Are We Ready for Growth?

The government is talking constantly about growth, and rightly so, but if they truly want it, construction is the sector where growth can actually happen at scale. We’re one of the biggest contributors to GDP, a major employer, and the engine room of national productivity. The irony, of course, is that construction should be the easy win. The reports exist, the frameworks exist, and the Construction Playbook laid out more than enough.

And yet the lived reality is very different. Construction feels, at times, like one of the hardest environments to work in, rivalled only by the NHS in complexity and fragmentation. To understand why, you have to return to the feeling in the room that day in September, when, before anyone even had the chance to settle, somebody said the line that halted the conversation before it began:

The clearest picture of construction isn’t found in a report; it’s found in the room and at our September roundtable, before we’d even begun, someone said the line that made everyone pause:

“Whoever gets the price most wrong

wins the job.”

People didn’t flinch. They nodded. Because everyone knew it was true.

“Sector readiness isn’t something we can decide in isolation,” Jessie said. “It has to come from all of us, in one room, sharing the same challenges and the same priorities.”

That honesty shaped the entire discussion that followed. Not a panel. Not a performance. Just manufacturers, designers, housing associations, contractors, policy people, and a very vocal audience speaking openly about what’s working, what isn’t, and whether the sector is genuinely ready for growth.

What became clear quickly was that the challenges aren’t hidden in obscure corners. They’re everywhere. Language, procurement, design timing, approvals, utilities, planning, the friction is spread right across the system, but so are the solutions. And that was the most encouraging part.

The first theme that kept resurfacing was language. Not because anyone wanted another debate about acronyms, but because language shapes decisions. Will Jones captured it simply,

"clients don’t buy acronyms, they buy outcomes. If we present MMC as something unusual, we create distance. But when we talk about speed, predictability, quality and safety, people recognise it as good construction".

Matthew Egan reinforced this. Categories don’t tell clients what they need to know. They don’t explain load paths, interface conditions or tolerances. If we can’t clearly describe systems, we can’t compare them, and we can’t scale them. Industrialised construction depends on shared understanding.

That point flowed directly into the reality manufacturers are living with. Laura Blair contrasted two worlds , one that works and one that constantly moves under your feet.

"The DfE’s consistent specification has allowed Innovaré to invest, industrialise and grow. Predictability created confidence, and confidence created capacity".

Housing, however, is a different rhythm entirely. SAP, Part L, Part B, overheating, EV charging, planning conditions, sales tweaks, unexpected site constraints , everything moves. Every plot risks becoming a one-off, and factories don’t grow on one-offs. They grow on repeatability. Laura wasn’t negative. She was clear: if we lock standards early and reward performance, the factory can do the rest.

Procurement, though, is where things really collide. Daniel Leach didn’t soften the issue. When MMC decisions arrive after the design is already fixed for traditional build, the method never gets the chance to deliver its value. Late change forces bespoke modules, redesign, risk, and disappointment , not because MMC failed, but because it was invited in too late.

His point was simple: decide the delivery route at concept, align procurement with the behaviours you want, and pay the agreed amount when it’s due. Stability would follow. Factories could focus on productivity instead of firefighting.

Productivity isn’t a single breakthrough. It comes from dozens of small, consistent decisions , clearer interfaces, aligned foundations, earlier conversations, predictable pipelines, evidence people can trust. None of these require reinvention. They require consistency.

Approvals brought another layer of realism. Steve Marshall reminded the room that trust is built on evidence, not optimism. Funders, building control, warranty providers, they all want tested, repeatable systems. The current journey is slow, contradictory in places and draining. Yet Gateway 2, as heavy as it feels right now, could become a turning point.

"Once a productised system passes through, it becomes repeatable. A template that can be reused. Slow at first, faster every time".

Then came the example that grounded the room. One SME housebuilder, in the audience described a delay that had nothing to do with MMC or design and everything to do with bureaucracy: no planning, so no address, so no MPAN, so no power. A simple administrative chain, completely out of sync, is holding up homes that could have been delivered weeks earlier. Everyone recognised it instantly. Not because it was unusual, but because it happens all the time.

It showed that many barriers aren’t technical. They’re system issues. Ownership issues. Friction that sits between organisations, not within them.

And just as the conversation risked tipping into pessimism, the reality of demand cut through from the always optimistic Gaynor. Homes England delivered around 77,000 homes, aiming for 25 per cent MMC but reaching closer to 40 per cent, with more routes coming. The demand signal is there. It’s stronger than the narrative suggests.

So the real question isn’t whether we have the capability. We do. Factories have capacity. The expertise exists. The appetite is growing. The question is whether the ecosystem around that capability can align.

The room made that answer clearer than any strategy document could. Early engagement. Consistent standards. Predictable demand. Better procurement. Foundations designed with the system in mind. Paying on time. And language that brings people in rather than shutting them out.

None of this is radical. These are choices. And when they’re made consistently, potential turns into productivity.

That’s where the conversation landed, not frustrated, but focused.

Growth isn’t a distant ambition. It’s within reach but only if we join the dots. The DfE facilitated Innovaré's progress by providing them with clarity and a clear pipeline. The question now is whether housing, infrastructure and public buildings will follow.

"Because if they do, the sector won’t just be ready for growth. It will be built for it."

To listen to the whole discussion, you can find it by listening to our Ripple Effect Podcast

THE RIPPLE EFFECT | The Offsite Alliance

If you have something to say and are not yet part of the OA community. Click on the button below to see how you can get on the map.

Learn more