The battle cry echoing across the housing industry is clear: “Modular housing needs to standardize!” On the surface, it sounds like common sense. After all, automotive factories churn out thousands of identical cars each year, each plant typically dedicated to a single line of vehicles. To outsiders—often the self-proclaimed “brainiacs” of manufacturing—that seems like the obvious path for modular housing too.
But here’s the hard truth: in practice, expecting modular factories to adopt one-size-fits-all standardization is a fantasy.
The Reality of Codes and Geography
Every single modular project is different, and the reason comes down to codes and conditions. A home built in coastal South Carolina faces hurricane winds. A project in the Rockies must account for heavy snow loads. California demands seismic compliance. Even within a 100-mile radius of a single factory, the odds of producing the exact same module for two different sites is slim to none.
That’s why, no matter how tempting the automotive analogy might be, trying to enforce product-level standardization in modular construction is, frankly, BS.
photo-VBC Modular
Where Standardization Does Belong
The answer isn’t rejecting standardization outright—it’s rethinking it. Instead of chasing uniform homes, modular factories should focus on standardization where it actually adds value:
- System Standardization: Develop common wall systems, floor assemblies, roof types, and MEP chases that can be used across a variety of homes and projects. Think LEGO bricks rather than identical cars.
- Process Standardization: Use consistent workflows, quality checks, and digital design-to-fabrication systems (like BIM and DfMA) to deliver efficiency without sacrificing flexibility.
- Regional Standardization: Standardize around clusters of code requirements—snow load packages for the Northeast, hurricane specs for the Gulf Coast—so a factory can maintain efficiency while meeting local demands.
This layered approach allows modular companies to protect profits and scale production without being trapped by unrealistic cookie-cutter designs.
Single-Family vs. Project Work
For single-family modular factories, the key is balance: offer a small line of well-priced standard plans—built with contingencies already baked in for code requirements—while charging more for custom work. This protects the bottom line without alienating buyers who crave choice.
Project work is a different beast. If a factory normally builds ten modules a week and accepts a contract for 160 modules, that’s one-third of its production schedule locked down. Without careful planning, cash flow dries up, single-family sales stall, and storage headaches pile up if the developer isn’t ready when the modules are.
Factories designed specifically for project work can make it succeed by planning production schedules and retooling well in advance. Still, one missed hand-off from a developer can throw even the best-run system into chaos.
Outsiders Don’t See the Real Picture
Those who insist new home buyers and developers would happily accept standardized modular housing simply don’t grasp the reality of this industry. Standardization isn’t about stamping out identical boxes—it’s about creating repeatable systems and processes that allow factories to deliver flexibility efficiently.
Until the “standardization crowd” understands that, modular construction will remain one of the most misunderstood industries in housing.
.
With over 9,000 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
