Panelization: what moves to the factory and what it buys
Panelization moves the wall and roof from the site to a factory. The gains are less waste, better tolerances, a shorter cycle and less exposure to weather and labour supply.
The productivity argument
Construction productivity has lagged manufacturing for decades. McKinsey put the gap at 170 percent, with roughly 200 billion dollars of lost labour productivity and 177.5 billion dollars of cost in time spent on non-optimal activities.
Manufacturing closed its gap with jigs, repetition, controlled conditions and measurement. Panelization applies the same moves to the parts of a building that repeat.
What actually improves
Waste falls, because components are cut to a cutting list rather than to the nearest stick. Tolerances tighten, because a factory can hold them. Cycle time falls, because the panels are made while the foundation cures instead of after it. Rework falls, because the geometry was resolved in the drawings.
Weather stops being a schedule risk for the shell. A building that can be closed in within days is a building whose interior trades are not waiting on a forecast.
What it asks of the project
Decisions move earlier. Openings, services and connections have to be resolved before manufacture, not during framing. That is a real change in how a project runs, and it is the main reason panelization succeeds or fails on a given job.
What Guardian publishes
-
Guardian states panels reduce the rough construction of the exterior envelope by over 50 percent, are built in 20 to 35 percent less time, and that a typical 2,000 sq ft home can be under roof in 2 to 3 days.
Source · Differentiation sheet; Market page
-
Panels can be manufactured while the foundation is completed and shipped to site when ready.
Source · Differentiation sheet
-
Components are designed to be used in total, with no waste or need for a dumpster.
Source · Differentiation sheet
-
McKinsey study figures as Guardian publishes them: productivity lagging 170 percent, a $200 billion labour productivity gap, $177.5 billion in costs from time spent on non-optimal activities.
Source · Market page, McKinsey & Company
Written by Data Subsystems, for Guardian Structural Technologies. Last updated .
Drafted from Guardian Structural product literature and published building-science sources. Awaiting Guardian technical review. Confirm any figure against the current product documents or ask us before you rely on it in a design.