Volumetric Modular Construction as an Industrialized Product
Introduction
Volumetric modular manufacturing offers a glimpse into the future of construction. This method involves creating whole buildings or parts of them in a factory setting by breaking down the structure into manageable modules. These modules are completed as much as possible within the constraints defined by the on-site assembly requirements, and other elements that may need to be built on-site. [1]
The potential fundamental advantages of volumetric modular construction lie in its speed, efficiency, and consistency; all attributes that mirror the characteristics of industrial production processes. Each module is viewed as an "article manufactured for sale," representing a tangible unit produced in large quantities within the confines of a factory. This perspective aligns well with the definition of a product: the term stems from the Latin word "productum," meaning “something produced,” derived from "pro," meaning “forward,” and "ducere," which means “to lead or bring.” Thus, it signifies something that is intentionally created and brought forth through a systematic process, precisely the case for a factory-finished modular unit. While modular construction shares certain traits with other industrial products, notably aspects like standardization and the potential for mass production, it fundamentally diverges from these characteristics in several important ways that are specific to creating dwellings. [1,2,3,19]
This article aims to thoroughly investigate the philosophical underpinnings of volumetric modular products and their conceptual implications. We will engage in a critical assessment of whether volumetric modular construction qualifies as an “industrial product” from the perspective of a holistically closed-loop product, such as cars, cell phones, or dishwashers. This inquiry is paramount, as it carries significant implications for architects, designers, developers, modular manufacturers, and numerous other stakeholders involved in the manufacturing and design processes. Through this analysis, we aim to unravel the potential intersections and conflicts between the industrialization of conventional construction and the unique qualities that dwellings inherently possess. This examination will shed light on the broader implications of how we define and approach living spaces in an increasingly industrialized world, ultimately questioning the very notion of what it means to manufacture a dwelling. [2]
The primary objective of our exploration is not merely to arrive at a comprehensive and definitive resolution to the ongoing discourse surrounding the industrialization of space creation; rather, we aim to provoke critical thinking and inspire innovative perspectives on the concept of manufacturing living spaces.
Concept of Assembly Line Production
The concept of mass-producing houses has long been appealing, often likened to the revolutionary methods employed by Henry Ford in the automotive industry. The idea hinges on the assumption that the successful integration of standardization, assembly lines, and high-volume production seen in automobile manufacturing can similarly be applied to housing. In practice, envisioning a modular housing factory is similar to imagining an automotive assembly plant that routinely produces the same model of car thousands of times over. Such a factory could streamline processes, reduce variability, and ensure uniform quality across all manufactured units. The inherent value proposition of modular construction is thus closely linked to a product-centered mindset. By producing building components in large quantities and maintaining consistent quality, the volumetric modular manufacturing industry should deliver housing solutions more quickly and at lower costs. [2,7]
We also compare modular housing to consumer products, such as cell phones, computers, and household appliances, including refrigerators, TVs, and dishwashers. The analogy relies on the following premises: design with standardization in mind, figure out the industrialized product lines and factory, market/sell the product, and manufacture.
At first glance, it might seem reasonable to group these items as consumer goods; however, upon closer reflection, we inherently recognize that dwellings are fundamentally different from these other products. While cars and appliances are often seen as simple tools to perform specific tasks, a dwelling carries deeper significance and complexity. To better understand this difference, we need to examine the limitations of the automotive analogy. In the early days of automobiles, the market offered few alternatives: cars were a revolutionary invention, mainly replacing handcrafted vehicles that had no comparable substitute. This situation gave automobile manufacturers a near-monopoly on supply. If consumers wanted a car, their only practical choice was to buy from Ford’s production line. In stark contrast, industrialized housing has never had such a monopoly on shelter. Instead, it has always faced competition from traditional building methods, where local contractors design and build custom homes tailored to the specific needs of individual clients. This ongoing competition with traditionally built homes has consistently limited the demand for factory-produced houses. A prefabricated modular home lacks the security of a captive market willing to accept a single, uniform product as the only option. While industrialized housing has long promised efficiency and scale, it has never achieved the same widespread adoption as automobiles. One key reason lies in the persistent availability of custom homebuilders and developers, who offer a wide range of options and solutions to consumers. Customers have always had the option to hire a builder to deliver a home tailored to their exact needs or buy a pre-designed home or apartment that was ready to be built by the developers, often at a cost that’s comparable to factory-built solutions. This persistent custom alternative has undercut the core value proposition of industrial housing. [2]
In contrast, the automobile industry succeeded not merely because it offered a mass-produced product, but because it offered a compelling value: a reliable, desirable product at a price the middle class could afford: something truly unattainable through custom manufacturing. Industrial housing has yet to replicate this dual achievement of affordability and desirability, especially when buyers perceive they can get dwellings without a significant premium in an industry that has established ways of delivering these solutions to their clients. [7]
Currently, and in the past, volumetric modular manufacturing has not achieved the same outcome as other methods. In summary, the building industry’s situation is vastly different from the early automotive history, with unique challenges and restrictions that have kept the dream of mass-produced houses out of reach. The topic of historical continuity and cultural expectation plays a pivotal role in understanding our relationship with various products, especially when comparing the modern automobile, the refrigerator, and the iPhone to the age-old concept of a home. These modern inventions emerged from the industrial manufacturing era and represent entirely new categories in human life.
On the other hand, dwellings are not a recent addition to human society, having existed for much longer than the last 200 years. They represent the culmination of cultural evolution and historical development that have influenced humanity over the past 36,000 years. We see a symbolic depiction of animals drawn by humans on the walls of Chauvet Cave, dating back to the time when early humans inhabited the area, in contrast to the industrial products that have entered our lives over the last 200 years. The concept of shelter is as old as humanity itself: in those early days, people sought refuge in natural formations, such as caves, or in simple structures made from branches and leaves. These primitive shelters provided crucial protection from the elements, safeguarding us from dangerous animals, harsh weather, and natural disasters. They were sanctuaries where we could sleep, rest, and gather as families. These spaces allowed us to eat the food we hunted and foraged, as well as to raise children and nurture relationships. Over time, our homes evolved from basic shelters into more complex living spaces, reflecting our advances in technology, culture, and society. In stark contrast stands the house, an ancient archetype that has evolved through millennia of human existence. For thousands of years, humans have constructed shelters that range from simple caves and rudimentary huts to more sophisticated dwellings. The fundamental idea of a home, typically characterized by four walls, a roof, and a door, is deeply embedded in our cultural psyche. This concept has evolved not through the influence of a single manufacturer but through a rich interplay of tradition, craft, vernacular, and cultural practices. [8,17,18]
Consequently, people form strong, often emotional attachments to the idea of home. Unlike consumer goods, such as automobiles, which are accepted in uniformity (illustrated by the fact that each Toyota Camry of a specific model year is nearly identical)houses are seen as personal and cultural sanctuaries. The expectation that homes reflect individuality and local identity sharply contrasts with the idea of standardization in housing. If every house in a neighborhood, or even in the entire world, looked exactly the same, it would likely cause dissatisfaction among homeowners. However, it’s worth noting that our suburban homes are somewhat similar to each other. In reality, even these homes exhibit enough variation to distinguish them from one another, especially when compared to cars and other industrial products, which are differentiated by color, trim, and similar features. [16,17]
Moreover, for countless individuals, a home is far more than just a functional space; it is seen as a personal castle that embodies their unique identity and lifestyle choices. They envision living spaces that reflect their values, tastes, and aspirations, rather than mere products churned out in mass from an assembly line. This longing for individuality runs deep, intertwined with cultural notions of home as a sanctuary and a personal expression of self. When we explore the fundamental essence of what a home represents, particularly in contrast to other consumer products, it becomes evident that the significance of a dwelling extends far beyond mere functionality. Homes are deeply intertwined with our personal and collective histories; they symbolize our inherent needs for safety, connection, and identity. Unlike other products, such as cars or refrigerators, homes embody a complex narrative filled with emotional and sociocultural dimensions, making it challenging to draw straightforward comparisons. The sentimental value, memories, and experiences associated with a place create a unique tapestry that distinguishes it as a sanctuary that nurtures our well-being and sense of belonging. For instance, while automobiles and appliances are typically valued for their efficiency and uniformity, a home embodies unique characteristics that defy such industrial benchmarks. The emotional significance of a home, its deep-seated sense of individuality, and its cultural importance create a complex tapestry that is often at odds with the standardization and impersonality that is characteristic of industrial products. [16,18]
One might reasonably ask: if personalization is such a barrier, then how do we explain what’s already being built and sold today? Look at the suburban rows of similar homes offered by large developers, or the rise of micro-condos, some as small as 500 square feet, repeating the same unit design floor after floor. These are selling with little resistance. Therefore, the argument that people won’t accept modular homes because they prefer personalized dwellings may seem less convincing. After all, modular manufacturers could and arguably should target developers comfortable with repetition. This may, in fact, be the fastest path to securing backlog and reaching scale, rather than focusing on individual buyers who expect customization in every home.
But that alone doesn't explain the deeper barriers. There are other essential factors at play, factors that distinguish the human experience of buying a home from purchasing other industrialized products, such as cars or smartphones. Even when buyers accept repetition, the process of purchasing a condo unit or suburban home involves a different set of expectations, emotional investments, and market behaviors. These dynamics shift further when the buyer is not an individual but a commercial or institutional actor evaluating modular solutions from a developer’s perspective. Understanding those nuances is critical, as it highlights how far the housing experience still diverges from the conventional product logic found in other industries.
Let's unpack this further in more detail:
We assumed that a dwelling resists complete productization due to the emotional connections people have to their homes. Yet, this assumption may break down or only apply to certain consumers, and may be an inherently limited explanation of the current state. Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the matter is multifaceted. Many homebuyers, particularly those purchasing newly built condominiums, townhomes, or commercial spaces such as hotels, often lack emotional ties to their properties or have limited connections. At the point of sale, these buildings are abstract, not lived-in spaces, viewed largely in transactional terms. [16]
Thus, the supposed emotional barrier to modular productization is weaker than initially assumed. This reveals a deeper issue at play, a hidden layer behind consumer hesitance towards fully standardized dwellings.
Let's consider a different hypothesis: perhaps what truly distinguishes a dwelling from other industrialized products is not just emotional attachment, but also how consumers perceive and value the choice itself. In fact, we must ask ourselves:
Is it possible that the resistance to fully productized modular housing arises not only from potential emotional attachment but also from an intrinsic human preference for perceived autonomy and choice, especially concerning decisions that feel consequential and lasting?
When buying a car or phone, consumers willingly choose from predetermined options, comfortable in the knowledge that their choice has limited long-term consequences. If they dislike the product, they know they will replace it in a few years. Housing decisions, on the other hand, even if not yet emotionally charged, are viewed as more permanent and financially significant. This generates anxiety around limitations in choice, even when those limitations might be practical and logical. In other words, the dwelling decision isn't fundamentally emotional at the outset; it's primarily existential. We fear getting it wrong, precisely because the home is considered a long-term decision, often a once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime choice. This is a crucial nuance: the barrier to fully modular productization may arise from psychological anxiety about permanence and risk, rather than a sentimental attachment. A decision about a smartphone or a car is fundamentally a temporary one. You might regret a phone purchase, but the consequence is short-lived. Homes, conversely, embody permanence, financial risk, and status. Buyers feel compelled to assert their individuality through customization as a psychological strategy for mitigating this anxiety. Thus, while consumers may not initially have emotional connections, they feel compelled to exert influence over the outcome. It’s about control, autonomy, and self-expression as methods of managing the stress associated with a substantial financial and existential decision. [14,15]
On the other hand, several other contrasting elements highlight the fundamental differences between a dwelling and a car, underscoring why they cannot be easily compared. Firstly, a house is inherently site-specific; it is intricately tied to a particular plot of land, which comes with its own unique set of characteristics, such as geographical features, climate conditions, and regulatory requirements imposed by local authorities. This situational dependence means that while a car or an appliance is a self-contained entity designed to operate universally right out of the box, a house requires a different approach. [20,21]
Secondly, dwellings and buildings cannot be mass-produced and delivered as single, finished products due to their sheer size and complexity. Unlike a car that rolls off an assembly line ready for use, a house or apartment building must be assembled from smaller sections. Factory-built homes/apartments, or modular units, are constrained by transportation limits. For example, modules often cannot exceed roughly 3.5–4 meters in width and approximately 6–15 meters in length to fit on trucks and under overpasses. This necessitates breaking the design into multiple modules or panels that can be shipped separately and then joined together on site. In effect, architects and engineers must design a building not as one monolithic product, but as a kit of parts that will later be reassembled into a whole. The construction process thus includes a critical step of “deconstructing” the design into transportable components and planning for their reassembly, a consideration entirely absent in the manufacturing of phones, laptops, or cars. [5,6,20,21]
Furthermore, larger and taller buildings introduce engineering challenges that have no parallel in the manufacturing of consumer products. A multi-story building requires a tailored structural system to support its weight and to resist lateral loads. Modular units alone may not provide sufficient stiffness for a high-rise structure; therefore, designers often incorporate independent structural elements, such as reinforced concrete cores or steel bracing, to ensure stability. In high-rise modular projects, for instance, a separate braced core or podium frame is typically required beyond a certain number of stories to handle lateral forces. Additionally, the shape of the building’s footprint and local zoning rules, such as setback requirements, can dictate unique layouts, meaning each project’s form must be customized to its site. One building may require a thicker core or additional shear walls due to wind exposure, while another, situated on a tight urban lot, may step back at upper floors to comply with city regulations. There is no one-size-fits-all solution; the superstructure of each building is essentially a custom design, integrating both the factory-made modules and the necessary on-site structural components. [4,5,20]
All these factors demand intensive collaboration across multiple disciplines in the design and construction process. Architects, structural engineers, MEP engineers, and contractors must work closely to integrate factory-fabricated modules with foundations, cores, and other on-site elements. The design team needs to plan precisely how each module will connect structurally, mechanically, and spatially to form a coherent building, an orchestration far more complex than assembling identical products on a factory line. In essence, constructing a dwelling is about creating a one-of-a-kind solution through a hybrid process of off-site fabrication and on-site assembly, whereas manufacturing a car or electronic device is a repeatable, closed-loop process conducted entirely in a controlled factory setting. This fundamental difference underpins why houses cannot be treated like consumer gadgets in terms of design and production. [20,21]
Moreover, the landscape of conventional industrial products, including automobiles, highlights a stark contrast in construction philosophy. An automobile is a complex assembly composed of thousands of intricately designed parts that are purposefully engineered to work in concert for that specific model. These components, such as the chassis and engine, cannot typically be purchased off the shelf from a hardware store; they are unique to each vehicle, crafted for its individual performance and design. Conversely, the construction of buildings, whether they follow traditional methods or employ modular techniques, primarily relies on standardized materials that can be readily obtained from the general market. Key components essential to the building process include dimensional lumber or steel, or any other form of building materials, which form the structural framework; drywall, used for interior walls and ceilings; plumbing fixtures that ensure proper water supply and drainage; electrical wiring that powers the building; and windows that provide both light and ventilation. These materials are widely accessible and, unlike many components found in the automotive industry, they do not possess proprietary designs that limit their sourcesThis reliance on interchangeable components significantly limits a modular builder's ability to streamline or "lock in" a dedicated supply chain tailored precisely to its product, thus weakening its negotiating leverage and purchasing power compared to manufacturers of closed-loop consumer goods. Modular builders are typically forced to rely on market-priced, off-the-shelf materials, which, while potentially beneficial in terms of material redundancy and availability, can undermine opportunities for unique brand differentiation and product recognition. Regardless of this debate, one fact remains clear: volumetric modular construction is still in its infancy regarding specialized components and continues to depend heavily on conventional construction materials rather than purpose-designed elements, a scenario markedly different from consumer-based, closed-loop manufacturing systems. It also presents challenges for differentiation, as local competitors have access to essentially the same materials and components, making it increasingly difficult for modular producers to establish a unique identity or monopolize any aspect of the dwelling-building process. Consequently, the landscape of home construction remains competitive and varied, shaping a market where innovation must continuously adapt to a baseline of shared resources and materials. [2,3]
How about commercial spaces, such as hotels or dormitories, where one would expect a faster adaptation? How do the volumetric modulars fare here? Initially, one might assume that modular construction would thrive in commercial applications, such as hotels and dormitories, because these buildings inherently lend themselves to standardization. Rooms are repeated by the dozens, sometimes by the hundreds, making modular logic seem perfectly suited. Yet modular adoption in these sectors remains surprisingly limited. We must ask ourselves clearly: Why hasn’t modular overtaken conventional construction methods in markets explicitly suited for repeatable designs? This is particularly relevant when examining sectors like hotels or student housing, markets that, on the surface, should be ideal candidates for modular methods due to their repetitive nature and standardized programming. Yet modular is still not the go-to solution. The answer lies in a subtle but critical dynamic: while end users, such as hotel guests or dormitory residents, may have minimal say or emotional attachment to design decisions, the real decision-makers are the developers and building owners. These actors are risk-averse and prioritize financial predictability, lifecycle costs, and long-term brand equity over mere construction efficiency. Unless modular solutions can meet their expectations on all these fronts, including supply chain reliability, architectural flexibility, and cost certainty, they remain reluctant to shift from conventional methods. [2]
Unlike consumer products, modular buildings are rarely selected off the shelf by end-users. Instead, each hotel chain, dormitory operator, or commercial property owner typically has a well-established brand identity and a set of aesthetic and functional preferences that they insist on applying uniquely across their projects. Thus, despite standardization at the unit level, each project remains fundamentally customized at the design and planning level. Developers and large commercial operators consider buildings not merely as structures, but as critical reflections of their brand identity, competitive positioning, and market strategy. Marriott’s hotels differ subtly but significantly from Hilton’s; a Hyatt does not replicate a Holiday Inn, even though at their core, both provide essentially identical functional offerings (a room, bed, bathroom, basic amenities). [2]
This raises a profound issue: Modular construction aims for productization through full standardization, yet commercial operators seek differentiation through subtle customization. Each hotel project is tailored to meet brand specifications, location-specific requirements, market demographics, and developer preferences. While modular might offer speed and efficiency, developers resist sacrificing unique, competitive positioning, branding nuances, spatial flow, amenity placements, or aesthetic flourishes to gain the efficiencies of modular design. [2]
Hence, modular manufacturers find themselves trapped between opposing forces:
● Efficiency demands standardization (modular’s core advantage),
● Commercial market demands differentiation (brand uniqueness and positioning).
This is a deep tension in modular’s productization narrative, creating resistance at the client level rather than the consumer level. [2]
To fully grasp the challenge, let’s consider an analogy of Tesla selling to rental-car companies:
● If Tesla were forced to produce entirely distinct models for every rental car operator, each requesting unique features, aesthetics, or layouts, the manufacturing process would quickly lose efficiency and economies of scale. Instead of producing millions of standardized cars, Tesla would create fragmented product lines, each line customized, inefficient, and costly.
● Now apply this to modular construction: Modular manufacturers frequently face this exact scenario. Each hotel operator or dormitory developer requests subtle differences in layout, finishes, aesthetics, or even mechanical systems. This continuous customization prevents modular factories from ever truly achieving peak efficiency or maximum scalability. Instead of a singular, optimized product line, modular factories continually manage multiple, fragmented “product lines” for various clients.
This illustrates some of the core differences between dwelling manufacturing and industrial product manufacturing: it’s not just about standardizing individual units, but also about standardizing the entire product offering. Volumetric Modular currently strives to balance standard modules with customized projects for clients. With this statement in mind: Who owns the design and specifications process? In consumer products, such as cars, phones, and appliances, manufacturers control the design, offering defined product lines. Consumers choose from these lines but cannot fundamentally alter the underlying product architecture. In commercial modular construction, the developer or owner controls the design process, dictating to the modular builder exactly what they want built. The modular company thus acts more like a factory-for-hire, continuously adjusting to developer needs rather than confidently presenting a defined, finished “product line” for clients to choose from. [2]
This inversion, where the manufacturer surrenders product control to the buyer, is entirely opposite to how traditional industrial manufacturing works, thereby severely limiting the scalability and repeatability of modular systems as in the concept of fully closed-loop products.
Perhaps the deepest philosophical insight here is the tension between projects and products:
● A product is a self-contained offering, controlled entirely by the manufacturer, optimized for repeatable production, and clearly differentiated from competitors.
● A project, by contrast, is fundamentally unique, created in collaboration between many stakeholders, continually adapted and customized.
Construction—modular or otherwise—remains fundamentally project-oriented rather than product-oriented. To fully succeed as a product, modular manufacturers must shift their philosophical stance: modular manufacturers must become confident enough in their product definitions to convince clients (developers and commercial operators) on the viability of the offered product as a process with a certain level of standardization; but more importantly, actually finding ways to deliver on the project based needs by creating a production system that allows the flexibility to deliver its products. [2]
Process vs. Product: Rethinking Industrialization of Space
All of the above suggests that volumetric modular construction, as currently conceived, might be aiming for the wrong target. Perhaps a dwelling is not destined to be a product in the simplistic way a car is. Maybe we should focus less on making the building a mass-produced object and more on industrializing the construction process. In other words, the output can remain customizable and diverse, while the way we deliver it becomes more efficient, systematic, and repeatable. This shifts the emphasis from productization to process innovation, where the process itself becomes a product. [2,9]
What might this look like in practice? For one, it means embracing the fact that every project can be different and that’s okay. Rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all module on every building, modular firms could develop flexible systems or platforms that accommodate variation. We can think of it like an adaptable toolkit: standardized structural components and connections that can be configured in a myriad of ways, much as a LEGO set can build many different models. This is akin to the automotive “chassis” analogy, but with even greater openness. In manufacturing terms, it strives for economies of scope (the ability to efficiently produce variety) rather than just economies of scale (efficiency through sameness). Modern digital design and fabrication technologies can greatly assist here. Parametric design software and Building Information Modeling (BIM) enable architects to create families of components that adjust to design parameters. For instance, a wall panel might expand or contract in length as needed, or a module’s layout might be mirrored or tweaked, all while staying within manufacturable limits. Robotic fabrication and CNC machinery can then cut, print, or assemble elements with precision, even if each component is slightly different from the last. In short, mass production is giving way to mass customization, where unique designs incur only minimal extra cost. In the architectural realm, this means a future where every dwelling can be unique in appearance and layout, yet behind the scenes, it’s composed of a kit of standardized sub-components fabricated in a factory. [9,10,11,12,13]
To draw an analogy from another industry: consider the tech world’s approach to hardware and software. Our smartphones and laptops are mass-produced devices (with standardized core components like processors), but each user runs a personalized set of apps and stores unique data, a combination of standard platform and custom content. Likewise, a construction system might have a standard “platform” (such as a grid of modular structural units or a set of panel types), but the configuration of spaces, finishes, and features is tailored to each project. The key is designing the platform to be robust yet flexible, so that customization doesn’t break the manufacturing workflow. [12]
Another paradigm shift is to recognize modular construction as a service as much as a product. Customers ultimately want a place to live that meets their needs, not necessarily a particular object delivered. Suppose we frame modular construction as a service, a means to realize your desired design faster and with greater certainty. In that case, the focus shifts to integrating design, manufacturing, and construction seamlessly for each client. This might mean modular builders working more closely with architects to develop creative designs that still leverage off-site fabrication. It could mean offering clients a library of pre-engineered components that can be arranged in custom ways, rather than a single catalog of fixed models. In essence, industrializing construction may be less about selling identical boxes and more about selling an efficient process that can reliably deliver diverse buildings. [2,9]
Conclusion: Redefining the “Product” of Construction
So, does volumetric modular construction qualify as an industrial product? The answer is yes – but also no. It comfortably meets the technical definition of a product in that it involves factory-made units created through a deliberate, standardized process for sale. Each module is a thing produced. But a dwelling is also more than a thing; it’s an experience, a cultural artifact, a personal canvas. The modular construction industry sits uneasily between two worlds: the world of manufacturing, with its drive toward uniformity and scale, and the world of architecture, with its irreducible need for specificity and soul. Rather than force one world’s logic entirely onto the other, the way forward lies in a nuanced synthesis. We should redefine what “product” means in the context of construction. Perhaps the process is the true product: a repeatable method that reliably delivers buildings, while the buildings themselves remain varied in form and function. [1,2]
In questioning the assumption that modular building must emulate the assembly line wholesale, we open up new creative space. We can ask fresh questions: What if industrializing construction isn’t about making identical copies, but about enabling creative freedom with greater efficiency? How can we industrialize not the house, per se, but the making of houses; so that quality improves, waste diminishes, and speed increases, all while nurturing design diversity? These questions shift the narrative from “Dwelling as product” to “Dwelling as outcome of a better process.” [9,12]
The ongoing evolution of volumetric modular construction may well depend on making peace with its dual identity. It can draw from the best of industrial design, including modularity, precision, and efficiency, without compromising the importance of architectural contextual response, human-centered design, and uniqueness, thereby allowing for flexibility in meeting client expectations. As we move forward, the success of this approach will be measured not just by how many modules roll off a factory line, but also by how well those modules-turned-buildings serve the people living in them and the communities surrounding them. In the end, the ultimate “product” of construction is a habitable space for human life. We should feel empowered to industrialize the creation of that space, so long as we remember that it’s not a mere widget we’re making, but the habitats and homes that shape human experiences. By maintaining a human-centric perspective at its core, we can truly redefine industrialized construction on its own terms, not as a copy of car manufacturing, but as a new synthesis of product and place. [16,17,18]
References
1. Modular Building Institute. (n.d.). What is modular construction? Modular Building Institute.
2. Bertram, N., Fuchs, S., Mischke, J., Palter, R., Strube, G., & Woetzel, J. (2019, June). Modular construction: From projects to products. McKinsey & Company.
3. BC Housing. (2014). Modular and prefabricated housing: Literature scan of ideas, innovations, and considerations to improve affordability, efficiency, and quality. BC Housing.
4. Thai, H.-T., Ngo, T., & Uy, B. (2020). A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings. Structures, 28, 1265–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.070
5. SteelConstruction.info. (n.d.). Modular construction. SteelConstruction.info.
6. Fannie Mae. (2020). Multifamily modular construction toolkit. Fannie Mae.
7. History.com Editors. (n.d.). Ford’s assembly line starts rolling. HISTORY.
8. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (n.d.). Decorated Cave of Pont d’Arc, known as Grotte Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, Ardèche. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
9. Construction Innovation Hub. (2021). Platform Design Programme: Defining the need. Construction Innovation Hub.
10. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 19650-1:2018—Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM)—Information management using building information modelling—Part 1: Concepts and principles.
11. Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G., & Teicholz, P. (2018). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, designers, engineers, contractors, and facility managers (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
12. Pine II, B. J., Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1993). Making mass customization work. Harvard Business Review.
13. Panzar, J. C., & Willig, R. D. (1981). Economies of scope. The American Economic Review, 71(2), 268–272.
14. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
15. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
16. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
17. Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Prentice-Hall.
18. Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space (M. Jolas, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1958)
19. Harper, D. (n.d.). Product (n.). Online Etymology Dictionary.
20. Lawson, R. M., Ogden, R. G., & Goodier, C. I. (2014). Design in modular construction. CRC Press.
21. Smith, R. E. (2010). Prefab architecture: A guide to modular design and construction. John Wiley & Sons.
