Timber construction in the DACH region combines a deep-rooted tradition with cutting-edge industrial practices. Early timber construction in the region—from post-and-beam systems and blockbau to half-timbered structures—embodied modular thinking and high carpentry precision (Klein and Grabner, 2015). Historical innovations enabled taller timber buildings and required increasingly precise planning and joinery techniques (Herzog et al., 2008; Zügner, 2013). Industrialization uncovered new forms of industrialized prefabrication, with pioneers such as Otto Hetzer, Deutsche Werkstätte Hellerau, Christoph and Unmack, and later Konrad Wachsmann laying the groundwork for modern glued laminated timber (glulam) and early panelized building systems (Lennartz and Jacob-Freitag, 2015; Sumi, 2007; Müller, 2004). The introduction of engineered wood products (EWPs) — including glulam, dowel-laminated timber (DLT), and cross-laminated timber (CLT) in the 1990s—fundamentally altered structural possibilities (Brandner et al., 2016; Brandner et al., 2013; Pischl et al., 1998). These material advances established the technical foundation for modern prefabrication and modular MSTCIn prefabrication, building components are assembled off-site in controlled factory environments prior to on-site installation, improving quality control, reducing construction time, enhancing safety, and ensuring more predictable costs (Kolb, 2007). Modular construction extends this approach by leveraging repeatability and standardized product platforms—such as 3D room modules and 2D panels—that are serially produced and integrated into larger building systems (proHolz Austria, 2017; Heck and Koppelhuber; McKinsey and Company, 2019).

Although the DACH countries share a timber heritage, their innovation trajectories differ. Austria was an early adopter of CLT in the 1990s and has since developed a strong, export-oriented industrial base for prefabricated elements (e.g., KLH, Binderholz, Stora Enso Austria). Germany, by contrast, has followed an incremental integration of timber into mainstream construction primarily through hybrid systems with concrete and steel, reflecting a tradition of structural engineering excellence and industrial R&D. Switzerland, meanwhile, emphasizes high craftsmanship and architectural experimentation, pioneering high-rise timber projects and bespoke prefabrication systems, underpinned by strong carpentry and engineering networks (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). These national distinctions are reflected in structural-system choices. Austria tends toward panelised systems while Switzerland favours post-and-beam construction. Germany occupies an intermediate position with balanced representation of both (Salvadori, 2021a). Across the region hybrid designs (concrete podiums, reinforced cores, steel connections) are common, reflecting pragmatic strategies to combine timber’s benefits with conventional structural approaches (Ilgın, 2024). The diffusion of these systems is dependent on regulatory framework and the structure of the industry (Hurmekoski et al., 2015). The choice between panelized systems, both timber-frame and solid wood construction, or post-and-beam significantly affects prefabrication potential and requires early design-stage consideration (Pech et al., 2016; Lattke and Hernandez-Maetschl, 2016; Huß and Manfred Stieglmeier, 2017). These nuances underline that MSTC is not a uniform process but rather a set of interlinked trajectories shaped by history, technology, regulation, and market dynamics.

Policy and regulation are decisive for MSTCs uptake (Vihemäki et al., 2019; Nord et al., 2011b; Toivonen et al., 2021; Wiegand and Ramage, 2022). Since the 1990s, governmental initiatives have increasingly promoted MSTC by linking construction to low-carbon requirements, with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) proving especially effective (Ouellet-Plamondon et al., 2023; Kuittinen and Häkkinen, 2020; Francart et al., 2019). Consequently, the role of bio-based construction materials and products, and especially wood, has been highlighted as a contributor to climate change mitigation (Himes and Busby, 2020). However, fire protection remains a core regulatory constraint (Östman et al., 2017). Unlike steel or concrete, timber requires case-specific evaluations, with national codes mainly based on prescriptive regulations, that define permissible building heights, visible timber surfaces, and structural classifications (Östman et al., 2010; Werther et al., 2020). The historical predominance of prescriptive regulation have played a major role in delaying the widespread adoption of MSTB through the region. Approval often requires close coordination, extra documentation and fire testing. However, following pilot projects show that integrated planning, early engagement with regulators, proactive fire testing and digital modelling speed approvals and create precedents. On the other hand, they also require concentrated expertise and resources.

The regulatory landscape governing the maximum height of MSTC in Austria was subject to regional variations and relied heavily on the use of performance-based compliance mechanisms. This alternative regulatory path allows to exceed presumptive limits while requiring demonstrated compliance (Meacham, 2010; Wiegand and Ramage, 2022). Styria, for example, permitted four-storey timber buildings as early as 1970 (Bogensberger, 2018). In the 1990s, revisions in the regional building regulations in Austria made it possible to use wood products in residential housing structures up to three storeys (Nord et al., 2011a; Salvadori, 2021a). Vienna proved especially influential from 2001 onward, where the technical requirements were changed, making wooden construction possible up to four floors (Vihemäki et al., 2019). In this context, public procurement, social-housing programmes and R&D initiatives performance-based compliance mechanisms helped bring five-storey projects such as Spöttlgasse (2005) and Mühlweg (2006) to fruition (Falk, 2005; Wiegand and Ramage, 2022). These progressive steps prompted national amendments in 2015 and later in 2017, which extended the building height allowance to six storeys (Mayo, 2015). Both public agencies and private companies drove innovation and further catalyzed sectoral development toward increased height (Vihemäki et al., 2019). Companies such as CREE and engineering offices like the Woschitz Group advanced hybrid prefabrication, while large-scale projects—including Wagramerstrasse and Life Cycle Tower One (both completed in 2012, seven storeys) and later HoHo Wien (2019, 24 storeys) — exemplify Austria’s tightly integrated ecosystem linking engineering, contracting, and CLT production (Woschitz, 2019).

In Germany, regulatory change has been incremental and regionally specific, with co-housing initiatives (Baugruppen) and transnational supply chains playing important roles in pushing technical and legal boundaries. The 2002 Model Building Code increased the prescriptive height limit for timber structures to five storeys (13 m) (Mahapatra et al., 2012). Later, performance-based codes allowed greater heights with proven fire safety compliance (Östman and Källsner, 2011). The milestone E3 Berlin (2008) — enabled by revised codes that allowed up to five storeys in Berlin—required intensive negotiation with regulators and introduced hybrid systems featuring DLT slabs (Mayo, 2015; Kaufmann, Krötsch, and S. Winter 2017). Building on the E3 as a precedent and benefiting from reduced regulatory constraints, the same architectural firm developed two subsequent projects: C13 (built in 2014 with seven storeys) (Mayo, 2015) and SKAIO (built in 2019 with ten storeys). Subsequent projects and co-housing developments emphasized ecological goals and communal models (Mayo, 2015; Ballhausen, 2012). Public programs (IBA Hamburg’s WoodCube, Wälderhaus, Dantebad), funding programs (München, 2018) and large schemes like Munich’s Prinz-Eugen Park helped further institutionalise timber in urban housing, often using hybrid solutions (Green and Taggart, 2017; Kaufmann et al., 2017; Informationsverein Holz e.V, 2020). Many of these projects and parallel private initiatives (H7, Woodie, K8/Kampa) drew on Austrian expertise to push modular and prefabricated approaches, with Austrian suppliers entering the German market (Hein et al., 2016; Zangerl et al., 2010; Kaufmann, Krötsch, and S. Winter 2017; Wiegand and Ramage, 2022).

In Switzerland, the regulatory framework has supported progressive adoption since 2005, when timber was permitted for up to six storeys, extended to eight in 2015 (VKF-Brandschutzvorschriften, 2015; Mayo, 2015). Client motivations often combined rapid delivery needs, ecological ambitions and regulatory incentives (e.g., Swiss Forest Act and Swiss CO₂ Act) (Bundeskanzlei, 2020; Eidgenossenschaft, 2017; Kaufmann et al. 2017). Many projects aligned with Minergie standards or Zurich’s 2000-W policy, both incentivising sustainable timber construction. Blumer-Lehmann emerged as a central actor, providing engineering, contracting, and supply for multiple projects, including Shigeru Ban’s Tamedia Office and Omega Headquarters, which adapted Japanese joinery principles through digital fabrication (Jussel, 2012; 2019). Compared to Germany, Switzerland exhibits a more diverse network of architects and engineers, though recurring contractors and engineering firms remain central to innovation. Overall, while Austria and Germany promote timber construction through dedicated programs, Switzerland’s multi-storey timber development is driven less by public policy and more by sustainability goals, climate protection measures, and R&D initiatives (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). These, together with national and regional building code differences, have significantly shaped innovation pathways across the DACH region. In the European context, these national and regional divergencies in regulation remain a structural barrier to cross-border engineering, certification, and industrialized production. Although the Eurocodes provide a harmonized framework, the European market for structural design is still fragmented due to extensive Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). For MSTC, harmonization is therefore crucial, meaning standardized safety verification procedures for fire, robustness, vibration, and connections would reduce transaction costs, enable economies of scale, and strengthen cross-border collaboration.

MSTC differs fundamentally from conventional building approaches in that it front-loads decision-making. Prefabrication accelerates on-site assembly but shifts complexity to the design phase, where precise coordination, detailing and manufacturing expertise are required long before execution (Huß et al., 2017; Lattke and Hernandez-Maetschl, 2016). Early involvement of timber specialists—structural engineers, fabricators, connection and fire-safety experts, MEP integrators and logistics planners—is therefore essential to produce fabrication-ready documentation, resolve interfaces and avoid redesigns or cost overruns (Huß et al., 2017; Lattke and Hernandez-Maetschl, 2016; Lattke et al., 2017; Poirier et al., 2022; González-Retamal et al., 2022; Orozco et al., 2023). BIM and CAD–CAM integration are essential to this front-loaded design process, minimizing errors and enabling production-accurate prefabrication (Arnold, Behm, and Sandra Schuster, 2023; Lattke et al., 2025a; Huß et al., 2017). Yet implementation across the DACH region remains uneven, shaped by differing technical capacities, legal frameworks, and economic conditions (Mitera-Kiełbasa and Zima, 2024).

In Austria, BIM is not legally mandatory, and implementation remains largely voluntary (Vienna Business Agency, 2021). The country’s construction sector hosts several digital frontrunners, especially large contractors, producers and engineering offices, yet SMEs continue to struggle with interoperability and investment barriers. The Digital Agenda Vienna (2014) aimed to digitalize the city’s administrative processes, including those in construction (Digital Agenda Vienna, 2019). Research initiatives funded by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)—focus on digital twins, data use, and infrastructure integration (Mitera-Kiełbasa and Zima, 2024). In Germany, BIM implementation follows a clearly defined, top-down roadmap with public programs and research initiatives accelerating BIM adoption, particularly among larger firms, which benefit most from digital prefabrication workflows (Mitera-Kiełbasa and Zima, 2024). Yet progress remains incremental, constrained by fragmented regulation and varying regional standards. In Switzerland, BIM diffusion follows a more bottom-up trajectory, driven by major public clients and industry associations rather than federal mandates. Digital pioneers such as Timbatec and Design-to-Production integrate CAD–CAM processes directly into experimental, high-profile projects (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025; Salvadori, 2021a). Here, the limitations of a relatively small domestic market are partly offset by strong inter-firm collaboration and dense professional networks. Overall, Switzerland’s approach emphasizes collaboration and sectoral leadership, contrasting with Germany’s centrally coordinated rollout and Austria’s research-driven but fragmented progress (Mitera-Kiełbasa and Zima, 2024).

Despite these advances, regulatory and contractual frameworks across the DACH region remain rooted in sequential planning models that constraint integrated workflows. Germany’s Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure (HOAI) structures work into linear service phases that separate design and execution (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz). Austria’s framework defines similar responsibilities (Institut für Baubetrieb und Bauwirtschaft 2014), while Switzerland’s SIA norms codify interdependencies between planning, execution and cost control (schweizerischer ingenieur-und architektenverein 2014). Prefabricated timber projects frequently stretch these frameworks, as many construction details must be fixed earlier than in conventional buildings, limiting flexibility for later design iterations (Huß et al., 2017; Huß and Manfred Stieglmeier, 2017; Lattke and Hernandez-Maetschl, 2016; Lattke et al., 2017).

Beyond regulatory structure, MSTC expertise remains concentrated among a relatively small group of actors. Comparative studies show that in each country, a limited set of architects, engineers, contractors and developers repeatedly deliver most projects (Salvadori, 2021a; Orozco et al., 2023). The majority of MSTC initiatives are led by domestic architectural offices drawn from a narrow pool of established firms, with foreign involvement remaining rare (Salvadori, 2021a; Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). In Austria, approximately half of all MSTC involve firms with prior timber experience, and nearly two-thirds include engineers engaged in multiple projects, often collaborating directly with CLT or glulam producers (Salvadori, 2021a). As a result, expertise is largely concentrated within engineering firms, contractors, and manufacturers, while only a small number of architectural offices specialize in MSTC (Orozco et al., 2023). These recurring collaborations strongly influence research and development agendas, design standards and professional practices, effectively defining the field. However, this concentration also entails systemic risks for sectoral development. Reliance on a limited pool of experienced actors can restrict design diversity, reduce competitive dynamics, and hinder the broader diffusion of knowledge. At the same time, a strong culture of collaboration continues to drive innovation across the DACH region. Initiatives such as Holzunion and leanWood, together with joint investments in technology and research, have strengthened interoperability and enhanced overall competitiveness (Schuster and Stieglmeier, 2018; Wimmer et al., 2009; Scheer et al., 2008). Industry associations—including Holzforschung Austria, Holzbau Schweiz and Timber Construction Europe—play vital roles in advocacy, certification, and knowledge transfer (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025).

Advancing prefabrication also entails logistic challenges. Transportation planning, and coordination across the value chain remain critical bottlenecks (Staib et al., 2008; Lopez et al., 2022; Huß et al., 2017). Oversized timber elements require permits, escorts, and detailed route planning (Švajlenka and Pošiváková, 2023), while loading, unloading, and site accessibility can constrain feasibility. National regulations shape logistics strategies. In Germany, the Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO) restricts truck dimensions to 2.55 m in width and 4 m in height, with larger elements requiring Sondergenehmigung and frequently police escort (Huß et al., 2017; Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung 2012). Austria applies similar limits under the Kraftfahrgesetz (KFG) and Straßenverkehrsordnung (StVO), though approval procedures vary across federal states (Pech et al., 2016; Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich, 1960; Kraftfahrgesetz, 1967). Switzerland’s Verkehrszulassungsverordnung (VZV) imposes comparable restrictions, with ASTRA (Amt für Straßenverkehr) overseeing permits (Schweizerische Bundesrat, 2025). Due to alpine topography, Swiss projects face additional limitations related to bridge loads, tunnel clearances, and delivery time windows (Leyder et al., 2021). These regulatory and geographic differences have led to distinct logistical practices across the DACH region. Austrian producers often optimize modular element dimensions for standard trailers to facilitate cross-border exports. German firms tend to coordinate oversized deliveries across multiple Länder, while Swiss projects frequently rely on just-in-time logistics to comply with municipal and topographic constraints.

The DACH region accounts for a significant share of global CLT and glulam production, reflecting a leading role in the advancement of engineered wood technologies (Muszynski et al., 2020; Holzkurier, 2020). The development of MSTC in each country is shaped by forestry resources, industrial organization, and market orientation. Austria stands out as a global leader in CLT, producing roughly two-thirds of worldwide output—a dominance expected to continue through 2030 (Brandner et al., 2016; Grand View Research, 2023). This position builds on abundant forests, which cover around half of the national territory (48%) and a highly industrialized forestry sector tightly integrated with sawmills and panel producers (Fachverband der Holzindustrie Österreichs). Austrian supply chains are primarily export-oriented, and although SMEs dominate the sector—84% of firms employ fewer than ten people (Wirtschaftskammer Österreich–Abteilung für Statistik 2024) —these smaller actors provide flexibility and innovation but are constraint in finance, labour, and scaling (Cosenz and Bivona, 2021; Halme and Korpela, 2014; Kind et al., 2022). Globally active mid-sized pioneers further drive CLT exports and industrial leadership. A recent study shows Austria’s central importance in MSTC supply chains, providing over half of the timber in the 197 case studies examined worldwide (Salvadori, 2021a; 2021b).

Switzerland, by contrast, maintains smaller forests covering almost one-third of its territory and emphasizes multifunctionality, biodiversity, and local value creation over export orientation (Leyder et al., 2021; Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, 2022). Limited CLT capacity favors project-based innovation and the predominance of post-and-beam glulam systems, which are cost-effective for small-scale projects (Salvadori, 2021a). The Swiss system, with fewer large manufacturers, relies on dense regional networks of carpenters, specialized engineers, and experimental firms, whose close collaboration and technical expertise compensate for lower production volumes (Leyder et al., 2021; Salvadori, 2021a; Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025).

Germany, with forests covering about one-third of the country, hosts one of Europe’s largest sawnwood and panel industries, dominated by spruce, pine, and beech (Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat, 2023). Its large construction sector and open trade in engineered timber products embed Germany in a transnational timber economy, tightly interlinked with Austrian suppliers. The German market is more fragmented, featuring strong regional clusters of medium-sized firms alongside larger players integrating timber into hybrid portfolios, with particular strengths in prefabrication and R&D (Salvadori, 2021a; Kind et al., 2022).

Beyond structural and industrial differences, national narratives shape distinct development logics: Austria combines industrial standardization with SME flexibility and an export-driven orientation; Germany emphasizes hybrid efficiency and R&D leadership; and Switzerland integrates prefabrication with sustainability and design experimentation (Toivonen et al., 2021). Together, these interlinked resource, industrial, and cultural dynamics explain the differentiated yet complementary evolution of MSTC across the DACH region.

Another common aspect relies on climate change and its increasingly impact on forest resources. Softwood-dominated forests face drought, storms, and pest outbreaks, including bark beetle infestations in Germany and declining spruce resilience in Austria beech (Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat, 2023; ProHolz, 2024; Jandl, 2020). Switzerland’s alpine forests also experience storm damage and heat stress (Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, 2022). All three countries are transitioning toward mixed-species forestry and greater use of hardwoods such as beech and oak, offering superior structural performance (Nenning et al., 2024). Corresponding innovations in engineered hardwood products—including laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and hardwood CLT—support this diversification (Pramreiter and Grabner, 2023).

Circular-economy strategies have gained traction across the region. CLT production generates up to 20% waste, driving research into reuse, off-cut bonding and design-for-disassembly (Graf et al., 2019; Grüter et al., 2023; Kiesnere et al., 2024). Nonetheless, current circularity rates remain modest—Austria 9.7%, Switzerland 13.5% and Germany roughly 13.9%, (Altstoff Recycling Austria AG, 2019; European Environment Agency, 2025). Despite these differences, all three countries are converging toward EU-aligned pathways that extend product lifecycles and prioritize reuse over disposal (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2018; E. Hoxha et al., 2022; Stankevičius et al., 2020). A key regulatory element in this transition is CE marking, which provides a baseline of safety, quality, and compliance for construction products across the EU. For timber components, CE marking ensures that essential characteristics—such as strength, fire resistance, and dimensional stability—are declared and verified according to harmonized European standards (hENs). While this framework supports reliability in first use, it also creates challenges for reuse: declared performance values do not automatically translate to second-life applications, and misalignments between CE requirements and actual in situ behaviour can introduce legal and technical obstacles.

Experts were selected according to predefined criteria to ensure a representative and balanced sample. Selection factors included their extended expertise, their role as contractors, and experience in MSTC, as well as the size, and innovation trajectory of their respective companies as shown in Table 1. All experts are based in Austria, with all but one operating significantly in Germany. Participants’ companies were first categorized into SMEs and large companies, following the classification criteria of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy (Federal Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism), and then further differentiated according to their innovation trajectories. Research indicates that timber construction innovation develops along three overlapping and interdependent pathways: standard innovation, incremental innovation, and pioneering innovation (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). SMEs typically align with the standard innovation trajectory, focusing on single-contract projects and the repetition of standardized timber elements to achieve productivity gains. Large companies more often follow an incremental path, acting as general or total contractors and integrating timber with concrete or steel in hybrid projects that address regulatory demands and market pressures. Pioneering firms—often corresponding to ConTech companies—are characterized by advanced automation, process optimization, digital integration, and novel building systems that push the boundaries of timber construction. In practice, this framework proved essential for expert selection, where several companies displayed pioneering features such as digitalization, automation and design-for-disassembly. Notably, one SME and two large companies were reassigned to the pioneering group, based on their strong emphasis on technological innovation, incremental automation and experimental systems. This reclassification underscores the dynamic nature of innovation in MSTC, where organizational roles, material choices, and actor networks intersect and evolve over time.

To ensure consistency across interviews, a structured interview guide was developed and divided into three main sections. The first gathered professional background information and company details. The second, forming the core of the interview, addressed six areas: prefabrication, standardization and modular construction, planning processes, logistics and delivery systems, resource consumption, and market dynamics. Each part containing three to five questions derived from the literature review. The final section concluded the discussion with space for feedback and additional remarks. The full structure of the guide is presented in Table 1 (Appendix). Experts were contacted via email and informed about the study’s purpose and their expected involvement. Individual interviews lasted approximately 70 min, were recorded with consent, verbatim transcribed and summarized into standardized protocols.

The analysis of the semi-structured expert interviews followed an inductive coding approach, aiming to derive categories and topics directly from empirical data, grounded in the perspectives and experiences of the experts rather than being constrained by predefined frameworks. The coding process was conducted iteratively until theoretical saturation was reached (Walsh et al., 2015; Flick, 2009). Building on these insights, a SWOT analysis was performed to classify the identified factors into internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats. This initial categorization provided a structured overview of the key drivers and barriers shaping multi-story timber construction (MSTC) from the experts’ perspectives.

Using the SWOT results as a foundation, a structured survey was developed and distributed to the same group of experts to ensure continuity and comparability. Participants evaluated each factor using a 4-point scale to avoid neutral ratings. Internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) were assessed for both their importance and internal performance, while external factors (opportunities and threats) were rated according to their importance and likelihood of occurrence. All ratings were aggregated using arithmetic means with equal weighting across all experts. An Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was then applied to calculate an impact score for each item: for internal aspects, the score was obtained by multiplying importance by performance; for external aspects, importance was multiplied by likelihood (Phadermrod, Crowder, and Wills, 2019). This approach highlights the most critical elements, with higher scores indicating higher priority for strategic consideration.

The final phase of the analysis involved the creation of scenarios. Key drivers were identified from the SWOT and coding analysis, and their qualitative interactions were used to construct the most-likely, best-case, and worst-case scenarios. Quantitative scores informed the relative emphasis of each driver.e. These scenarios serve as a tool to highlight alternative outcomes based on the external factors identified through literature research and expert interviews and surveys. The scenarios were constructed by the authors through an intuitive, reasoning-driven process.

A total of 35 factors were identified as internal and external influences shaping the sector of MSTC. Internal factors were subdivided into strengths and weaknesses, while external factors into opportunities and threats, forming the foundation of the SWOT framework as shown in Table 2. Strengths are defined as attributes or resources that confer a competitive advantage, weaknesses as internal limitations that may hinder performance, opportunities as external drivers offering potential benefits, and threats as external risks posing challenges to the sector.

One of the most frequently cited strengths is the shortened construction time due to prefabrication (S1). Closely linked is production in a controlled environment (S2), which ensures higher quality and minimizes weather-related risks: “In a production plant, quality can be ensured much better than on site” (IP 6); “The advantages of prefabrication are the rapid execution on site, reduction of throughput time, efficiency and quality” (IP4). Standardization further reduces errors and improves repeatability (S3), as noted by experts: “The more standardized, the fewer errors occur,” (IP6) and “technical details are highly standardized because similar problems recur” (IP7). Despite standardization, experts also emphasized individuality and product variety (S4) achieved through digital product databases and modular systems. One expert described its approach as “standardized individuality,” (IP6), allowing customers to choose among numerous configurations without sacrificing efficiency. In terms of logistics, prefabrication supports fast production and delivery times (S5), with companies reporting just-in-time workflows with rapid turnover, “A house takes one to 2 weeks to produce and one to 2 weeks to assemble,” (IP6) and “what is produced 1 day is mounted the next.” (IP5). Regional sourcing and use of local resources (S6) enhance supply stability and sustainability. As IP1 explained, “We use as many regional products as possible” while IP8 emphasized that “the raw material should come from as close as possible to the project site.” Material efficiency (S7) emerged as another key strength, with detailed planning reducing waste and improving resource utilization: “higher prefabrication ensures better control of supply chains and more efficient use of material,” (IP6); “No piece of wood is wasted; shavings are processed into pellets” (IP3). Sustainability considerations extend deconstruction and recycling (S8), with several firms implementing cradle-to-cradle or design-for-disassembly approaches: “deconstruction concepts—temporary buildings with screw foundations,” (IP1); “Our goal is cradle-to-cradle; we think about how elements can be reused or separated into components” (IP8). Finally, experts portrayed the sector as a development-oriented industry (S9) with innovation and digitalization as central themes: “further technologization, higher added value, and digitalization” (IP4); “Sector activities are planned to stay relevant in the future—development-oriented and adaptable” (IP8).

The sector faces several internal weaknesses that limit efficiency and scalability. A major challenge is the high level of planning detail and tight tolerances required (W1). As IP6 noted, “Accuracy is very important, and tolerances are much smaller than in conventional construction”. Similarly, IP4 and IP7 pointed to the need for meticulous pre-planning and process synchronization. This is compounded by a lack of optimized planning procedures (W2), and the need for companies to take over planning tasks to ensure compatibility with prefabrication, where IP7 criticized “the poor quality of many execution plans”. Limited digital integration and inconsistent communication further hinder streamlined project execution, leading to higher planning efforts (W3): “prefabrication causes significantly more planning effort,” (IP1), with IP7 and IP6 describing the need to plan materials far in advance. Further weaknesses concern production cost-effectiveness (W4) and low profitability despite high turnover (W5). IP4 and IP8 explained that many companies remain “too manual and not sufficiently automated,” while IP7 emphasized the difficulty of maintaining utilization of large production capacities due to fluctuating project volumes, limiting profitability. Storage limitations (W6) and high transport costs (W7) exacerbate these issues, with minimal buffer capacity necessitating just-in-time delivery: “There is little storage capacity; we aim for just-in-time delivery,” (IP6) and “oversized elements need special transport” (IP5). Material intensity (W8), particularly in massive CLT construction, raises concerns: “massive CLT construction uses far too much material” (IP7), highlighting the need for careful selection in the context of climate change and resource scarcity to avoid overuse and ensure long-term availability and reliable supply. Labor shortages (W9) further constrain production and technological adoption: “The number of skilled workers is decreasing, but the demand for machine operators is increasing” (IP4), and “new construction methods must include prefabrication due to future challenges, such as the shortage of skilled labor and the need to increase efficiency” (IP2). Structurally, the sector is highly fragmented and dominated by SMEs (W10), with IP3 observing, “there are too many companies with fewer than nine employees,“, and “available capacity for large-volume prefabrication in Austria is very small-scale structured” (IP8), limiting economies of scale, standardization, and joint investment in innovation. Finally, dependence on foreign suppliers (W11) introduces logistical vulnerabilities: “materials are sourced from all over Europe, depending on price and quality” (IP7), exposing firms to potential disruptions, cost fluctuations, and geopolitical risks.

Among the key opportunities for growth and transformation, rising awareness of sustainability and reuse (O1) stands out. IP4 noted increasing societal expectations, with the circular economy and life cycle thinking expected to become major competitive advantages, while IP5 anticipated that this demand will rise. Closely related is growing political support (O2) for timber construction. IP1 highlighted the role of public procurement, calling for harmonized norms and stronger state initiatives, while IP8 linked the trend to CO₂ pricing. Experts agreed that evolving climate policies are likely to further accelerate demand. Technological innovation and cross-industry technology transfer (O3) represent another major opportunity with digital planning, industrialization, and automation as key drivers. IP4 referred to “further technologization and digitalization,” while IP2 envisioned “reducing throughput time by 90% through industrial methods.” Regulatory harmonization of standards (O4) could further enhance efficiency and cooperation. As IP4 explained, “Standards are not yet sufficient; they must be adapted to enable efficient modular production”. Several firms echoed that standardization is a prerequisite for scalable industrialization and cross-company cooperation (O5). IP2 emphasized the necessity of common systems “so that not every company uses its own,” while IP8 called for process-oriented collaboration between companies to overcome industry’s fragmentation and strength overall competitiveness. Training and qualification (O6) were also frequently mentioned to expand workforce capacity. Experts agreed that educational programs are growing but still require further development, particularly in architecture and digital planning. IP7 explicitly stated, “the training offerings are increasing more and more”, while IP1 acknowledged that educational institutions are “on the right track”. Finally, expanding material availability through research (O7) was discussed as essential for long-term resilience. IP4 suggested that “policy and research should not set the wood type, but the wood parameters”, while IP7 highlighted that, “the entire industry is normatively designed for spruce. Research is needed to adapt these processes to species like pine”.

External threats primarily concern resource risks and regulatory limitations. Rising wood prices (T1) and increasing wood consumption (T2) are among the most pressing. IP1 and IP8 confirmed that price volatility directly affects project costs, while IP7 noted growing global demand due to CLT’s popularity. Another recurring threat is the slow adaptation of regulations (T3), which hinders innovation. IP4 stated that “certain norms even force inefficiency,” while IP7 criticized that “CE marking system prevents reuse of structural components”. Process management challenges were summarized under value stream management (T4) and delayed procurement deliveries (T5). The dependence on punctual material supply and tightly synchronized production chains increases vulnerability. IP5, IP6 and IP7 described the delicate balance between production schedules, supplier reliability, and on-site assembly, especially during crises like the COVID-pandemic. A lack of expertise was also perceived as a long-term risk (T6). IP1 and IP6 noted that architectural education still pays too little attention to timber, while IP8 pointed that “more practical relevance” should be required. Furhter, IP5 pointed out that “only a minority of architects work in 3D”. Lastly, low investment in research (T7) and the decline in tree species due to climate change (T8) threaten the future stability of the sector. IP4 emphasized that the timber industry invests “only one-tenth compared to other sectors,” while several experts mentioned the bark beetle infestation and its impact on spruce availability. IP3 and IP8 emphasized the need for diversification, while IP2 and IP4 called for more proactive forest management.

In this section, scenarios are developed based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis run in this study. The most likely scenario outlines the most probable and realistic developments, encompassing both promising advancements and persistent challenges. These projections are based on the analysis of factors with an above-average likelihood of occurrence (greater than 2.95), as shown on the right half of Figure 3. The best-case and worst-case scenarios present the most optimistic development opportunities and the most detrimental development threats for the timber construction industry respectively and regardless their likelihood of occurrence. A summary of the three scenarios is presented in Table 5.