We've Always Done It That Way. But Why?

There's a phrase I've heard more times than I care to remember throughout my years in construction.

"We've always done it that way."

And to be fair, there's often a perfectly good reason for it. Construction isn't an industry where you can simply make things up as you go along and hope for the best. Buildings need to stand up, perform properly and, ideally, still be doing both long after we've all retired.

But I've always been someone who likes to ask questions. Not necessarily because I think I know better, but because I genuinely enjoy understanding why we do things the way we do.

And one particular question has been rattling around in my head for years.

If we're making buildings lighter and easier to construct, why does getting them out of the ground still have to be so complicated?

Back in 2018, I became interested in the lightweight roofing market, particularly the different timber and GRP systems being developed.

GRP caught my attention because of its lightweight properties, but it wasn't until I started working with the material that I really appreciated the practical advantages.

You could have an eight-metre length of a particular profile that one person could comfortably lift. Two people could carry components through a property without needing an army of labourers or a crane parked outside.

And if you've ever worked on a terraced house with no side access, where everything has to come through the front door, past the kitchen and out into the garden, you'll appreciate why that matters.

With the right tools and precautions, GRP could also be cut, drilled and assembled on site relatively easily.

I could see the possibilities.

Around the same time, I was looking at modular construction and couldn't help noticing something that seemed a little contradictory.

Here were these clever, lightweight building systems designed to simplify construction, yet many still required substantial excavation and traditional concrete foundations before anything could begin.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with concrete. It's an established and effective construction material, and there are plenty of circumstances where it's the right choice.

But surely it was worth asking whether there were other ways?

What's interesting is that none of this thinking is particularly new.

Look at Sweden, where prefabricated and modular construction has been part of the housing industry for generations. Britain was importing thousands of prefabricated timber houses from Sweden as far back as the 1940s, and some are still standing today.

So we're hardly exploring ideas that nobody has ever tried before.

Yet there still seems to be a tendency within parts of our industry to fall back on what we're most familiar with, rather than explore what else might be possible.

And that brings me to another phrase I've heard more than a few times.

"Yes, but a conventional building will outlast that by decades."

Will it, though?

And what exactly is a conventional building?

I think we've become so accustomed to bricks and mortar that we sometimes treat them as the benchmark against which everything else must be measured.

Of course, traditional construction has an impressive history. We've got buildings in Britain that have stood for centuries.

But does that automatically mean something built using different materials or methods must have a shorter lifespan?

Surely what matters is how a building is designed, the materials used, the evidence supporting its expected performance and how it's maintained over time?

Those questions should apply to every building, regardless of how it's constructed.

There's a difference between respecting traditional construction and believing it's the only way to build something that lasts.

This same curiosity eventually led me further into ground screws.

The idea of combining properly engineered ground screw foundations with lightweight structural building systems seemed a natural fit, particularly for sites where access, excavation or disruption presented challenges.

Of course, the ground conditions, structural requirements and appropriate testing all need to support that approach. They're not a solution for every project.

But having another option available just made sense to me.

Over the following years, I became heavily involved in fabricating modular GRP construction systems, learning a great deal about both the material and the practical realities of designing around it.

One lesson in particular stayed with me.

There's no point designing something that's brilliant in theory if it's a nightmare for somebody to actually build.

You can draw the perfect structural component, but if it isn't readily available, takes weeks to arrive or requires complicated installation methods, you've potentially created another problem.

And that thinking eventually influenced the development of ModuFloor.

By Christmas 2025, I'd started sketching ideas for a lightweight structural base that could work directly with appropriately designed ground screw foundations.

I wanted something straightforward to assemble, with practical connection details and readily available fixings. If an installer ran out of bolts on a Friday afternoon, I didn't want the entire job held up waiting for a specialist delivery.

Simple enough, I thought.

Well, four or five prototypes later, along with structural engineering, thermal calculations, condensation risk assessments and plenty of conversations about Building Control requirements, I'd developed a much greater appreciation for everything involved in bringing a construction system to market.

It turns out that making something simple to install can require an awful lot of work behind the scenes.

But I've thoroughly enjoyed the process, particularly working alongside engineers and others with specialist knowledge to turn an idea into something properly considered and supported by technical evidence.

And the learning hasn't stopped.

For all the time I've spent working with GRP, I certainly don't believe it's the answer to every construction challenge.

I'm equally interested in the developments taking place within the light gauge steel industry, particularly how manufacturers are approaching structural design, thermal performance and condensation control.

Timber also has an important place, as do conventional construction methods.

That's really what I want ModuSense to be about. Working with manufacturers, engineers, installers and builders to explore different approaches and find practical, properly engineered solutions to suit individual projects.

ModuFloor is one part of that journey, but it certainly isn't the whole picture.

Looking back to 2018, I'm still asking many of the same questions. The difference is that I've now had the opportunity to explore some of the answers, learn from others and develop a few ideas of my own.

And I'm just as interested in what other people are developing as I am in my own work.

Because I don't believe the future of construction belongs to one material, manufacturer or particular method.

Sometimes a different approach might offer a better solution. Sometimes the traditional method might still be the most sensible choice.

After all, just because we've always done something a particular way doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way.

But equally, sometimes there's a very good reason why we have.

I think the interesting part is finding out which.