Industrialised Construction v MMC

When one example becomes dominant within a category, it claims the general term. The prototype captures the name. When people consistently infer a specific meaning from a general term, that inference hardens into the actual definition. Repetition seals it.

Something similar has happened to Modern Methods of Construction (MMC).

How we understood MMC

At Akerlof, we always viewed MMC as an umbrella term for contemporary innovations encompassing digital technologies, off-site manufacture, on-site productivity improvements, and efficient processes, focussed to deliver better outcomes. We saw it as changing how we designed and delivered our built environment: a shift in mindset, integration, continuous improvement, not simply what we manufactured.

People and process more than products.

For much of the sector, however, the meaning is narrower.

How meaning contracted

Housing’s adoption of MMC brought legitimate concerns from mortgage lenders, valuers and warranty providers about unfamiliar construction types. They needed to categorise and assess physical products. The result was the MHCLG seven-category framework: Category 1 (volumetric), Category 2 (panelised), Category 3 (components), and so on.

The framework was genuinely useful for its intended purpose, helping stakeholders understand different solutions. But it inadvertently established a taxonomy of products that may treated as the definition of MMC itself.

Then the narrowing mechanisms took hold.

Government funding and public debate gravitated toward the most visible end of the spectrum: volumetric. When ministers, officials and commentators spoke about MMC, they often meant Category 1, even when they didn’t say so. Listeners learned to infer the specific from the general..

High-profile failures accelerated the process. Factory closures and delivery problems became the MMC stories. Meanwhile, quieter successes – standardised designs, panelised systems and process improvements – delivered without the drama or the memorability. As ever, the most visible example became the prototype, and the prototype claimed the name.

‘MMC’ became shorthand for ‘off-site’ which has increasingly become synonymous for ‘volumetric’. Deeper questions about integration, process and mindset have been progressively sidelined. A term that once meant transformation has come to mean products.

For those who had always understood MMC in its broader sense, this has been frustrating; explaining repeatedly that MMC is not just about factories but instead thinking and delivering differently. But the narrow interpretation has taken hold regardless.

The consequences of narrowing

This semantic drift carries real consequences. Many projects have adopted MMC products but often into essentially traditional delivery models. Familiarity with digital and offsite technologies have grown and often local benefits have emerged but transformative outcomes have often remained elusive.

In many cases, the real opportunities have been lost in translation.

Industrialised construction: a deliberate reset

The Construction Leadership Council’s adoption of ‘industrialised construction‘ terminology earlier this year represents an attempt to reset the conversation.

‘Industrialisation’ deliberately invokes the broader lessons of manufacturing transformation. Not robots or production lines but the underlying principles: eliminating waste throughout the value chain; integrating design, manufacture and assembly as optimised processes; leveraging standardisation to enable mass customisation; building continuous improvement on repeatable processes and stable supply chain relationships

For practitioners who always understood MMC this way, the shift to ‘industrialised construction’ isn’t learning something new, it’s a welcome correction of focus.

What actually differs

The contrast between narrow MMC and the broader industrialised approach plays out across several dimensions.

• Project-by-project versus programmatic. Construction remains organised around individual projects. Industrialisation requires aggregating requires aggregating demand across portfolios, building persistent supply chain relationships, and seeking transformation at portfolio level rather than scheme-by-scheme adoptioon.
• Technology-led versus outcome-led. Narrow MMC discussions centre on which system or technology to specify. Industrialisation starts with outcomes: what outcomes are we trying to improve? Product choices follow, not lead.
• Products versus process. Narrow MMC focuses on what you manufacture: modules, panels, pods. Industrialisation focuses on how you transform the entire value chain: business cases, design, cost management, procurement, logistics and maintenance. Standardisation and repeatability extend across the full lifecycle, not just the factory.
• Retrofitting versus designing for manufacture. Much MMC adoption involves inserting manufactured elements at a late stage of design. Industrialisation means designing for manufacture and assembly from the outset, to mitigate trade offs in design intent or system efficiency.
• Incremental adoption versus business model change. Narrow MMC can be bolted onto existing organisational structures and commercial frameworks. Industrialisation requires deeper change: new relationships between clients and supply chains, different risk allocation and alliance-style models that foster long-term collaboration rather than transactional procurement.
• One-off learning versus continuous improvement. Project-based delivery treats each scheme as a fresh start. Industrialisation creates systematic improvement at a programmatic level: common processes, shared data, repeatable systems across multiple projects and organisations, so learning accumulates rather than dissipates.

A journey, not a leap

None of this implies an overnight switch to an “industrialised” approach. Nor does it imply that everything must be off-site, or that on-site craft has no role.

But the danger of the narrowed MMC definition was that it collapsed all of this into a single simplistic question: what proportion of the project is built off-site (what’s your PMV)?

That metric has its uses, when taken as part of a broader approach, but not in its individuality.

When the language catches up

PAS 8700 (2025), provides useful process guidance for MMC in residential development. The Construction Playbook and the Platform Rulebook point the way too but frameworks alone don’t drive change.

What matters is that the industry’s language is realigning with the original intent. For organisations that maintained the broader definition through narrower discourse, this moment is one of alignment rather than pivot.

Unlike meat, deer and girl, this semantic narrowing is being reversed. Not by reclaiming MMC, but by replacing it with language that better fits the job.