Rookie Move #1: Treating Mass Timber as a Substitute Material
One of the most common missteps teams new to mass timber make is treating it as a one-to-one substitute for concrete or steel, rather than a system with its own distinct benefits and constraints. Simply converting a building designed for conventional concrete and steel rarely works well. “If somebody has a concrete-and-steel structure already designed and they say, ‘take a look at this in mass timber,’ it’s probably not going to pencil out,” Ratchford says. The project inherits grids, spans, and detailing not intended for prefabricated wood members, resulting in inefficiencies that are difficult and costly to unwind. From Ratchford’s perspective, mass timber performs best when it’s treated as the system of choice from the outset, not as a material swap after key decisions are already locked in.
Misstep:
Approaching mass timber as a late-stage swap for concrete or steel.
What works:
Start with mass timber as the primary structural system. Projects designed in wood from day one are far more likely to take full advantage of the system’s structural efficiencies, prefabrication, and installation speed.
Rookie Move #2: Underestimating the Financial Impact of Schedule Compression
Mass timber is frequently evaluated based on material cost alone, but veterans know there are hidden savings that can offset premiums. Speed to enclosure, faster vertical construction, and earlier occupancy often offset modest material premiums—especially on schedule-driven projects. “It’s not just about the cost of the raw material. When you save five or six weeks in construction time, that’s money,” Ratchford says.
Misstep:
Evaluating mass timber strictly through structural cost comparisons without accounting for the financial value of a faster schedule.
What works:
Evaluate mass timber through a development pro forma, not just a construction estimate. Faster structural installation, earlier dry-in, and reduced site labor can shorten the project schedule—lowering interest carry and potentially bringing units or tenants online sooner. For schedule-driven developments, those timing gains can materially shift the project’s financial outcome.
Rookie Move #3: Running Mass Timber as a Low-Bid Exercise
Conventional procurement models designed around sequential, lowest-bid construction aren’t well-suited to mass timber projects. Mass timber operates differently. It relies on early coordination between design, engineering, fabrication, and installation—with many cost-critical decisions locked in long before bids are issued. Panel sizes, beam depths, CLT and glulam layup, connection strategies, CNC time, and delivery sequencing all affect price and constructability. “You want partners that trust you, who understand the investment you’ve made, and work well together,” Ratchford says.
Misstep:
Assuming competitive bidding alone will deliver the best outcome.
What works:
Think in partnerships, not bids. Long-term relationships reduce risk, stabilize pricing, and eliminate relearning costs.
Rookie Move #4: Waiting Too Long to Involve the Fabricator
Some teams assume pricing and constructability can be resolved after design development, but by then, inefficiencies are often embedded in the drawings. Ratchford emphasizes that early design assist—before grids, spans, and detailing are finalized—is where the biggest opportunities for value engineering exist. “Most of the time, probably 90% of the time, we can take a $10 million project and can cut up to 7% of the mass timber costs through design assist,,” he says.
Misstep:
Assuming pricing and constructability can be resolved after design development.
What works:
Bring the fabricator in early. Design assist is where real cost savings happen, before inefficiencies are locked in.
Rookie Move #5: Designing Only to Code—Not to the Factory
Code compliance alone does not guarantee efficient fabrication. Manufacturing realities—press sizes, panel widths, and CNC capacity—play an equally important role in determining cost and schedule in mass timber projects. Ratchford often encourages teams to work closely with their fabricator to understand how their design decisions translate on the factory floor. “If we have an 8-foot press, don’t plan a 6.5-foot panel,” he says. “You’re going to pay a lot more for that waste.”
Misstep:
Believing code compliance alone guarantees efficient fabrication.
What works:
Design to manufacturing realities. Panel sizes, beam depths, press widths, and CNC time directly affect cost and schedule.
Rookie Move #6: Neglecting How Grids Affect Fabrication
Grid decisions are typically made early, yet their impact on fabrication efficiency is often underestimated. Even small shifts can significantly improve panel yield and production speed.
“For example, at our facilities, you adjust your grid to an 8-by-40 or 8-by-50 panel—that’s how you keep costs down,” Ratchford says. From his experience, grid optimization is one of the most effective—and least disruptive—ways to reduce cost.
Misstep:
Locking in grids and spans without considering panel optimization.
What works:
Optimize grids around manufacturing constraints. Small adjustments can unlock major efficiency gains in production and installation—and as a result, bring costs down.
Rookie Move #7: Over-Customizing the Structure
Mass timber’s visual appeal can tempt teams to over-customize structural elements, driving up costs without adding proportional value. Ratchford stresses that repetition—not novelty—is what makes wood competitive at scale. That isn’t to say repetition can’t also achieve a distinctive building. He advises tailoring where it gives you the biggest design boost. “For example, instead of 90% custom and 10% standard, it works much better when it’s 90% standard and 10% custom.”
Misstep:
Customizing mass timber elements throughout a building when it’s not necessary to achieve the design intent.
What works:
Standardize aggressively. Aim for 80–90% repeatable elements, reserving customization for where it matters most.
Rookie Move #8: Defaulting to Custom Connections
Custom steel connectors are often assumed to be necessary for performance or architectural expression. In practice, they can add significant cost in fabrication, CNC time, and field installation. “It’s all about how much custom steel you want versus off-the-shelf steel or wood-to-wood connections. There can be a big price difference.” Ratchford advises teams to consider the full lifecycle of connection decisions. In many cases, off-the-shelf connections can get the job done, while still giving you the results and aesthetics you’re looking for—and saving money.
Misstep:
Assuming custom connectors are necessary for performance or aesthetics.
What works:
Use off-the-shelf connectors if possible, and if it fits your design vision. Custom steel adds fabrication time, installation complexity, and cost.
Rookie Move #9: Treating Wood Species as an Afterthought
Wood species selection for mass timber elements is sometimes driven by aesthetics alone, without considering regional manufacturing strengths. That disconnect can introduce cost and supply challenges later in the process. For example, most softwood timber grown in the Southern United States is pine, while spruce, pine, and fir are more common in the Northwestern regions of the country. Ratchford encourages teams to align material choice with production realities from the start. “Step number one is asking: What species and look do you want? Pick the right partner, and region, for that material.”
Misstep:
Selecting wood species late—or without regard to regional capacity.
What works:
Choose species strategically. Align design intent with regional manufacturing strengths to control cost and supply risk.
Rookie Move #10: Overloading the Project Team
Early coordination is important in mass timber projects, but it is best done with a right-sized team that isn’t overloaded. Newbie mass timber projects often involve large, layered teams assembled out of caution. Over time, Ratchford has seen how streamlining those teams improves accountability and cost control. “What we see working best is when there’s a tight mass timber working group doing that early planning work—that includes the owner, the architect, the engineer, and the manufacturer—no more than necessary.”
