And how would you measure such a thing?
It’s a question we first started asking ourselves in the middle of 2024.
At the time, the residential construction market was brutal. Pipelines were drying up, builders were competing for fewer opportunities, and price pressure was pushing the industry towards a race to the bottom.
We didn’t want Faulkner to join that race. And, honestly, we didn’t think we deserved to be in it.
We knew that not all builders were the same. But we also had to confront an uncomfortable reality: believing we were different wasn’t enough.
If clients and architects couldn’t clearly see, understand or measure the difference between builders, why wouldn’t they make their decision primarily on price?
The challenge became: Differentiate or die.
Defining the category
Our first response was to look more closely at the category we wanted to compete in.
“Residential builder” was far too broad. Even “high-end builder” didn't say much. High-end according to whom – and measured by what?
“Architectural builder” was closer, but it was still a label any builder could apply to themselves.
Eventually we arrived at a more precise description:
Builders of homes designed by Architects.
It describes a distinct discipline.
These homes tend to involve bespoke design, complex details, demanding sites and long project durations. They bring together clients, architects, consultants, builders, craftspeople and suppliers – each with different responsibilities and different ways of seeing the project.
Building them well requires more than producing a beautiful finished object.
It requires the ability to protect design intent while managing commercial reality. To create clarity around cost, programme and responsibility. To coordinate a large group of people through uncertainty. To communicate honestly when the news isn't good. And to keep making sound decisions when the project inevitably departs from the plan.
So we started with a deliberately competitive question:
Who is New Zealand's best builder of homes designed by Architects?
But we quickly discovered that deciding how to measure it was far more interesting than trying to name a winner.
What does "best" actually mean?
The obvious place to start is the finished home.
Quality matters enormously. So do craftsmanship, technical difficulty and the faithful execution of the Architect's design. Industry awards provide valuable independent recognition of those things.
But the finished home can't be the only measure.
By the time a project is photographed, most of the difficult work has become invisible.
You don't see the detail that couldn't be built as drawn, or the carpenter who spoke up because something didn't feel right.
You don't see the early warning that prevented a cost from escalating, the conversation that restored alignment after a disagreement, or the dozens of decisions required to protect the design while respecting the client's budget.
A beautiful home delivered through commercial chaos, damaged relationships and an exhausted team cannot represent the complete definition of excellence.
So perhaps New Zealand's best builder of homes designed by Architects would need to demonstrate excellence across several dimensions.
Quality
Does the completed work demonstrate exceptional craftsmanship, technical capability and respect for the Architect's intent?
Delivery
Does the builder manage time, cost, scope and risk with clarity – even as the project changes?
“On time and on budget” sounds appealing, but it can be too simplistic for complex, evolving projects. A more meaningful test is whether expectations are established honestly, changes are identified early, and the commercial consequences are made visible before they become surprises.
People
Does the builder develop capable people and create an environment in which they can do their best work?
Architectural homes are not delivered by contracts, systems or drawings alone. They are delivered by people exercising judgement, communicating well and taking ownership when things get complicated.
The careers and capabilities created through the work should count alongside the buildings themselves.
Standing
What do clients, architects, consultants, tradespeople and suppliers say about the builder after experiencing the way they work?
Reputation matters – but not merely as profile or popularity. The more meaningful question is whether the builder has earned the trust of the people who understand what the work actually requires.
And then there's consistency.
Can the builder produce an excellent result repeatedly, across different projects, teams, architects and market conditions? Or does success depend on a particular individual making heroic interventions whenever things begin to unravel?
Great buildings matter – but so does building a great organisation.
Our inevitable blind spot
These measures felt like a reasonable starting point.
They also created another uncomfortable realisation.
Any definition developed by Faulkner will inevitably reflect Faulkner's own strengths, experiences and ambitions.
We value employed craftspeople, strong systems, commercial transparency, long-term relationships and the development of future leaders. Naturally, those things appear prominently in our definition of excellence.
Another builder might place greater emphasis on innovation, sustainability, craftsmanship, architect relationships or a highly specialised construction capability.
They may also be doing something exceptionally well that we haven't learned to see yet.
That is where this question became less about marketing and more about learning.
Worthy rivals
There are builders around New Zealand whose work we watch with genuine respect.
Some compete in our market. Many don't. A builder in Queenstown or Wānaka is unlikely to compete with us for an Auckland project, but their work can still challenge our assumptions about what good looks like.
Simon Sinek describes these people as worthy rivals.
A worthy rival isn't simply a competitor you want to defeat. They may be better than you in a particular area. Their value is that they make your own strengths and weaknesses more visible – and, in doing so, reveal where you can improve.
One builder might be producing extraordinary craftsmanship.
Another might have developed a remarkable level of trust with architects and clients.
Another might be creating better careers, building stronger systems or finding more intelligent ways to manage the uncertainty inherent in bespoke construction.
Acknowledging those strengths doesn't diminish our own ambition.
It sharpens it.
We are serious about Faulkner becoming New Zealand's best builder of homes designed by Architects. But if we are serious about the claim, we also need to be serious about the standard against which it should be judged.
And we shouldn't expect to define that standard by ourselves.
From competition to collaboration
Every strong builder faces some version of the same differentiation challenge.
We all know that not all builders are the same. We know that exceptional architectural building cannot be reduced to a square-metre rate, a tender total or a gallery of finished photographs.
But as an industry, we haven't developed a particularly clear shared language for explaining – or measuring – the difference.
Perhaps that is something worth working on together. Not to eliminate competition. Competition challenges us to improve. Not to create another award programme or appoint ourselves as judges. And certainly not to suggest that the best builders should all start working in the same way.
The opportunity is simply to ask better questions:
What do the best builders of homes designed by Architects have in common?
What evidence should support a claim of excellence?
Where are even the strongest builders getting stuck?
What could we learn from one another?
We started with a competitive question:
Who is New Zealand's best builder of homes designed by Architects?
The more seriously we considered it, the more collaborative the question became:
How should such a thing be measured – and who better to help answer that than the builders with a credible claim of their own?
There will always be competition between us.
But there should also be room for worthy rivals.
══════════════════
Ross McConnell is Managing Director of Faulkner Construction, an award-winning Auckland builder of homes designed by Architects.
Ross brings an engineering and business background, including a Berkeley MBA and years leading growth-stage companies, along with deep respect for the craftsmen who bring complex architectural buildings to life. He's interested in what makes a great build work beyond the craftsmanship: how builders, architects and clients work together, how cost and risk are managed, and how disciplined people, processes and technology create better outcomes.
Ross is leading Faulkner towards a simple but ambitious goal: to be recognised as New Zealand's best builder of homes designed by Architects.
Connect on LinkedIn · Build with Faulkner
══════════════════
