As someone who enjoys the discoveries in meaning and cultural history found in words, ‘Pre fabrication’ is an interesting one; the definition of ‘pre’ is ‘before’ and ‘fabrication’, the act or process of fabricating or manufacture. So, then, ‘prefabrication’ is the precursor to that which is built and, in my experience, that always equates to the dream and a big idea. Think of Noah pre-arc – he had a dream. At the recent PrefabNZ 2014 Conference there were certainly plenty of dreams and big ideas.

The ideas discussed were around off-site manufacture and industrial manufacture of buildings and elements thereof and how they might add value to the New Zealand culture of building. Pamela Bell has, with much aplomb, grace and tenacity, managed to mainstream the concept of off-site fabrication in New Zealand. She has managed to turn her Masters degree thesis into a tool for focusing the industry, revitalising a poorly packaged idea, creating sector collaboration and political buy-in along the way. One could say she has nailed it, off site mostly. Bell’s research-driven entrepreneurial approach is, in a way, a new mode of practice where ‘building’ is not necessarily the only outcome of architectural investigation.

PrefabNZ has arrived on the scene at a pivotal time in this country’s construction sector’s evolution. A perfect storm within the context of a shifting landscape of demand for housing in Auckland, the Christchurch rebuild, a desperate need to ‘up value’ primary resources, a demand for increased productivity and better, more efficient ways of doing things, alongside a lack of skills, changing demographics, sustainability agendas, zero-carbon initiatives, compact cities, leaky and earthquake-prone buildings, affordability, treaty settlements, competitive markets and technological innovation – it’s all on the table.

Tech innovators love to talk about disruption, considered as an idea, process or product that changes a marketplace to the extent that all competitors need to pay attention and ‘get’ with the programme.

Clay Christensen, a Harvard Business School professor, defined ‘disruption’ as a product that addresses a market that previously couldn’t be served or offers a simpler, cheaper or more-convenient alternative to an existing product. The iPhone is the obvious example. I would contest that prefab has the potential to be a well-needed disruption in the building sector.

Another pop phrase from the tech sector: ‘early adoption’ refers to the market leaders who have the foresight and bravery to embrace new ideas. Those who manage to integrate ‘off-site’ into their projects will be the winners. It’s not a new idea, just one that is given some traction based on the fulcrum on which the industry currently balances. The work being done by PrefabNZ and its crew is a potential catalyst for an industry shift required to answer some of the challenges it currently faces. The innovators are already at the coalface.

Innovation and early adoption leads to mainstream adoption, further refinement and on goes the cycle driven by research and development, experimentation, big ideas and competition. That New Zealand Inc needs to do better in the R&D space is a given, especially in regards the building industry. It would be useful to tie the R&D innovation cycle to that of the construction boom/bust cycle which, with the tide coming in and boom on the horizon, prefab is one innovation with a finger squarely on the ‘go’ button. That button happens to be green as well, which is a great bonus.

There were some good speakers at the event. 5468796 Architects illustrated how prefabrication has allowed them to carve a disruptive space in the mostly frozen Winnipeg landscape in Canada and that young people are at the pole position to lead, stating “Architecture is not a luxury product”. Its agenda is enviro-social, not bling.

Associate primary industries minister Jo Goodhew showed off her own bling in the form of a personal secretary and an effectiveness in maintaining a cyclone of public appearances and words that were, in the end, only words. With no actionable programme or commitment from Central Government to use its buying power to disrupt the market, the opportunity will be missed.

Conversely, Dr Hae-yeon Yoo’s presentation on modular social housing in Seoul, South Korea, made it explicitly apparent that the government had put its money where its mouth was, as the primary investor in front-end research and in its ultimate deployment of 80,000 units of prefabricated product to market.

God is in the data. It’s the new detail, after all, and some construction sector data to come out of David Chandler’s presentation was certainly fuel to the already solid business case for the value of off-site fabrication moving forward. The global construction sector is forecast to be worth $15 trillion by 2025 – 13.2 per cent of global GDP. Meanwhile, the Australian industry in 2012 was worth $255 billion and, this year, New Zealand’s construction industry worth should exceed $24 billion.

Mr Chandler presented the Australian construction industry, which is similar to New Zealand’s industry, as being in need of a core shift and needing to adopt three core industry strategies that, perhaps, we could learn from also. Firstly, reduce on-site workforce inputs by 30 per cent by 2023, secondly, reduce on-site construction durations by 50 per cent by 2023 and, thirdly, turn around net construction imports of goods and services by 50 per cent by 2023.

In 2013, Australia’s chief scientist reported that the construction industry “was challenged by the fact that 94 per cent of Australia’s construction industry comprises businesses with five or fewer people, and that less than one per cent of construction businesses in Australia conduct their own R&D”. He also said, “That by neglecting to conduct our own R&D, we not only reduce the chances we will discover new ideas and develop new innovations before our competitors, we also limit our abilities to accept and use those innovations that are developed elsewhere.”

Sounds somewhat familiar. Meanwhile, the comparison of the New Zealand boat-building industry and its reliance on factory-built product formed a good backdrop for the innovation required in the construction sector generally. Tim Smyth from Core Builders Composites presented a preview of the future in which the same digital fabrication and machines producing America’s Cup yachts produce composite building elements for structures from bridges to entire houses. This sentiment was reinforced by visiting MIT professor Mark Goulthorpe, a long-time advocate of the digital revolution, who believes that the opportunity rests in the technological edge of polypropylene thermoplastic panels, as recyclable unitary and monocoque building materials, engineered and explicitly factory produced. This would allow the architect to move from their current role of ‘selector and coordinator of ready-mades’ to idea and form-generator via digital means.

Let the ideas people do what they’re best at, let the technical people get on with their work and together they can weave an elaborate story of factory-produced awesomeness.