If the scope is not clearly defined up front, the impact shows up later—when changes are more difficult and more expensive to address.

What looks like a small oversight early in the process can become a meaningful cost item when multiplied across an entire project.

A Practical Takeaway

Developers considering modular construction should approach scope definition with one simple mindset:

Assume nothing. Define everything.

Especially when it comes to:

• what the factory is delivering
• what the set crew is responsible for
• what work remains on site
• who is responsible for completing that work

Phrases like “buttoned up,” “substantially complete,” or “ready for finish” may sound clear—but they often leave room for interpretation.

And in modular construction, interpretation is where problems begin.

Over more than four decades in the modular industry, I’ve seen how early decisions—particularly around scope, coordination, and factory selection—can shape the outcome of an entire project. For developers and builders considering modular construction, bringing experienced perspective into the planning process can help avoid costly missteps and lead to better results.

If you are serious about continuous improvement, reach out to us via email.  We’ll schedule a brief phone call to explore the possibilities.  Contact Gary at: [email protected], contact Bill at:[email protected]. We’ll respond promptly and schedule a brief call.