Use of Gaming Technology to Build 20K SF in 4 Days Part II

The second half of my 2016 conversation with Chris Matus continued the DIRTT discussion. The harder question was how to compare a system that changed several parts of the work at once.

A wall price can be easy to isolate. The labor, finishes, utilities, staging, trade coordination, and installation sequence around that wall are harder to keep in one view.

Follow the work that moves with the system

Chris Matus described frames, finishes, power, data, and installation as connected parts of the DIRTT approach discussed in 2016. He argued that a wall-only comparison missed surrounding work that the system could replace, reduce, or move.

A lower whole-project cost was not automatic. A fair comparison still needed to include the surrounding work. If a proposed system changed several scopes, the estimate should show those changes instead of placing the new scope beside an unchanged version of the old plan.

Sequence is part of the economic question

Chris Matus explained that frames could arrive before the finished surfaces. Utilities and approvals could occur before the finishes were installed, which reduced the period when those finishes were exposed to earlier work.

That manufacturing story also changed the field sequence. It affected when material arrived, when utilities were reviewed, and how much separate work the general contractor had to coordinate in the same area.

Before comparing two options, trace the affected work from fabrication through installation. Mark which trade, review, delivery, or finish moves. Then confirm which changes can actually be captured in the project plan. This keeps the comparison tied to the work rather than a single price line.

Flexibility was an option, not a promise to move every wall

Many clients bought the system for potential flexibility, not because they expected to move walls. They valued having an option to adapt when future needs were not fully known.

Chris's framing offers a narrower and more useful way to value flexibility. The owner does not need to predict a specific reconfiguration. The decision is whether preserving an option has enough value to justify the design and delivery choices required to create it.

His workplace examples and generational comments reflected that 2016 moment. They should not be used to describe today's market.

Timing determines which credits are real

Chris Matus said the comparison became less complete when the system provider joined after trade packages were already committed. At that point, work that might have shifted could be difficult to remove from the existing plan.

Late involvement did not make the system right or wrong. It changed which credits and sequence changes were still available. A team can compare more of the option's effect while surrounding scopes remain adjustable.

Compare the project, then decide on the product

Chris Matus closed one part of the conversation by saying, “There's just a better way to build than how we're doing it today.” A project team does not have to accept that conclusion to use the discipline behind it.

First identify what the system changes. Then decide whether those changes improve this project enough to support the choice. The wall price belongs in that decision, but it cannot carry the decision by itself.