Emerging trends in mid-rise timber construction: insights from the DACH region

Abstract

Timber has re-emerged as a central material in sustainable construction, offering advantages such as carbon sequestration, reduced embodied energy, and compatibility with circular economy principles. While historically constrained by material-specific challenges, advances in engineering, fire safety, and digital manufacturing have enabled a renaissance in multi-story timber construction, with significant expectations of growth. This paper investigates emerging trends within planning, production, and assembly processes in Austria’s mid-rise timber sector, situating them within the broader DACH context. Using semi-structured expert interviews, analyzed through inductive coding until theory saturation, we identified 35 key factors shaping the industry, categorized into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). A subsequent structured survey with the same experts validated and prioritized these factors. Further, a scenario analysis projected three plausible futures: most-likely, best-case, and worst-case. While the empirical evidence is predominantly Austria-based, the sector-wide representativeness is supported by findings from the broader literature. Key findings reveal that prefabrication—enhancing efficiency, quality, and material optimization—constitutes the sector’s core strength, while planning complexity and skilled-labor shortages represent its principal vulnerabilities. Externally, sustainability awareness, automation transfer, and workforce upskilling emerged as high-impact opportunities; conversely, rising timber prices and species decline due to climate change pose the greatest threats. Standardization of components and regulatory support were identified as cross-cutting enablers. To sustain growth and resilience, the industry must bolster material research, integrate digital planning tools, diversify supply chains, and foster collaborative standardization. The study contributes to understanding timber’s innovation trajectory and provides actionable insights for industry stakeholders and policymakers.

1 Introduction

The construction sector, one of the largest global consumers of energy and natural resources, is under mounting pressure to mitigate its carbon footprint and embrace sustainable practices (United Nations Environment Programme, and Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2025; Huang et al., 2018). Within this context, timber has reemerged as a promising material, offering renewable sourcing, carbon sequestration, low embodied energy, and strong reuse potential within circular economy (Tupenaite et al., 2023; Himes and Busby, 2020; Grüter et al., 2023). Strategic integration of timber in construction can reduce building-related emissions by up to 69%, highlighting its critical role in advancing sustainable urban development (Dolezal et al., 2021). Despite timber’s long tradition in small-scale housing, concerns about combustibility, biological degradation, and structural limitations historically constrained its use in large-scale projects (Kincelova et al., 2020; Brandner et al., 2016; Nyrud et al., 2024). Additional barriers, including limited user experience, established traditions in concrete, and persistent concerns regarding acoustics and moisture, have further constrained its wider adoption (Xia et al., 2014; Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2008; Riala and Ilola, 2014; Marfella and Winson-Geideman, 2021; Hemström et al., 2011; Fleming et al., 2014). This tension reflects a dual narrative of opportunity and challenge. While timber is recognized as an environmentally favorable material (Toppinen et al., 2022; Savolainen et al., 2022) and as an early adopter of digital technologies (Bianconi and Filippucci, 2019), it continues to face material, organizational, and economic barriers that slow its broader diffusion. The sector must contend with resource availability, expertise gaps, and market adaptability (Ribeirinho et al., 2020; Lehmann and Kremer, 2023; Gosselin et al., 2016), issues particularly acute for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which form a large share of the timber construction industry and often lack resources to manage technological, regulatory, and market uncertainties (Cosenz and Bivona, 2021; Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2008; Mahapatra et al., 2012; Halme and Korpela, 2014; Kind et al., 2022).

However, over the last 2 decades, multi-story timber construction (MSTC) has gained visibility, enabled by engineered wood products, digital design and fabrication, updated building codes, increasing interest in sustainable construction and advances in fire and acoustic performance (Kuzmanovska et al., 2018; Salvadori, 2021b; Orozco et al., 2023). Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (the DACH region) have been central to this development, where strong carpentry traditions, advanced industrial capacity in engineered timber, and supportive innovation ecosystems have fostered favourable conditions for growth. Early MSTC projects in the 2000s were instrumental in shaping regulatory frameworks and design practices across the region (Salvadori, 2021a; Kaufmann et al., 2017). However, the overall number of completed projects remains modest, with many implemented as pilot initiatives addressing technical, regulatory, or cost-related challenges (Kind et al., 2022; Švajlenka and Pošiváková, 2023). Research on MSTC has mirrored this growth, underscoring timber’s increasing importance in sustainable construction (Tupenaite et al., 2023). Yet, much of the literature has focused primarily on technological advances, design considerations and material performance (Ilgın, 2024; González-Retamal et al., 2022), while organizational, production-related, and socio-economic dimensions remain underexplored. Scholars increasingly recognize that timber’s development and innovation trajectories are influenced by the interaction of technological, organizational, regulatory, and socio-cultural forces (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025; Wiegand and Ramage, 2022). In this context, public perceptions, professional training, and broader narratives around climate change, the bioeconomy, and wood advocacy influence adoption as strongly as technological readiness (Toivonen et al., 2021; Mast, 2022; Petruch and Walcher, 2021). Evidence from the DACH region further suggests that, while all three countries share comparable traditions, their pathways of innovation differ. This reinforces the view that timber construction constitutes a socio-technical transformation shaped by local contexts, institutional frameworks, and market dynamics (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). Compared to Nordic Countries, where MSTC has been studied extensively (Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2008; Jussila et al., 2022; Hemström et al., 2011; Kylkilahti et al., 2020), research in the DACH region remains more fragmented, where few studies examine how contextualized production, assembly, and organizational processes intersect with broader industry transformations (Santana-Sosa and Kovacic, 2022; Santana et al., 2023; Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). This gap underscores the need for empirical research connecting technical, social, organizational, and policy perspectives to understand the opportunities and risks in the region’s transition toward sustainable construction.

2 Background literature and context

2.1 Historic evolution and prefabrication in the DACH region

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.

2.2 Regulatory framework and innovation drivers

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.

2.3 Digital planning, logistics and delivery systems

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.

2.4 Supply chain, circularity and research gaps

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.

3 Materials and methods

This study employed a sequential mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis across three structured phases, as illustrated in Figure 1. The initial phase comprised a comprehensive review of background literature to collect and analyze secondary data, identify current and emerging trends, and select expert interview partners. The second and third phases focused on gathering and interpreting primary data. Semi-structured expert interviews provided qualitative insights, which were analyzed through iterative inductive coding until theoretical saturation was reached. This approach enabled the identification of key internal and external factors shaping MSTC, while also revealing broader sectoral dynamics and challenges. These factors were then categorized using a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) framework, providing a structured foundation for a subsequent quantitative survey in which the same experts ranked the factors according to their importance, likelihood of occurrence, and internal performance score. The resulting data guided the interpretation of findings and informed the development of three potential future scenarios for MSTC: most-likely, best-case, and worst-case.

FIGURE 1

3.1 Semi-structured expert interviews

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.

3.2 Qualitative analysis

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.

3.3 Quantitative analysis

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.

3.4 Scenario development

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.

4 Results

4.1 Qualitative analysis

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.

4.2 Quantitative analysis

4.2.1 Internal factors

The results are summarized in Table 3 and visually represented in Figure 2, where strengths are shown in green and weaknesses in red, both labelled and positioned according to their internal score on the x-axis and their importance on the y-axis. In all diagrams, mean lines representing the overall average importance and performance were added to facilitate quadrant interpretation.

FIGURE 2

The quantitative analysis reveals a consistent pattern: importance ratings for both strengths and weaknesses exceed their corresponding internal scores, suggesting a clear aspiration within the sector to further enhance performance. Despite this gap, the results portray an overall optimistic outlook for the sector. The Strengths category received consistently high ratings, indicating that these factors are viewed as highly important and are also performing strongly in practice. This alignment and the overall impact score of 11.66 reflect a solid foundation of well-established capabilities and resources. The ratings of the weaknesses for both importance and performance suggest that while these may be taken into consideration, they do not critically affect the sector.

Figure 2 illustrates the relative positioning of each strength and weakness, with internal score plotted on the x-axis and importance on the y-axis. Overall, the figure illustrates a positive assessment of internal factors, with strengths consistently outperforming weaknesses. Six out of nine strengths are in the top-right quadrant, indicating both high importance and strong internal performance. Notably, five strengths (S2; S1; S3; S9; S7) cluster in the uppermost right corner, showcasing the sector’s robust internal capabilities. These top-ranked factors underline the core areas where the sector is exceptionally well-positioned to thrive and underscore the crucial role of prefabrication in enhancing both efficiency and quality. They point to the significant value and untapped potential of resource optimization attending to the difference between importance and performance (S7), and the use of standardized products (S3) to enable streamlined and more reliable production and construction processes. At the same time, the sector’s focus on innovation, digitalization, and automation (S9) emerges as another key strength with room for further development to improve the performance. Among the remaining strengths, several received lower ratings. For instance, S4 and S6, while relevant, were viewed as less critical. They highlight the sector’s reliance on regional materials—driven by cost-effectiveness, quality, and reduced transport needs—and its ability to deliver diverse, customized products efficiently through product databases and modular systems. However, the gap between perceived importance and performance indicates potential for improvement. In contrast, S5 and S8 were rated with relatively high importance and performance, suggesting that production efficiency and deconstruction concepts are promising areas with potential for strategic improvement.

In the weaknesses category, roughly one-third of the factors received above-average importance ratings and are therefore positioned in the upper half of the chart. These factors warrant consideration, as they may affect efficiency or scalability, but they do not yet pose critical threats to the sector’s overall stability, as their values remain close to the average line of importance. The sector’s most pressing challenges are W1 and W4, affecting the efficiency in both planning and production. Both of which show acceptable current performance but clear potential for improvement. Correlated W3 is also perceived as an important weakness yet appears to be relatively well managed, suggesting that although it remains relevant, it does not pose an immediate risk. In contrast, W9 is in the top-left quadrant, reflecting high importance but lower internal performance, marking skilled labour shortage as a priority area for strategic improvement. Together, these weaknesses form a feedback loop: high planning requirements and limited workforce capacity mutually intensify cost and efficiency challenges. Nearly two-thirds of the weaknesses fall within the bottom-left quadrant, indicating lower importance and lower internal performance, and suggesting these areas currently hold limited strategic relevance. The lowest score was recorded for W10, indicating that the dominance of SMEs is seen as a less pressing systemic constraint. W5, W6, W2 and W8 form a cluster of weaknesses that reflect issues of profitability, storage limitations, non-optimized planning, and material intensity, and while still relevant, exert only moderate influence on daily operations. In contrast, the remaining weaknesses, W7 and W11, related to uncertainties in transportation and supply chain, were assessed as relatively more critical, with the latter being more urgent due to its lower internal performance.

4.2.2 External factors

The results are summarized in Table 4 and visually represented in Figure 3, where opportunities are shown in purple and threats in orange, both labelled and positioned according to their likelihood of appearance on the X-axis and their importance on the Y-axis.

FIGURE 3

The analysis of opportunities reveals a moderate overall importance score (2.81) paired with a relatively high likelihood of occurrence (3.18). This suggests that while opportunities are likely to materialize, experts view their effect as moderate. On the other hand, the threats category has a higher overall importance score (3.16) but a lower likelihood of occurrence (2.75), indicating that they are less likely to happen, but perceived as potentially more detrimental to the sector. Figure 3 illustrates the relative positioning of each opportunity and threat based on their rated importance and likelihood of occurrence.

Among the opportunities, five out of seven are positioned on the right half of the graph, indicating a relatively higher likelihood of occurrence. Notably, O1, O3, and O6 emerged as the most important. Growing societal awareness of environmental responsibility is expected to increase demand for sustainable building practices, low-carbon materials, and circular economy initiatives. Advancements in prefabrication, digitalization, automation, and industrialization, inspired by progress in other industries, offer operational and technological gains. Additionally, the emergence of new job markets and training initiatives help attract younger talent while addressing the declining pool of skilled labour. These high-priority opportunities highlight the sector’s potential to leverage innovation and workforce development, supported by the ecological and efficiency benefits of prefabricated timber construction. In contrast, O5 and O7, concerning cooperation through standardization and expansion of material availability via research, were rated as less critical, though relatively likely to occur, suggesting limited immediate impact. On the left half of the chart, O2 and O4, representing political support, and the harmonization of standards were considered less probable. However, O4, close to the average in both importance and likelihood, may serve as a potential leverage point for future sectoral development.

Regarding threats, all but two are positioned in the upper half of the graph, indicating relatively high importance, though most are located close to the average line. Most threats are perceived as less likely to occur, situating all but two on the left half of the chart. T1 stands out in the top-right quadrant with both high importance and high likelihood, making it the most pressing concern. Elevated material costs directly affect purchasing decisions, labour expenses, and overall profitability, especially for SMEs with tighter margins. Interestingly, T8, was rated as the most likely to occur but with the lowest importance, reducing its immediate strategic priority. However, it contributes to rising prices, as declining softwood availability in expected to intensify supply constraints. T4 reflects potential logistical bottlenecks that could disrupt material flow and delay construction timelines. Contrary, T7, T5, and T6, remain important but are less likely, suggesting that the sector anticipates maintaining a stable supply chain, workforce and ongoing innovation in material research. Meanwhile, T2 and T3, relating to higher material consumption and slow regulatory adaptation are moderately important and more likely to occur, warranting careful monitoring.

4.3 Scenarios development

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.

4.3.1 Most-likely

In this scenario, the sector is expected to undergo significant transformation, driven primarily by an intensified focus on sustainability, recycling, and circular economy principles (O1), alongside the growing adoption of automation technologies from other industries (O3). Automation is expected to play a transformative role in prefabrication processes, while simultaneously reducing dependence on on-site skilled labour. This transition will likely be accompanied by a rising demand for highly trained professionals in off-site manufacturing environments, supported by targeted upskilling and workforce development initiatives (O6). At the same time, the industry is anticipated to grapple with ongoing challenges—most notably, rising timber prices (T1), which are further intensified by the decline of key wood species due to climate change (T8). These pressures are expected to strain procurement strategies and supply chain stability. In response, continued material research and innovation (O7) offer a promising, though still developing, counterbalance. Advancements in engineered hardwoods, wood composites, and bio-based alternatives are projected to moderately diversify the material base, reduce dependence on vulnerable species, and gradually contribute to the stabilization of material costs. Additionally, enhanced cooperation through standardization (O5) is considered essential for streamlining production workflows, improving interoperability, and fostering stronger collaboration across the sector, especially among SMEs, allowing them to participate in larger-scale projects and enhancing their competitiveness.

4.3.2 Best-case

This scenario unfolds the timber construction industry being driven by heightened awareness of sustainability and re-use (O1), supported by increasing political backing (O2). Policies promoting sustainable construction facilitate the harmonization of standards (O4) towards a coherent European regulatory environment, streamlining operations, promoting interoperability and boosting regional, national and international collaboration. Increased cooperation through standardization (O5) fosters stronger partnerships, enabling innovative solutions to shared challenges. The transfer of technologies from other industries (O3) further modernizes production processes, enhancing efficiency and precision. Meanwhile, expanding material availability through research (O7) diversifies supply chains, reducing reliance on traditional wood sources and mitigating resource shortages. Better skilled labor through targeted training programs (O6) addresses workforce challenges, ensuring the sector can capitalize on technological advancements.

4.3.3 Worst-case

In this scenario, increasing consumption of wood (T2) and rising wood prices (T1) place significant strain on supply chains, driving up costs and limiting resource availability. These pressures are exacerbated by the decline in tree species due to climate change (T8), which reduces the diversity and resilience of timber resources. Limited investment in research and development (T7) further exacerbates the sector’s ability to advance material innovations and technological solutions. Regulatory challenges persist, with slow or insufficient adaptation of regulations (T3) hindering innovation and the adoption of new materials and methods. Additionally, gaps in value stream management (T4) complicate the coordination of production and supply chains. Procurement deliveries (T5) are frequently delayed or inconsistent, further complicating production scheduling and project execution. The industry also struggles with low expertise (T6) in key areas, limiting its capacity to fully leverage emerging technologies and sustainable practices.

5 Discussion

The findings demonstrate that MSTC in the DACH region is undergoing a multi-scalar socio-technical transformation driven by technological innovation, ecological pressures, and institutional change. Triangulating expert interviews, quantitative analysis, and scenario work with the extant literature shows a sector with consolidated operational strengths—chiefly prefabrication, material-efficient production, and sustainability orientation—but also persistent constraints in industry fragmentation, front-loaded planning, workforce skill, regulatory fragmentation, and supply-chain fragility.

A principal contribution of this study lies in the relationship between company size and previous defined innovation strategies (Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025). SMEs predominantly pursue standard innovation, introducing project-level adaptations that exploit prefabrication but remain constrained by limited capital, digital capacity, and workforce scaling (Cosenz and Bivona, 2021; Halme and Korpela, 2014; Kind et al., 2022). Large, integrated firms engage in incremental industrial innovation, systematizing prefabrication, hybridization (timber–concrete/steel), and supply-chain coordination to realize economies of scale as general or total contractors (Kind et al., 2022; Huß et al., 2017). ConTech and technology-driven firms exemplify pioneering innovation, prioritizing automation, BIM-driven workflows, and novel materials (Ribeirinho et al., 2020). A further strength of this study is the systematic mapping of these three trajectories onto the identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This alignment reveals how each trajectory is shaped by distinct capability constraints and opportunity structures. The analysis demonstrates that these trajectories co-evolve rather than exist as discrete: SMEs can upgrade through partnerships, large firms can adopt disruptive methods from ConTech actors, and ConTechs depend on established producers for market diffusion. Accordingly, innovation orientation is not strictly determined by firm size but by strategic positioning and technological ambition (Geels, 2002). Notably, in this study one SME and two large companies were reassigned from standard and incremental trajectories to the pioneering category, reflecting their strong emphasis on technological innovation and experimental systems.

Prefabrication remains the defining strength of MSTC, consistently emphasized across all company trajectories as the foundation of operational efficiency and innovation. Experts emphasized its contribution to faster assembly, reduced on-site errors, and enhanced quality through standardized factory production. These findings align with earlier research on prefabrication’s historic and contemporary role as the sector’s competitive core (Kolb, 2007; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Nord et al., 2011a). The focus on standardization and precision echoes previous literature, who documented the evolution of Central Europe’s modular timber tradition toward industrialized systems (Müller, 2004; Klein and Grabner, 2015). Quantitatively, the top-performing factors—controlled-environment production, shortened construction times, and material efficiency—empirically validate that industrial precision and modular repetition directly enhance competitiveness (Gutiérrez et al., 2024; Nord et al., 2011a). Yet, while prefabrication serves as a unifying strength, its strategic deployment varies across innovation trajectories. Standard innovators, typically SMEs, focus on productivity gains and agile responses within resource constraints, leveraging prefabrication to improve scheduling and maintain flexibility. Incremental innovators—larger enterprises acting as general or total contractors—apply prefabrication more systematically, combining it with hybrid systems and standardized processes to optimize supply chains. Pioneering innovators, often ConTech firms or technology-driven spin-offs, integrate prefabrication into broader digital ecosystems emphasizing automation, data-driven quality assurance, and process optimization. Simultaneously, prioritizing automation and modular production can enhance productivity and mitigate labor shortages, thereby reinforcing prefabrication’s role in workforce development and broader sectoral transformation.

However, these technical strengths are counterbalanced by substantial organizational and procedural challenges, particularly in the early project phases, where a higher degree of definition and the early integration of timber-specific expertise are essential (González-Retamal et al., 2022; Orozco et al., 2023). The persistence of high planning effort and limited digital maturity among companies reveals the front-loading paradox of industrialized timber construction, where the efficiency gains of prefabrication demand greater early-phase coordination and fabrication-ready documentation (Huß and Manfred Stieglmeier, 2017). Current project delivery frameworks in the DACH region—still shaped by sequential planning norms such as Germany’s HOAI and Switzerland’s SIA standards—exacerbate these frictions (Lattke et al., 2017; Huß and Manfred Stieglmeier, 2017; Lattke and Hernandez-Maetschl, 2016). Consequently, design processes become bottlenecks, especially for firms lacking digital interoperability or integrated BIM–CAD–CAM environments (Kind et al., 2022; Huß and Manfred Stieglmeier, 2017; Huß et al., 2017; Calquin et al., 2024; Lattke, Sandra Schuster, and Birk, 2025b; Kind et al., 2022; Huß and Manfred Stieglmeier, 2017; Huß et al., 2017; Calquin et al., 2024; Lattke et al., 2025b). As a result, smaller firms face disproportionate coordination and documentation burdens struggling with planning accuracy, resource allocation, and scaling production due to limited infrastructure, while larger or digitally advanced actors internalize these costs more effectively, reinforcing the industry’s digital divide (Kind et al., 2022; Lattke et al., 2025b; proHolz Austria, 2018; Mitera-Kiełbasa and Zima, 2024; Kind et al., 2022; Lattke et al., 2025b; proHolz Austria, 2018; Mitera-Kiełbasa and Zima, 2024). By contrast, they face growing complexity in coordinating subcontractors and suppliers. Pioneering innovators, agile in digital adoption, remain exposed to interoperability issues, supply chain disruptions and foreign supplier dependencies. Bridging this gap requires interoperable digital standards, collaborative contracting, and workforce upskilling, supported by strong coordination, integrated planning, and network governance to translate technological progress into systemic innovation (Calquin et al., 2024; Kind et al., 2022). Workforce limitations further magnify these disparities. The shortage of qualified specialists—identified as a high-impact weakness—confirms previous findings that MSTC expertise remains concentrated among a small circle of advanced stakeholders (Salvadori, 2021a; Svatoš-Ražnjević et al., 2025; Orozco et al., 2023). This concentration promotes innovation leadership but restricts diffusion and scalability (Scheer, et al., 2008). Expanding vocational programs, embedding digital competencies in the sector, and fostering interdisciplinary training are essential to unlock prefabrication’s full potential. To this end, it is recommended to strategically implement digitalization and industrialized prefabrication to attract emerging professionals by integrating digital skills into construction workflows, while promoting circular and low-carbon practices that aligned with documented rising sustainability imperatives (Petruch and Walcher, 2021).

Digitalization and cross-sector technology transfer represent drivers of transformation, offering pathways for leaner, more predictable production. Within this landscape, different innovation profiles emphasize distinct priorities. Standard innovators see technology transfer as crucial to overcoming resource barriers. Incremental innovators prioritize sustainability, recycling, and circular economy initiatives, reflecting their industrial maturity and R&D capacity. Pioneering innovators, by contrast, highlight digitalization and material innovation but tend to downplay cooperation through standardization, which they perceive as less beneficial to their innovation-centric business models. Nevertheless, all trajectories converge on the growing influence of sustainability awareness and automation, pointing to systemic drivers for industrialization, material circularity, and decarbonization as documented in recent studies (Petruch and Walcher, 2021; Hoxha et al., 2022). Political support and regulatory harmonization, though widely acknowledged as critical enablers, were consistently rated as having limited direct business impact across company types. Yet, the broader implications of rising sustainability awareness suggest mounting pressure on policymakers and clients to promote timber-based construction more proactively. This momentum may materialize through public-sector demonstration projects, targeted funding programs, or regulatory updates that facilitate the industrialization and decarbonization of the built environment. Historical precedents—such as Austria’s Haus der Zukunft initiative, Germany’s IBA Hamburg, and Switzerland’s Minergie framework—illustrate how policy intervention can accelerate technological diffusion and normalize timber use (Meacham 2010; Wiegand and Ramage 2022; Bogensberger 2018; Falk 2005; Mahapatra et al. 2012; Mayo 2015; Hein et al., 2016)The ongoing Eurocode revision, particularly Eurocode 5 for timber, aims to minimize national variations and establish a more unified European structural framework (European Commission). A truly single European structural regulation, fully adopted by all countries would be a cornerstone for scaling timber construction from regional niches to a continental industrial sector. Nevertheless, experts’ skepticism toward regulatory harmonization reflects the persistent governance complexity characterizing the DACH region and European context. An additional challenge lies in the interface between structural design rules and the new Construction Products Regulation (CPR), that marks a shift toward consistent CE marking, data quality, and harmonized product standards (hENs) (European Union, 2024). Experts noted that misalignments between CE marking requirements and actual engineering performance can hinder innovation and reuse in circular construction. Aligning hENs with revised Eurocodes and ensuring timely updates under CPR 3110/2024 will be critical for enabling industrialized and circular MSTC. The scenario analysis conducted in this study underscores that policy harmonization and sustained public funding are decisive prerequisites for optimistic industrialization pathways; in their absence, regulatory inertia risks stalling diffusion and scaling. Although political support did not emerge among the top-ranked opportunity factors, its synergy with sustainability and decarbonization agendas constitutes a powerful long-term catalyst for sectoral transformation and competitiveness.

Threats to the sector manifest in divergent ways across innovation trajectories. Rising timber prices and climate-induced risks are most acute for standard innovators, who often lack the financial resilience to absorb cost volatility stemming from resource scarcity. Incremental innovators perceive these pressures as comparatively manageable, leveraging diversified timber sourcing and more robust procurement networks. For them, the primary challenge lies in value-stream complexity, as coordinating multiple subcontractors and suppliers increases both administrative and operational strain. Pioneering innovators, by contrast, highlight vulnerabilities related to foreign supplier dependence and insufficient investment in R&D, which expose them to market disruptions and limit their capacity for technological advancement. Across all trajectories, the shared recognition of climate-induced forest degradation—including spruce decline in Austria, bark beetle infestations in Germany, and ecosystem fragility in the Alpine regions of Switzerland—underscores the sector’s resource vulnerability (Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat, 2023; ProHolz, 2024; Jandl, 2020; Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, 2022). These findings reinforce Nenning et al.’s (2024) call for material diversification through the expanded use of engineered hardwoods, laminated veneer lumber (LVL), and bio-based composites (Nenning et al., 2024). Although material innovation is currently viewed as a moderate opportunity, its strategic potential is substantial. Continued development and adoption of advanced timber products can broaden the resource base, stabilize material prices, and mitigate ecological risks (Pramreiter and Grabner, 2023). When coupled with targeted training initiatives and the standardization of building components, such advancements can significantly strengthen the MSTC sector’s resilience, adaptability, and long-term sustainability. Industry fragmentation also constrains scalability. SMEs dominate MSTC across the DACH region, providing flexibility but lacking economies of scale and sustained investment capacity (Kind et al., 2022; Cosenz and Bivona, 2021; Kind et al., 2022). As Mahapatra, Gustavsson, and Hemström observe, this configuration maintains regional adaptability but limits large-scale industrialization (Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2008; Mahapatra, Gustavsson, and Hemström, 2012). Cooperative platforms such as Holzunion and leanWood illustrate the potential of shared design databases and open BIM standards (S. Schuster and M. Stieglmeier, 2018). However, the moderate likelihood assigned to “cooperation through standardization” in this study suggests coordination deficits remain. Policy incentives for digital interoperability and cross-company resource pooling could therefore accelerate industrial consolidation and reduce duplication of effort. Although slow regulatory adaptation was not rated as an important threat, experts nonetheless perceived it as highly likely. The DACH region’s predominantly prescriptive building codes—governing height limits, fire-resistance classes, and detailing requirements—have historically ensured safety but simultaneously constrained innovation in MSTC. In contrast, performance-based frameworks, as exemplified in Vienna, allow engineered and hybrid solutions and thus facilitate greater flexibility. A gradual shift toward performance-based standards will be essential to unlock the full structural and environmental potential of industrialized timber construction.

From the analysis, three strategic priorities emerge that directly address the research questions. First, regulatory harmonization across countries, including standardized codes, harmonized product standards and coherent regulatory framework, is essential to align technological progress with governance structures, directly informing how planning, production, and assembly processes in MSTC evolve. Fragmentation across national codes, product standards, certification systems, and approval procedures generates uncertainty, increases design costs, and limits the scalability of prefabricated solutions. Second, workforce expansion through digital education and targeted training programs enable expertise beyond a small circle of pioneers. Third, material innovation and circular resource strategies underpin long-term resilience. Collectively, these measures address the opportunities and risks that upcoming transformations pose, particularly for SMEs and offer pathways for industry stakeholders to leverage emerging practices and market dynamics to scale timber construction sustainably and competitively across the DACH region. Without such alignment, even advanced technological progress cannot translate into widespread, efficient, and circular timber construction practices.

Methodologically, the triangulation of literature review, semi-structured expert interviews, SWOT analysis, and importance–performance evaluation provides a robust foundation for understanding sectoral transformation. Nevertheless, the limited expert sample and the predominantly Austrian empirical focus constrain the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand stakeholder engagement across the DACH region, include clients and policymakers, and develop quantitative indicators to capture the interdependencies among key factors, actors, innovation trajectories, regulatory frameworks, and market dynamics.

6 Conclusion

This study examined the dynamics of MSTC in Austria within the broader DACH region, applying a mixed-methods approach that combined expert interviews, SWOT analysis, quantitative evaluation, scenario development and literature-based comparison. While the empirical material is primarily Austria-focused, the interview sample included experts working across the DACH region, and sector-wide representativeness was established through triangulation with international literature. The comparative perspective highlights Austria’s export-oriented industrial strength, Germany’s hybrid innovation ecosystem supported by strong R&D capacity, and Switzerland’s emphasis on architectural experimentation and precision craftsmanship. These national distinctions underline that MSTC evolution is context-dependent, shaped by the interplay of enterprise structures, innovation capacity, and regulatory frameworks across the DACH region.

The findings provide an integrated understanding of the sector, identifying critical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats across design, production, and on-site assembly. Overall, the MSTC sector exhibits technological maturity alongside organizational fragmentation and growing ecological vulnerability. Strengths in prefabrication, material efficiency, and innovation coexist with persistent weaknesses in planning complexity, supply-chain coordination, and resource dependency, while opportunities in sustainability, digitalization, and material innovation are counterbalanced by threats related to climate change and market volatility. Strategically, Austria’s MSTC sector demonstrates industrial maturity, supported by a strong CLT production base, regional supply integration, and growing digital competence. Nonetheless, front-loaded planning processes, limited workforce capacity, regulatory fragmentation, and resource volatility constrain scalability. Climate-induced forest degradation, price fluctuations, and dependence on foreign suppliers further highlight systemic vulnerabilities. Examining the sector through the lens of innovation trajectories clarifies how technological capabilities, strategic orientations, and external pressures interact in distinct yet interdependent ways, emphasizing that technological progress alone is insufficient for sustained sectoral growth. Organizational coordination, policy alignment, and workforce development remain decisive enablers for sustainable industrialization.

Looking forward, automation, advanced prefabrication, and cross-sector technology transfer—particularly from automotive and manufacturing industries—are likely to become standard practice. Research into engineered hardwoods, bio-based composites, and circular design strategies will be essential to diversify material resources and enhance resilience. Standardization of components, digital interoperability, and shared data platforms will be equally critical to foster collaboration between SMEs and large enterprises. Coordinated political support through harmonized building regulations, targeted funding programs, and public-sector pilot projects can accelerate industrialization and decarbonization. Near-term trajectories are likely to reflect rising sustainability awareness, gradual digital convergence, and continued supply-chain uncertainty, indicative of adaptive modernization processes.

In conclusion, MSTC represents a strategic pathway toward decarbonization, digitalization, and industrial innovation in the built environment. Prefabricated timber systems occupy both a technological and organizational frontier, where advances in automation, material science, and circular economy principles converge. Enhancing sector competitiveness will require sustained collaboration among industry, academia, and government to achieve full digital integration, material diversification, and policy coherence. These efforts are essential for establishing multi-storey timber construction as a cornerstone of a low-carbon, resilient construction industry across the DACH region.

References

• 1

  Altstoff Recycling Austria AG (2019). Circularity gap report Austria: closing the circularity gap in Austria. Vienna: Circle Economy.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  ArnoldJ.BehmJ.SchusterS. (2023). BIMwood. Munich, Germany: TU München.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BallhausenN. (2012). Den Holzbau Radikalisieren: Holzbau Fuer Die Stadt, 35–41. Berlin, Germany: Bauwelt 21/2012.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BianconiF.FilippucciM. (2019). Digital wood design 24. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BogensbergerM. (2018). Das System Darf Nicht Die Freiheit Und Lockerheit Der Gestaltung Beeinträchtigen: im Gespräch Mit Dem Holzbaupionier Hubert Rieß. Vienna: Zuschnitt 71 - proHolz Austria.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BrandnerR.BogenspergerT.SchickhoferG. (2013). In plane shear strength of cross laminated timber (CLT): test configuration, quantification and influencing parameters. Graz, Austria: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BrandnerR.FlatscherG.RinghoferA.SchickhoferG.ThielA. (2016). Cross Laminated Timber (CLT): overview and development. Eur. J. Wood Prod.74 (3), 331–351. 10.1007/s00107-015-0999-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BundeskanzleiB. K. (2020). Bundesgesetz Über Die Verminderung Von Treibhausgasemissionen (CO2-Gesetz). Available online at: https://www.bk.admin.ch. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich (1960). Straßenverkehrsordnung.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. Verordnung Über Die Honorare Für Architekten- Und Ingenieurleistungen. Available online at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/hoai_2013/index.html. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat. (2023). Waldzustandserhebung 2023. Bonn, Germany: BMLEH.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung. Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO). Available online at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo_2012/BJNR067910012.html.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  CalquinL.MataR.CorreaC.NuñezE.BustamanteG.CaicedoN.et al (2024). Implementation of building information modeling technologies in wood construction: a review of the state of the art from a multidisciplinary approach. Buildings14 (3), 584. 10.3390/buildings14030584

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  CosenzF.BivonaE. (2021). Fostering growth patterns of SMEs through business model innovation. A tailored dynamic business modelling approach. J. Bus. Res.130, 658–669. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  Digital Agenda Vienna (2019). Digital agenda Vienna 2025—Vienna becomes digitization capital: digitale agenda Wien 2025—Wien Wird digitalisierungshauptstadt. Vienna: Stadt Wien.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  DolezalF.DorniggI.WurmM.FiglH. (2021). Overview and main findings for the Austrian case Study. Sustainability13 (14), 7584. 10.3390/su13147584

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  EidgenossenschaftS. (2017). Bundesgesetz Über Den Wald. Bern: Bundesversammlung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  European Commission. Further harmonisation of the EN eurocodes: the EN eurocodes are the result of a long procedure of bringing together and harmonising the different design traditions in the member states. Available online at: https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en-eurocodes/further-harmonisation-en-eurocodes. (Accessed November 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  European Environment Agency (2025). Circular material use rate. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 May 2018 amending directive 2008/98/EC on waste (text with EEA relevance). Strasbourg, France: Official Journal of the European Union.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  European Union (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/3110 of the European parliament and of the council of 27 November 2024 laying Down harmonised rules for the marketing of construction products and repealing regulation (EU) no 305/2011 (text with EEA relevance). PE/12/2024/REV/1. Strasbourg, France: Official Journal of the European Union.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  Fachverband der Holzindustrie Österreichs. Branchenbericht 2023–2024. Vienna: Fachverband der Holzindustrie Österreichs.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  FalkA. (2005). Architectural aspects on cross-laminated timber - structural form and systems. Luleå, Sweden: University of Technology.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  Federal Ministry of Economy, Energy and TourismKMU in österreich. Available online at: https://www.bmaw.gv.at/Services/Zahlen-Daten-Fakten/KMU-in-%C3%96sterreich.html. (Accessed November 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  FlemingP.SmithS.RamageM. (2014). Measuring-up in timber: a critical perspective on Mid- and high-rise timber building design. Arq18 (1), 20–30. 10.1017/S1359135514000268

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  FlickU. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. 4th ed. (London: Sage).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  FrancartN.LarssonM.MalmqvistT.ErlandssonM.FlorellJ. (2019). Requirements set by Swedish municipalities to promote construction with low climate change impact. J. Clean. Prod.208, 117–131. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  GeelsF. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy31 (8-9), 1257–1274. 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  González-RetamalM.ForcaelE.Saelzer-FuicaG.Vargas-MosquedaM. (2022). From trees to skyscrapers: holistic review of the advances and limitations of multi-storey timber buildings. Buildings12 (8), 1263. 10.3390/buildings12081263

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  GosselinA.BlanchetP.LehouxN.YanC. (2016). Main motivations and barriers for using wood in multi-story and non-residential construction projects. BioResources12 (1). 10.15376/biores.12.1.546-570

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  GrafJ.StefanK.PoteschkinV.ShiW. (2019). Potentiale Der Verwendung Von Brettsperrholz-Produktionsabfällen Zur Herstellung Von Bauteilen Im Holzbau recycling Von Brettsperrholz-Produktionsabfällen. Stuttgart, Germany: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  Grand View Research (2023). Cross laminated timber market size, share & trends analysis report by product (adhesive bonded CLT, mechanically fastened CLT), by application (residential, institutional), by region, and segment forecasts, San Francisco, CA: Grand View Research. 2023–2030, 2023–2030.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  GreenM.TaggartJ. (2017). Tall wood buildings: design, construction and performance. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  GrüterC.GordonM.MusterM.KastnerF.GrönquistP.FrangiA.et al (2023). Design for and from disassembly with timber elements: strategies based on two case studies from Switzerland. Front. Built Environ.9, 1307632. 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1307632

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  GutiérrezN.NegrãoJ.DiasA.GuindosP. (2024). Bibliometric review of prefabricated and modular timber construction from 1990 to 2023: evolution, trends, and Current challenges. Sustainability16 (5), 2134. 10.3390/su16052134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  HalmeM.KorpelaM. (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium‐sized enterprises: a resource perspective. Bus. Strat. Env.23 (8), 547–566. 10.1002/bse.1801

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  HeckD.KoppelhuberJ. “Mit Holzsystembau Den Marktanteil Erhöhen – eine Baubetriebliche Und Bauwirtschaftliche Betrachtung: increasing the Market Share with Timber Systems – from the Perspective of Construction Planning,” in 21. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany: Internationales Holzbau-Forum.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  HeinC.KaluzniL.TwohigB.ChangW. S. (2016). Global stability of high-rise timber buildings. Vienna, Austria: World Conference on Timber Engineering 2016.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  HemströmK.MahapatraK.GustavssonL. (2011). Perceptions, attitudes and interest of Swedish architects towards the use of wood frames in multi-storey buildings. Resour. Conservation Recycl.55 (11), 1013–1021. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  HerzogT.NattererJ.SchweitzerR.VolzM.WinterW. (2008). Timber construction manual: part 1 cultural dimensions. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser Basel. Wood as a building material - from the beginnings to the 19th century.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  HimesA.BusbyG. (2020). Wood buildings as a climate solution. Dev. Built Environ.4, 100030. 10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  Holzkurier (2020). The biggest glulam producers. Available online at: https://www.timber-online.net/blog/biggest-glulam-producers.html (Accessed May 15, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  HoxhaE.Soust-VerdaguerB.ScherzM.PasserA. (2022). Benefits of wooden structure reuse: the case of an Austrian building. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1078 (1), 12031. 10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  HuangL.KrigsvollG.JohansenF.LiuY.ZhangX. (2018). Carbon emission of global construction sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.81, 1906–1916. 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  HurmekoskiE.JonssonR.NordT. (2015). Context, drivers, and future potential for wood-frame multi-story construction in Europe. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change99, 181–196. 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  HußW.StieglmeierM. (2017). LeanWOOD: buch 1 – teil a LeanWOOD Herausforderungen and Motivation. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH. Available online at: https://www.arc.ed.tum.de/fileadmin/w00cgv/holz/leanWood/leanWood_Book1.pdf.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  HußW.GeierS.LattkeF.StieglmeierM. (2017). “Teil D prozess,” in Atlas mehrgeschossiger holzbau. Editors KaufmannH.KrötschS.WinterS.DETAIL.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  IlgınH. E. (2024). Analysis of the main architectural and structural design considerations in tall timber buildings. Buildings14 (1), 43. 10.3390/buildings14010043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  Informationsverein Holz, e.V. (2020). Ökologische Mustersiedlung prinz-eugen-park in München: BAUDOKUMENTATION. Munich, Germany: Informationdienst Holz.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  Institut für Baubetrieb und Bauwirtschaft (2014). Leistungs- Und Vergütungsmodelle. Graz, ST: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  JandlR. (2020). Climate-Induced challenges of Norway spruce in Northern Austria. Trees, For. People1, 100008. 10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  JusselR. (2012). Tamedia Gebäude Zürich: Städtisches Holztragwerk Für Einen 7-Geschossigen Bürobau. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany: Internationales Holzbau-Forum.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  JusselR. (2019). Das Modell Wird Realität: herausforderungen in Produktion Und Montage. Innsbruck, TIR: Internationales Holzbau-Forum.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  JussilaJ.NagyE.LähtinenK.EliasH.HäyrinenL.Mark-HerbertC.et al (2022). Wooden multi-storey construction market development – systematic literature review within a global scope with insights on the Nordic region. Silva Fenn.56 (1). 10.14214/sf.10609

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  KaufmannH.NerdingerW.KühfussM.GrdanjskiM. (2012). Bauen Mit Holz: wege in Die ZukunftMunich, Germany: TU München. 42–44.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  KaufmannH.KrötschS.WinterS. (2017). Atlas mehrgeschossiger holzbau. Basel, Switzerland: DETAIL.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  KiesnereG.AtstajaD.Cudecka-PurinaN.SusnieneR. (2024). The potential of wood construction waste circularity. Environments11 (11), 231. 10.3390/environments11110231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  KincelovaK.BotonC.BlanchetP.DagenaisC. (2020). Fire safety in tall timber building: a BIM-based automated code-checking approach. Buildings10 (7), 121. 10.3390/buildings10070121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  KindS.BogenstahlC.JetzkeT.RichterS. (2022). Urbaner holzbau. Berlin, Germany: Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  KleinA.GrabnerM. (2015). Analysis of construction timber in rural Austria: wooden log walls. Int. J. Archit. Herit.9 (5), 553–563. 10.1080/15583058.2013.804608

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  KolbJ. (2007). Holzbau Mit System: tragkonstruktion Und Schichtaufbau Der Bauteile (Basel: Birkhäuser Basel).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Kraftfahrgesetz (1967). Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich. Vienna: Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KuittinenM.HäkkinenT. (2020). Reduced carbon footprints of buildings: new Finnish standards and assessments. Build. Cities1 (1), 182–197. 10.5334/bc.30

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  KuzmanovskaI.GasparriE.Tapias MonnéD.AitchisonM. (2018). Tall timber buildings: emerging trends and typologies. Seoul: World Conference on Timber Engineering.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  KylkilahtiE.BerghällS.AutioM.NurminenJ.ToivonenR.LähtinenK.et al (2020). A consumer-driven bioeconomy in housing? Combining consumption style with students' perceptions of the use of wood in multi-storey buildings. Ambio49 (12), 1943–1957. 10.1007/s13280-020-01397-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  LattkeF.Hernandez-MaetschlS. (2016). LeanWood - advancing performance of design teams intimber construction. Vienna: World Conference on Timber Engineering.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LattkeF.SchlehleinM.SchusterS. (2017). LeanWOOD Buch 5 - die Holzbauplanung. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH.

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LattkeF.SchusterS.BirkS. (2025a). “Bimwood – optimized timber construction planning process,” in Bimwood – optimized timber construction planning process. Editors LattkeF.SchusterS.BirkS. (Brisbane, Australia: World Conference On Timber Engineering), 2999–3008.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LattkeF.SchusterS.BirkS. (2025b). Bimwood – optimized timber construction planning process. Brisbane, Australia: World Conference on Timber Engineering 2025.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LehmannS.PaulD. K. (2023). Filling the knowledge gaps in mass timber construction: where are the missing pieces, what are the research needs?Mass Timber Constr. J.6 (1), 1–10. 10.55191/MTCJ.2023.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LennartzM. W.Jacob-FreitagS. (2015). Neues Bauen Mit Holz. Berlin, Germany: DE GRUYTER.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LeyderC.KlippelM.BartloméO.HeerenN.KisslingS.GotoY.et al (2021). Investigations on the sustainable resource use of Swiss timber. Sustainability13 (3), 1237. 10.3390/su13031237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LopezR.ChongH.-Y.PereiraC. (2022). Obstacles preventing the off-site prefabrication of timber and MEP services: qualitative analyses from builders and suppliers in Australia. Buildings12 (7), 1044. 10.3390/buildings12071044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  MahapatraK.GustavssonL. (2008). Multi-Storey Timber buildings: breaking industry path dependency. Build. Res. Inf.36 (6), 638–648. 10.1080/09613210802386123

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  MahapatraK.GustavssonL.HemströmK. (2012). Multi‐storey wood‐frame buildings in Germany, Sweden and the UK. Constr. Innov.12 (1), 62–85. 10.1108/14714171211197508

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  MarfellaG.Winson-GeidemanK. (2021). Timber and multi-storey buildings: industry perceptions of adoption in Australia. Buildings11 (12), 653. 10.3390/buildings11120653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  MastH. S. (2022). Conflicting sociotechnical imaginaries of the future built environment: an analysis of Current discourses on timber construction in France and Germany. GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc.31 (3), 151–157. 10.14512/gaia.31.3.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  MayoJ. (2015). Solid wood: case studies in mass timber architecture, technology and design. London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  McKinsey and Company. (2019). Modular construction: from projects to products. McKinsey & Company.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MeachamB. (2010). Performance-based building regulatory systems principles and experiences a report of the Inter-Jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Mitera-KiełbasaE.ZimaK. (2024). BIM policy trends in Europe: insights from a multi-stage analysis. Appl. Sci.14 (11), 4363. 10.3390/app14114363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MüllerC. (2004). Die Entwicklung des Holzleimbaues unter besonder Berücksichtigung der Erfindungen Otto Hetzer-ein Beitrag zu Geschichte der Bautechnik. Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. 10.25643/bauhaus-universitaet.38

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  MünchenL. (2018). “Münchner Förderprogramm Energieeinsparung,” in Richtlinienheft gültig ab 1: 2019. Landeshauptstadt, Germany: München. Referat für Gesundheit und Umwelt.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  MuszynskiL.LarasatieP.GuerreroJ.AlbeeR.HansenE. (2020). Global CLT Industry in 2020: growth beyond the Alpine Region. Society of Wood Science and Technology (SWST) International Convention.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  NenningT.TocknerA.KonnerthJ.Gindl-AltmutterW.GrabnerM.HansmannC.et al (2024). Variability of mechanical properties of hardwood branches according to their position and inclination in the tree. Constr. Build. Mater.419, 135448. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.135448

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  NordT.TykkäS.McCluskeyD.BajricF.BouriaudL.HugossonM. (2011a). Prefabrication strategies in the timber housing industry: case studies from Swedish and Austrian markets. Available online at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:995332/FULLTEXT01.pdf. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 87

  NordT.TykkäS.McCluskeyD.BajricF.BouriaudL.HugossonM.et al (2011b). Role of policies and national programmes on innovations in timber-frame construction. Innovation For. Territ. Value Chain Relat., 204–232. 10.1079/9781845936891.0204

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  NyrudA. Q.HeltorpK. M. A.RoosA.AguilarF. X.LähtinenK.ViholainenN.et al (2024). ‘Citizens’ knowledge of and perceptions of multi-storey wood buildings in seven European countries. Scand. J. For. Res.39 (1), 8–19. 10.1080/02827581.2023.2280653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  OrozcoL.Svatoš-RažnjevićH.Jakob WagnerH.AbdelaalM.AmtsbergF.WeiskopfD.et al (2023). Advanced Timber construction industry: a quantitative review of 646 global design and construction stakeholders. Buildings13 (9), 2287. 10.3390/buildings13092287

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  ÖstmanB.KällsnerB. (2011). National building regulations in relation to multi-storey wooden buildings in Europe. Växjö, Sweden: SP Trätek and Växjö University.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  ÖstmanB.MikkolaE.SteinR.FrangiA.KönigJ.DhimaD.et al (2010). Fire safety in Timber Buildings - Technical Guideline for Europe. Stockholm: Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  ÖstmanB.BrandonD.FrantzichH. (2017). Fire safety engineering in timber buildings. Fire Saf. J.91, 11–20. 10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.05.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Ouellet-PlamondonC. M.LiviaR.BalouktsiM.DelemL.GregF.NicolasF.et al (2023). Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential building considering biogenic carbon. J. Clean. Prod.404, 136834. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  PechA.AichholzerM.DoubekM.HöfferlB.HollinskyK.PasserA.et al (2016). “8. Ausführung Und Vorfertigung,” in Holz Im Hochbau. Editors HöfferlB.HollinskyK.PasserA.TeibingerM.WoschitzR.PechA. (DE GRUYTER), 275–298.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  PetruchM.WalcherD. (2021). Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction by young millennials in Austria - marketing implications from a representative Study. J. Clean. Prod.294, 126324. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  PhadermrodB.CrowderR. M.WillsG. B. (2019). Importance-performance analysis based SWOT analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag.44, 194–203. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  PischlR.SpiehsH.SantnerR.RiebenbauerJ. (1998). Brettstapelholz/KLH Massiv –Entwicklung Leistungsfähiger Und Wirtschaftlicher Bauelemente Zur Erhöhung Der Wertschöpfung Von Minderwertigem Schnittholz.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  PoirierE.Staub-FrenchS.PilonA.FallahiA.TeshniziZ.TannertT.et al (2022). Design process innovation on brock commons tallwood house. Constr. Innov.22 (1), 23–40. 10.1108/CI-11-2019-0116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  PramreiterM.GrabnerM. (2023). The utilization of European beech wood (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Europe. Forests14 (7), 1419. 10.3390/f14071419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  ProHolz (2024). Österreichische Waldinventur 2018 – 2023: wald – holz – klima. Vienna: Zuschnitt 94.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  proHolz Austria. (2017). “Raumstapel.” Zuschnitt Zeitschrift über Holz als Werkstoff und Werke in Holz (67).

  • Google Scholar

• 102

  proHolz Austria (2018). “Planungsprozesse: holzbaugerecht Planen Heißt Vordenken Statt Nacharbeiten.” Zuschnitt Zeitschrift über Holz als Werkstoff und Werke in Holz.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  RialaM.IlolaL. (2014). Multi-storey timber construction and bioeconomy – barriers and opportunities. Scand. J. For. Res.29 (4), 367–377. 10.1080/02827581.2014.926980

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  RibeirinhoM. J.MischkeJ.StrubeG.SjödinE.BlancoLuisJ.et al (2020). The next normal in construction: how disruption is reshaping the world’s largest ecosystem. Available online at: https://www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital%20Projects%20and%20Infrastructure/Our%20Insights/The%20next%20normal%20in%20construction/The-next-normal-in-construction.pdf. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  SalvadoriV. (2021a). “Multi-Storey Timber-Based buildings: an International survey of case-studies with five or more storeys over the last twenty years.” Unpublished.

  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SalvadoriV. (2021b). Worldwide Structural Survey of 197 multi-storey timber-based buildings from 5 to 24 storeys.

  • Google Scholar

• 107

  SantanaS., Aída, AichholzerM.MitrenovaE.KovacicI. (2023). “Status quo of Austrian timber construction sector.” In World conference on timber engineering (WCTE 2023), edited by MaloK. A.NyrudA. Q., and Kristine nore, 4545–54. As, Norway: world conference on timber engineering (WCTE 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Santana-SosaA.KovacicI. (2022). Barriers, opportunities and recommendations to enhance the adoption of timber within multi-storey buildings in Austria. Buildings12 (9), 1416. 10.3390/buildings12091416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  SavolainenJ. M.IlgınH. E.OinasE.KarjalainenM. (2022). Finnish multi-story timber-framed apartment buildings: tampere residents’ perspectives. Buildings12 (11), 1998. 10.3390/buildings12111998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  ScheerD.HoffmannE.RubikF. (2008). Mit Holz in Die Zukunft?Eine Branche Am Scheideweg. Berlin, Germany: Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung.

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SchusterS.StieglmeierM. (2018). LeanWOOD: optimierte Planungsprozesse Für Vorgefertigten Holzbau. Available online at: https://www.arc.ed.tum.de/fileadmin/w00cgv/holz/leanWood/2018_06_DBZ_leanWOOD.pdf. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 112

  Schweizerische Bundesrat (2025). Verkehrszulassungsverordnung. VZV.

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Schweizerischer ingenieur- und architektenverein (2014). Ordnung Für Leistungen Und Honorare Der Bauingenieurinnen Und Bauingenieure. schweizerischer ingenieur- und architektenverein.

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  StaibG.DörrhöferA.RosenthalM. (2008). “Teil B grundlagen,” in Elemente Und Systeme. Editors StaibG.DörrhöferA.RosenthalM. (Berlin, Germany: DE GRUYTER), 38–47. (Accessed November 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  StankevičiusA.NovikovasA.BakaveckasA.PetryshynO. (2020). EU waste regulation in the context of the circular economy: peculiarities of interaction. JESI8 (2), 533–545. 10.9770/jesi.2020.8.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  SumiC. (2007). Konrad Wachsmann (1901/1980) Pionier Des Modernen Holzbaus.

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  ŠvajlenkaJ.PošivákováT. (2023). Innovation potential of wood constructions in the context of sustainability and efficiency of the construction industry. J. Clean. Prod.411, 137209. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Svatoš-RažnjevićH.BoevaY.KroppC.MengesA. (2025). Trajectories from standard to incremental and pioneering innovation in timber construction: multi-storey timber buildings in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Build. Res. Inf.53 (6), 734–758. 10.1080/09613218.2025.2482970

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (2022). Environment Switzerland 2022: report of the federal council.

  • Google Scholar

• 120

  ToivonenR.VihemäkiH.ToppinenA. (2021). Policy narratives on wooden multi-storey construction and implications for technology innovation system governance. For. Policy Econ.125, 102409. 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102409

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  ToppinenA.AaltioA.LähtinenK.JussilaJ.ToivonenR. (2022). “It all depends on the project”—A business ecosystem in residential wooden multistory construction in Finland. Front. Built Environ.8, 1046954. 10.3389/fbuil.2022.1046954

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  TupenaiteL.KanapeckieneL.NaimavicieneJ.KaklauskasA.GecysT. (2023). Timber construction as a solution to climate change: a systematic literature review. Buildings13 (4), 976. 10.3390/buildings13040976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  United Nations Environment ProgrammeGlobal Alliance for Buildings and Construction (2025). Not just another brick in the Wall: the solutions exist - scaling them will build on progress and cut emissions fast. Global status report for buildings and construction 2024/2025. Available online at: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/47214. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 124

  Vienna Business Agency. (2021). Digital Planning, Construction and Operation—The Technology Report: Digitales Planen, Bauen Und Betreiben—Technologie Report.

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  VihemäkiH.LudvigA.ToivonenR.ToppinenA.WeissG. (2019). Institutional and policy frameworks shaping the wooden multi-storey construction markets: a comparative case study on Austria and Finland. Wood Material Sci. Eng.14 (5), 312–324. 10.1080/17480272.2019.1641741

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  VKF-Brandschutzvorschriften (2015). Interkantonales organ technische handelshemmnisse. Available online at: https://www.bsvonline.ch/de/brand.

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  WalshI.HoltonJ. A.BailynL.FernandezW.LevinaN.GlaserB. (2015). What grounded theory is…a critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organ. Res. Methods18 (4), 581–599. 10.1177/1094428114565028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  WertherN.SuttnerE.DumlerP.KurzerC.Stefan Winter.(2020). Design principles for fire safe detailing in timber structures.”. Munich, Germany: TU München.

  • Google Scholar

• 129

  WiegandE.RamageM. (2022). The impact of policy instruments on the first generation of tall wood buildings. Build. Res. Inf.50 (3), 255–275. 10.1080/09613218.2021.1905501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  WimmerR.BintingerR.ScheicherG.PlößnigJ.PaarhammerJ.De MonteH. (2009). Strategieentwicklung Für Eine Industrielle Serienfertigung Ökologischer Passivhäuser Aus Nachwachsenden Rohstoffen.

  • Google Scholar

• 131

  Wirtschaftskammer Österreich – Abteilung für Statistik (2024). Holzbau: branchendaten. Available online at: https://www.wko.at/statistik/BranchenFV/b-107.pdf. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 132

  WoschitzR. (2019). Hoho Wien - Leuchtturmprojekt Für Den HolzHybridBau, 25. Innsbruck: Internationales Holzbau-Forum IHF 2019.

  • Google Scholar

• 133

  XiaB.O'NeillT.ZuoJ.SkitmoreM.ChenQ. (2014). Perceived obstacles to multi-storey timber-frame construction: an Australian study. Archit. Sci. Rev.57 (3), 169–176. 10.1080/00038628.2014.912198

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  ZangerlM.KaufmannH.HeinC. (2010). LifeCycle Tower: energieeffizientes Holzhochhaus Mit Bis Zu 20 Geschossen in Systembauweise. Available online at: https://nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/hdz_pdf/endbericht_1186_lifecycle_tower.pdf?m=1646386490&. (Accessed November 7, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 135

  ZügnerD. (2013). Holz-Massivbauweise Im Mehrgeschossigen Wohnbau - ein Kalkulatorischer Vergleich Zur Mineralischen Massivbauweise. Graz, ST: TU Graz.

  • Google Scholar