When to go modular and why it is pushed
It was suggested that modular construction could help to address unemployment in areas which previously relied on other manufacturing industries:
"The North East has historical strengths in the automotive industry. Some of the people who previously worked in that sector have crossed over and are now working in the MMC space. There are obvious transferable skills – and physical facilities too.”
The idea that modular construction was that similar to other manufacturing specialisms was challenged by another expert who said:
“For a lot of modular construction I’d use the term manufacturing loosely. The majority isn’t automated – it’s the same people who’d otherwise be outside, doing the work indoors. It’s the same subcontractors."
“You need to have some equipment, yes, but most modular facilities are intrinsically pretty basic. You’ve got timber and metal frames, and they’re assembled exactly how they would be on-site – just it’s done with a roof overhead.
One attendee raised an interesting point about potentially conflicting government agendas:
"A potential issue with basing all of the factories in the North is hitting local spend KPIs. If the government wants the industry to continue to drive spend into supply chains within a tight radius of a site, while also pushing modular, which largely gets built in a pocket of the north they’ll have a bit of dilemma. There will need to be a degree of flexibility."
The conversation stayed with government intervention in the sector, with an overwhelming consensus that mandating modular was a step too far:
“Regulation and mandating modular as they do in other countries would be a mistake. Homes England, for example, haven’t dictated which systems to use in the residential space – and that’s a positive thing.”
“They have built a scoring mechanism which encourages you to use modular where you can, but it’s open to the market to decide what the right system for the site is. The market has to dictate it – because the market has to deliver it.”
Seconding that another attendee said: “As an industry, we need to be looking at a project’s value drivers and then selecting modular on those – not the other way round.
Modular, for the sake of modular, is a mistake. But the government is at risk of doing that by pushing it at every scenario. They want 80 per cent off site eventually.”
Another commented: “Why is the government pushing modular so much? Because consultants are telling them they can eliminate much of construction inefficiency by driving the sector towards behaving like automotive manufacture. But you’re not seeing the benefits in the cost yet – and it’s not that simple.”
There was widespread agreement that education was one sector embracing offsite.
“The Department of Education and Education Funding Agency fund the majority of the education projects in the country. If you’re paying, you can specify whatever you like. So they’ll almost certainly mandate that their frameworks are used and offsite is prioritised.”
They continued: “But modular isn’t always cheaper. Spot purchasing invariably works out to be more expensive. It’s cost-effective when there are large, multi-year programmes of work which lock down the price at the initial stage and you have early engagement from everyone involved.”
