Reforming MMC IP Management: Recent Industry Recommendations to Unlock Innovation and Scalability Across Projects
April 2026The CIRIA/Buildoffsite guidance on Intellectual Property Management for Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) provides a framework for addressing the intellectual property (IP) challenges that impede innovation, scalability and investment within the sector. A recent roundtable facilitated by Andrew Croft of Beale & Co and Nigel Fraser of BUILDOFFSITE brought together key industry stakeholders to explore the practical implications of the guidance, the barriers that MMC IP faces, and how these may be resolved. Across the seven themes of the guidance, participants identified structural, commercial and legal barriers that inhibit effective MMC adoption. They also highlighted opportunities for reform, collaboration and standardisation that could unlock the full potential of MMC‑driven productivity gains.
MMC IP strategies for construction projects
A recurring message from both the guidance and the roundtable was the need for early and deliberate development of MMC IP strategies. MMC assets, products and platforms typically require substantial upfront investment, and suppliers rely on the ability to reuse systems across multiple projects to justify expenditure.
Standard form construction contracts rarely consider multi‑project IP reuse, software and data rights, or the systems‑based nature of MMC delivery. This creates misalignment between clients and suppliers and can ultimately block the spread of MMC innovation across projects.
Strategies for MMC Research & Development (R&D) projects
The guidance recognises that many organisations developing MMC solutions originate from the construction sector rather than product‑led manufacturing. As a result, they often lack established approaches to market sizing, freedom‑to‑operate analysis, product risk management, and long‑term lifecycle support strategies.
Roundtable participants stressed that the high cost and lengthy timeframes associated with testing MMC products present significant obstacles, particularly for SMEs. Construction projects rarely allow sufficient time for robust product development and testing, despite the necessity of doing so before safe deployment. Participants agreed that more structured “offline” R&D and test periods should be incorporated into project timelines to promote innovations reaching market readiness.
Achieving market readiness for MMC products and IP
Manufacturers often face challenges navigating construction procurement routes, accreditation requirements and assurance processes. The guidance proposes several mechanisms to strengthen market readiness, including technology roadmaps, Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), third‑party accreditation and supply‑chain readiness assessments.
The roundtable discussion considered how SMEs frequently struggle to access frameworks, in part because MMC IP pathways, standards and procurement options are opaque or inconsistent. Participants highlighted the need for more accessible and lower‑cost test facilities, which would enable early‑stage companies to validate products without prohibitive expense.
Creating an investment environment to scale MMC IP
The guidance calls for a fundamental shift in how business cases for MMC are prepared. Traditional cost models do not capture cross‑project reuse, economies of scale or the lifecycle benefits of MMC products and platforms.
During the roundtable, stakeholders discussed that investors typically engage only once clear scalability is demonstrated, creating a ‘Catch‑22’ scenario as achieving scalability requires investment. The group emphasised that MMC IP must be embedded at the business‑case formation stage, not appended later.
Leveraging MMC IP in tendering
MMC is often treated as an exception rather than a default method. Participants pointed to long‑standing procurement habits that treat IP as a risk to be controlled rather than an asset to be collaboratively developed and reused. Suppliers remain hesitant to share early‑stage innovations during tendering due to fears of confidentiality breaches or lack of reward mechanisms.
The guidance recommends early agreement on confidentiality protections and reward structures to encourage disclosure. Roundtable participants further suggested that clients publish future IP requirements before tendering to promote earlier planning and more strategic IP development by suppliers. Introducing MMC‑specific evaluation criteria could also incentivise bidders to bring forward innovation rather than hold it back.
Balancing MMC IP contract terms
Standard construction contracts lack clear provisions for dealing with MMC IP. This creates risk: suppliers may lose the ability to commercialise their products, while clients may become dependent on proprietary systems without guaranteed access to data or ongoing support.
Stakeholders agreed on the need to:
- Clearly distinguish ‘background’ and ‘foreground’ IP;
- Define all MMC‑specific outputs and rights;
- Use confidentiality and trade‑secret protections appropriately; and
- Standardise MMC clauses across the sector.
Such steps would help align commercial expectations and reduce friction during negotiations.
Managing IP through supplier insolvency
Supplier insolvency remains one of the most significant risks facing MMC projects. Administrators may restrict access to proprietary systems, test certificates or know‑how, and replacement suppliers often refuse to warrant previous work or may be unable to integrate with earlier fabrication.
The roundtable emphasised that even improved due diligence cannot fully mitigate this exposure. Potential solutions include:
- IP licences that are automatically assignable upon insolvency;
- Use of software and commercial trade‑secret escrows;
- Open standards that reduce dependency on proprietary systems; and
- Early mapping of IP dependencies within the supply chain.
These mechanisms can help promote continuity of delivery even if a key MMC supplier collapses.
Implications for industry
The guidance provides a structured roadmap for managing MMC‑related IP, while the roundtable discussions reveal that the industry is still at an early stage of maturity in applying these principles. Across all seven challenge areas, it is clear that effective MMC IP management requires proactive planning, openness to collaboration, contract reform, and a shift away from traditional project‑by‑project thinking. By adopting the guidance’s recommendations and building on the insights from the roundtable, the industry can create the conditions necessary to support scalable MMC deployment, unlocking greater productivity, innovation and resilience across the construction sector.
Beale & Co greatly appreciated the opportunity to draft and review sections of this guidance and to be involved in, and host, the roundtable discussion.
The authors Andrew Croft and Charlie Bayliss would be happy to discuss the legal aspects of the guidance’s recommended approach to MMC in contractual documents. They can be reached via Beale & Co.
Input from Kayleigh Rhodes and Dirk Vennix
Download PDF
