Is a cookie-cutter approach needed to save the construction industry?

Faced with a housing shortage that’s become a national crisis and numerous infrastructure project delays, Australia can no longer afford the luxury that is bespoke construction.

It is especially true when the productivity of the nation’s construction industry has declined by 16.5 per cent since 2014, a decade-long slump further exacerbated by talent shortages and rising material costs.

According to Oxford Economics Australia, multifactor productivity, which measures output across the construction industry, was 1.6 per cent lower in 2022 than in 1990, signalling continued trouble and delays ahead for Australia’s already battered housing ambitions.

If we’re serious about resolving this shortage, construction capacity and materials must be channelled towards building homes or infrastructure in a systematic and standardised manner, rather than feeding buyer appetites for unique, made-to-order buildings.

To remain on the present course isn’t just foolish and wasteful – it could very well widen social inequalities and pose irreparable financial harm to the nation.

Bespoke: Out of touch with the times?

The construction industry is no stranger to trade-offs.

Bespoke buildings may hold a unique appeal that’s highly marketable to certain buyers, but they are also significantly more complex and costly to build.

It already takes an average of 15 months to deliver a new townhouse at current productivity levels. A bespoke approach will typically have longer and riskier timelines due to greater complexities in design, approvals and on-site construction requirements.

This extended timeline means skilled labour, equipment and materials are tied up for longer periods on bespoke projects, which is problematic given Australia's current shortages in these areas.

With productivity already slumping, this could hinder the country's ability to meet the government’s goal of building 1.2 million homes by 2029.

Bespoke projects also limit economies of scale and require meticulous attention to detail, reducing the number of projects that can be completed each year. Standardisation leads to repetition of processes that allows for improvement in productivity and quality.

The Australian Constructors Association describes the productivity problem succinctly: there is simply too much waste and duplication in current processes. To boost construction productivity and meet housing targets, we need to prioritise uniformity and standardisation over starting each new project with a bespoke design.

Building fast and well

The benefits of standardisation in cost and efficiency are well-documented.

Henry Ford famously quipped, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour, so long as it’s black,” reflecting his commitment to standardised production – which reduced Ford assembly times from 12 hours to just 90 minutes.

More recently, platform standardisation has allowed Apple devices to be the most popular products of all time, while process standardisation enables Amazon’s fulfilment centres to process and ship billions of orders daily.

If the goal is to deliver a product at a certain level of quality and scale, then standardisation is a smart approach for Australia’s construction industry. Furthermore, industry players won’t be starting from scratch, because several solutions have been tested and proven in construction projects across the nation.

Prefabricated modular construction is one such solution. Standing at 44 levels, Hickory’s La Trobe Tower demonstrates the possibilities of standardised off-site prefabrication. The project was delivered 30 per cent faster than if built with conventional methods.

Prefabrication also reduces material waste and minimises rework, helping companies keep material costs predictable and low. Costs that aren’t stabilising anytime soon.

Industry players should also support the upskilling and training of new construction talent in standard building practices, through the many training programs across Australia.

Multiplex's Centre for Excellence in Sydney, for instance, delivers standard programs that imbue a sense of quality workmanship and technical expertise into students.

There are also independent and state training programs to choose from, all of which bring much-needed new talent – both local and imported – up to speed with standard practices for a more productive industry.

Swapping personalisation for practicality

Perhaps the biggest barrier to overcome in our journey to standardised buildings is the Aussie mindset of ‘bespoke is better’.

Some may say that standardisation leads to buildings that are sterile and lacking in character, but I think otherwise.

Look at Amsterdam’s canal houses, New York’s brownstones, and even Singapore’s public housing complexes.

There are countless ways to improve the beauty and character of surrounding environments – like better landscaping or façade treatments – to offset the necessary uniformity of constructed buildings.

As competition for construction capacities and resources heats up, Australia faces a tough choice: can we truly prioritise the transient qualities of bespoke over the long-term benefits that standardisation brings to all Australians? I think not.

In a healthy and stable housing market, bespoke does have its place. But that’s not the reality for Australia, and if we as a nation want to set things right, then an unwavering pursuit of standardisation is the way to go.