Warren Buffett to Offer a New Spin on Modular Construction
A startup owned by Berkshire Hathaway aims to make the construction industry more like car manufacturing.
A startup owned by Berkshire Hathaway aims to make the construction industry more like car manufacturing.
A startup owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. aims to shake up the construction industry by making it more like car manufacturing.
MiTek Inc., a Missouri-based construction-technology company, is launching a new modular building venture with New York City-based architect Danny Forster & Architecture. The company plans to build entire rooms for hotels and apartment buildings in factories, and then send them to a construction site to be stacked on top of each other.
MiTek has more than 6,000 employees and sells building components, construction software and services like engineering. The company said it is investing tens of millions of dollars in the modular venture, and plans to start working on its first projects early next year.
Modular construction isn’t new, but companies have struggled to be profitable. Transporting entire rooms to construction sites can be expensive, and some finished buildings have suffered from leaky facades.
Other efforts to streamline the construction process have also had issues. Katerra Inc., a Silicon Valley-based startup, has been looking to move a bigger part of construction work to factories and become a one-stop shop that cuts out middlemen like plumbers and architects. But it has struggled under this model, and its main backer, SoftBank Group Corp., had to bail it out.
MiTek looks to modernize modular construction by requiring assembly by general contractors. Instead of building entire rooms in a factory and driving them to a construction site on a flatbed truck, MiTek wants to ship kits of manufactured building parts along with instructions.
General contractors would then construct rooms from these parts, which would include a steel cage forming the structural support for the room, in a warehouse or other type of industrial building near the construction site.
Shipping the parts, rather than entire rooms, keeps transportation costs low and allows MiTek to supply the country from its factory in Lebanon, Pa., said Todd Ullom, the company’s vice president of modular building solutions.
That companies continue to invest in modular construction despite the challenges speaks to the business model’s promise, proponents say. Construction is a massive industry, plagued by rising costs and inefficiencies. Anyone who manages to automate it the way Henry Ford once changed car manufacturing stands to make a fortune, some industry observers say.
“How come an entire industry is operating on mid-to-late-20th-century mode when we’re a quarter of the way, almost, into the 21st century?” said Barry LePatner, a New York-based construction attorney. “It drives me crazy.”
MiTek’s approach brings its own challenges. Relying on customers to assemble rooms based on written instructions can be tricky. Many general contractors are resistant to change, which could lead to friction and mistakes.
Mr. Ullom, who worked as a general contractor for more than 30 years, said relying on a single supplier instead of numerous subcontractors reduces risk, and the instructions are simple to follow. He said MiTek would offer on-site training.
MiTek also plans to automate much of its 225,000-square-foot factory, for example by using robotic welders, not unlike how auto makers assemble cars. Architect Danny Forster’s firm has designed what could become the world’s tallest modular hotel, a planned 26-story building for Manhattan. He said other modular-construction companies moved work from building sites into factories but failed to make it faster or more efficient.
“A lot of times it has been bringing the chaos of the construction site and just putting a roof over it,” he said.
Reprinted by permission of The Wall Street Journal, Copyright 2021 Dow Jones & Company. Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Original date of publication: May 18, 2021.
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
Competitive pressure and creativity have made Chinese-designed and -built electric cars formidable competitors
China rocked the auto world twice this year. First, its electric vehicles stunned Western rivals at the Shanghai auto show with their quality, features and price. Then came reports that in the first quarter of 2023 it dethroned Japan as the world’s largest auto exporter.
How is China in contention to lead the world’s most lucrative and prestigious consumer goods market, one long dominated by American, European, Japanese and South Korean nameplates? The answer is a unique combination of industrial policy, protectionism and homegrown competitive dynamism. Western policy makers and business leaders are better prepared for the first two than the third.
Start with industrial policy—the use of government resources to help favoured sectors. China has practiced industrial policy for decades. While it’s finding increased favour even in the U.S., the concept remains controversial. Governments have a poor record of identifying winning technologies and often end up subsidising inferior and wasteful capacity, including in China.
But in the case of EVs, Chinese industrial policy had a couple of things going for it. First, governments around the world saw climate change as an enduring threat that would require decade-long interventions to transition away from fossil fuels. China bet correctly that in transportation, the transition would favour electric vehicles.
In 2009, China started handing out generous subsidies to buyers of EVs. Public procurement of taxis and buses was targeted to electric vehicles, rechargers were subsidised, and provincial governments stumped up capital for lithium mining and refining for EV batteries. In 2020 NIO, at the time an aspiring challenger to Tesla, avoided bankruptcy thanks to a government-led bailout.
While industrial policy guaranteed a demand for EVs, protectionism ensured those EVs would be made in China, by Chinese companies. To qualify for subsidies, cars had to be domestically made, although foreign brands did qualify. They also had to have batteries made by Chinese companies, giving Chinese national champions like Contemporary Amperex Technology and BYD an advantage over then-market leaders from Japan and South Korea.
To sell in China, foreign automakers had to abide by conditions intended to upgrade the local industry’s skills. State-owned Guangzhou Automobile Group developed the manufacturing know-how necessary to become a player in EVs thanks to joint ventures with Toyota and Honda, said Gregor Sebastian, an analyst at Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies.
Despite all that government support, sales of EVs remained weak until 2019, when China let Tesla open a wholly owned factory in Shanghai. “It took this catalyst…to boost interest and increase the level of competitiveness of the local Chinese makers,” said Tu Le, managing director of Sino Auto Insights, a research service specialising in the Chinese auto industry.
Back in 2011 Pony Ma, the founder of Tencent, explained what set Chinese capitalism apart from its American counterpart. “In America, when you bring an idea to market you usually have several months before competition pops up, allowing you to capture significant market share,” he said, according to Fast Company, a technology magazine. “In China, you can have hundreds of competitors within the first hours of going live. Ideas are not important in China—execution is.”
Thanks to that competition and focus on execution, the EV industry went from a niche industrial-policy project to a sprawling ecosystem of predominantly private companies. Much of this happened below the Western radar while China was cut off from the world because of Covid-19 restrictions.
When Western auto executives flew in for April’s Shanghai auto show, “they saw a sea of green plates, a sea of Chinese brands,” said Le, referring to the green license plates assigned to clean-energy vehicles in China. “They hear the sounds of the door closing, sit inside and look at the quality of the materials, the fabric or the plastic on the console, that’s the other holy s— moment—they’ve caught up to us.”
Manufacturers of gasoline cars are product-oriented, whereas EV manufacturers, like tech companies, are user-oriented, Le said. Chinese EVs feature at least two, often three, display screens, one suitable for watching movies from the back seat, multiple lidars (laser-based sensors) for driver assistance, and even a microphone for karaoke (quickly copied by Tesla). Meanwhile, Chinese suppliers such as CATL have gone from laggard to leader.
Chinese dominance of EVs isn’t preordained. The low barriers to entry exploited by Chinese brands also open the door to future non-Chinese competitors. Nor does China’s success in EVs necessarily translate to other sectors where industrial policy matters less and creativity, privacy and deeply woven technological capability—such as software, cloud computing and semiconductors—matter more.
Still, the threat to Western auto market share posed by Chinese EVs is one for which Western policy makers have no obvious answer. “You can shut off your own market and to a certain extent that will shield production for your domestic needs,” said Sebastian. “The question really is, what are you going to do for the global south, countries that are still very happily trading with China?”
Western companies themselves are likely to respond by deepening their presence in China—not to sell cars, but for proximity to the most sophisticated customers and suppliers. Jörg Wuttke, the past president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, calls China a “fitness centre.” Even as conditions there become steadily more difficult, Western multinationals “have to be there. It keeps you fit.”
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual