Good data, vertical integration and the right mix of modular and hybrid systems will win customers and separate survivors from strugglers.
• According to Henry Mickleburgh, evidence and transparency are essential to persuade owners, GCs and developers to adopt offsite.
• Be adaptable when it comes to systems. Hybrid designs and bathroom pods often outperform full volumetric systems on small or complex jobs.
• Success requires disciplined QA, realistic scheduling, predictive tools and enforceable contracts over enthusiasm.
Henry Mickleburgh has visited dozens of offsite construction facilities, mostly in Europe. Because of that experience, he has drawn some strong conclusions about the steps that small manufacturers need to take if they want to grow their business. We asked him to share those conclusions with our readers.
Mickleburgh’s background is in civil engineering, nuclear power projects and modular construction for global hotel chains. Today, he is a Founder and Technical Director of Ameliorate, a London, UKbased company that provides data centers and other mission-critical infrastructure.
Based on his experience visiting offsite plants and his conversations with management, he emphasizes one thing above all: that evidence is needed to effectively sell offsite construction to owners, developers and GCs.
Offsite advocates routinely highlight its speed, sustainability, stable pricing, consistent quality and lower reliance on skilled labor. Mickleburgh’s response to these claims is: prove it.
Comparing Like for Like
Mickleburgh agrees that offsite’s benefits are real — but he says those benefits must be backed up with hard data if they’re to be persuasive and, ultimately, if they’re to increase the share of “Offsite manufacturers claim that their way of building is better than stick-building. It’s more environmentally responsible, it’s faster, there are fewer defects and the quality is better. And absolutely, that is usually the case,” he says. “It’s just that in order to prove these things, you have to compare like for like. And that’s really hard to do.”
Mickleburgh notes that in a database of more than 20,000 homes compiled for a large UK housing authority, about 54% of defects were MEP-related, particularly in bathrooms and drainage. Offsite methods can “drastically reduce that,” he says. But new risks are introduced when transporting volumetric modules. “You’re going to end up with things going wrong — the ceiling’s cracked, the tiling’s damaged, the shower glass goes.”
The solution, Mickleburgh argues, is rigorous and transparent quality assurance (QA). Structured checklists, time-lapse 360-degree cameras, and QR-coded components can all be used to create verifiable proof of quality. “360-degree cameras run full time, and the footage can be reviewed to confirm what’s behind the walls, who installed it, who did the checks, and so on,” Mickleburgh says. He adds that QR codes can be applied to any component of a modular building, and that 360-degree timelapse cameras can read these codes. QR codes can be used to “confirm all the metadata associated with compliance, testing and inspection of that component,” he says.
Once it’s been proven that a module is designed so it can be manufactured, transported, craned and installed while maintaining high quality without damage, manufacturers should develop a checklist that demonstrates the conditions for that quality have been met every single time.
For smaller manufacturers, a good QA system (one that uses timelapse cameras and QR codes) not only improves consistency, but also creates a competitive edge. According to Mickleburgh, being able to demonstrate objectively that your product repeatedly meets defined standards is a powerful differentiator.
“With any business, you have to prove your value proposition. Take a Dragon’s Den or Shark Tank approach to pitching and prove your product is better,” Mickleburgh says. “Whoever makes the decision to choose your offsite solution needs metrics that compare it to other construction methodologies and competitors.”
Mickleburgh
Is It Really Faster?
Small manufacturers need an understanding of where planning delays will erode the time savings of offsite construction, and where its speed is a genuine advantage. They also need the ability to effectively communicate those points to customers.
Planning and permitting can be as much of a headache for offsite as for stick building. Mickleburgh stresses that delays outside the factory gates can undermine the efficiency gains manufacturers hope to achieve. “If you can’t get planning approval for six months, what’s the point?” he says. If the gains of speedy manufacturing are lost in slow bureaucracy, then offsite construction can lose its advantage.
However, in some cases the speed of offsite is indeed a genuine, demonstrable benefit. Mickleburgh uses the example of a citizenM hotel project in Paris, France. The building itself had only “40 keys” [hotel rooms and suites], yet the planning and permitting process stretched to 12 months. Offsite then became the only viable way to meet the timeline. “There was no way to do it other than offsite. The time frame was so compressed it simply couldn’t have been done otherwise.”
Volumetric Versus Hybrid
Mickleburgh cautions small modular manufacturers against assuming that their product is always the best solution. A full volumetric approach won’t suit every project, and assuming it does might lock them out of some projects.
Full volumetric is a great solution for big projects. He offers the example of the Hilton Tru Hotel chain in the United States (there are over 200 of them): “It’s a lowrise three or four story volumetric solution that works quite well, because you’re not manufacturing one module, you’re doing fifty.” Similarly, large Marriott hotel developments have successfully deployed volumetric offsite methods.
Smaller projects are different. “The pain associated with doing them in a volumetric way often isn’t worth it. It depends on the particulars of the case. You have to do the comparison.” The pain Mickleburgh means is the additional upfront costs often associated with offsite (despite any time savings), the limitations on design and the logistical complications that are introduced by using modular construction.
His preferred approach for lowrise projects is a hybrid one: 2D components (such as panels) combined with modular bathroom pods. “My personal opinion is that, using fully finished bathroom pods with 2D elements is optimal where a volumetric solution isn’t clearly demonstrated to be the right way forward.”
Bathroom pods, he adds, are a proven technology: “Pods work very well, and there’s enough historical data to show they do.”
Solve Problems First
Mickleburgh has found that a lot of small offsite manufacturers are held back by an overly myopic product focus. His advice? “Don’t just build a product. Build a business. Have the pipeline.”
Many small firms start by developing a product line, then they take it to market. Mickleburgh says that’s backwards. A better way is to look for a need in the market, then to “let the business plan inform the product.” For instance, a manufacturer might identify a potentially profitable local market for urban infill homes on narrow streets. It might then develop micro-module kits that can be assembled with small cranes and that harmonize with local architecture.
He argues that, for smaller manufacturers, vertical integration — where a company acts as developer, contractor and manufacturer — creates a more resilient business model.
If a manufacturer isn’t vertically integrated, they have to repeatedly persuade developers and general contractors to adopt offsite, while also managing risk and proving that offsite truly delivers more value than traditional methods. It’s easier to maintain a pipeline — and thus thrive as a business — if a small manufacturer is part of a vertically integrated business.
Simulate to Reduce Errors
To strengthen the case for their products, small manufacturers should make use of predictive modeling tools, Mickleburgh says. “There are plenty of 4D simulation tools out there that allow you to compare the key metrics of your offsite solution — such as time, cost, quality and carbon — against other construction methodologies,” he says.
He recommends V-Quest, a company headquartered in Christchurch, New Zealand. “You give them your project details, and they’ll come up with three variations on how to construct that project. They’ll give you 4D simulations, and punt out whatever metrics you want,” he says.
Historical data can also be powerful. “If you’ve got this data, harness it. Prove how fast your projects actually are. Demonstrate how few defects you have. Put together something that will provide good evidence in favor of what you’re trying to sell.”
By combining data-driven simulations with project history, small manufacturers can present compelling, evidence-backed pitches to their clients.
Get It in Writing
Finally, Mickleburgh cautions against relying on government agendas in the absence of contractual backing. You may have a contact that is very pro-offsite, but the fact is that government contracts don’t necessarily favor this way of building. “Don’t go bust trying to meet a zeitgeist or good intentions. A contract is everything.”
Without legally enforceable contracts and clear value propositions, enthusiasm (even that of a government agency) won’t keep a business afloat.
In summary, Mickleburgh believes offsite manufacturing offers real advantages — but only when supported by evidence and a realistic view of its limits.
His advice to small manufacturers: Support quality claims with transparent data — documented QA processes, predictive tools and historical data. Choose the right construction method for each project. Build a resilient business model with a pipeline of work. Pursue vertical integration. And never forget the importance of contracts over intentions.
Zena Ryder writes about construction and robotics for businesses, magazines, and websites. Find her at zenafreelancewriter.com.
