Canada and Australia are asking similar questions—but arriving at different answers

When Perkins&Will recently released its research into a modular mass timber housing system for Canada, the immediate takeaway was straightforward: another country is exploring how prefabrication, standardisation and offsite manufacturing might help address housing supply. (main image: Render of the proposed modular mass timber housing system developed by Perkins&Will, illustrating a mid-rise residential building designed around standardised components, adaptable layouts and prefabricated timber construction. Credit: Perkins&Will.)

Look a little closer, however, and another story emerges.

Although developed independently and for different purposes, the Canadian research and Australia’s System 600 initiative appear to be grappling with many of the same questions. How can housing become easier to manufacture? How can design, approvals and construction become more repeatable? And how can industrialised construction support domestic manufacturing rather than relying on isolated proprietary systems?

The answers, however, are not identical.

Shared questions, different starting points

The Canadian project, developed by Perkins&Will in collaboration with industry and academic partners, is built around a rationalised structural grid, a concise kit of prefabricated components, coordinated building services and modular planning principles. The objective is to streamline design, manufacturing and assembly while supporting Canada’s housing and climate objectives.

Many of those themes will sound familiar to Australians following Building 4.0 CRC’s System 600 research, which also explores standardised design rules, coordinated interfaces and component-based construction.

Neither project simply asks how to manufacture buildings in a factory. Instead, both investigate whether greater coordination across design, manufacturing and construction can improve productivity, simplify delivery and create more repeatable outcomes.

Where they diverge is in their starting point.
The Canadian research is firmly rooted in mass timber. It examines how engineered timber, modular planning and prefabricated components can work together to produce adaptable, low-carbon housing while strengthening Canada’s timber manufacturing sector.

System 600, by contrast, begins with a broader manufacturing platform. Rather than focusing on a particular material, it explores whether common dimensional rules and standardised interfaces can enable multiple manufacturers and building systems to operate within a shared framework. 

In that sense, the Canadian work starts with a construction system built around timber, while System 600 starts with the concept of interoperability across the construction supply chain.

The distinction is important because it reflects different ways of approaching the same challenge.

More than a comparison of two projects

Perkins&Will’s Modular Timber Housing research explores a standardised approach to modular mass timber housing. Credit: Perkins&Will.

• 
• 
• 
• 

The value of comparing these initiatives is not to determine which approach is superior. Both remain research programs rather than established industry models, and both will continue to evolve through testing and industry engagement.

System 600, in particular, has generated considerable discussion within Australia’s offsite sector. Some participants see value in developing common interfaces and greater interoperability, while others have questioned aspects of its framework, implementation and potential role within a diverse manufacturing ecosystem. Those differing perspectives are part of the ongoing conversation about how industrialised construction should develop in Australia.

What is perhaps most noteworthy is that researchers in two different countries are increasingly asking similar questions. Rather than focusing solely on individual products—whether volumetric modules, panels or pods—both initiatives are examining how housing can be designed around coordinated systems, manufacturing logic and repeatable processes.

That does not necessarily point towards a single international model. Instead, it suggests the conversation around industrialised construction is becoming more sophisticated. The focus is shifting beyond factory-built buildings towards the broader systems that enable them to be designed, manufactured and assembled more efficiently.

Whether those ideas ultimately lead to common standards, multiple competing platforms or entirely different approaches remains to be seen. What is already evident, however, is that the discussion is no longer confined to individual building systems. Increasingly, it is about how entire manufacturing ecosystems can be organised to deliver housing at greater scale, while responding to the priorities and capabilities of each country.

Find the proposed Canadian mass timber modular housing system HERE