The method should serve the project.
There is no value in forcing a project into a delivery model because it is familiar or fashionable. The right starting point is the operating outcome: what has to be built, who it serves, what quality means, when it needs to open, how the site behaves and which risks matter most.
Modular can create real advantages in schedule, repeatability, controlled production and quality assurance. Conventional construction can be the better answer when the site, design, sequencing or program calls for it. A serious development partner should be able to evaluate both without defending a predetermined conclusion.
Decide early enough for the decision to matter.
The most expensive delivery decisions are often made after the opportunity has already been shaped around assumptions. By then, a change in method can affect drawings, procurement, site work, sequencing, capital planning and the calendar.
Bring development, engineering, construction and operations into the same early conversation. That is where a team can test the real variables: site constraints, utility access, unit repetition, finish level, transportation, labor conditions, code requirements and the experience the finished place needs to create.
The goal is a better opening day.
Construction is not the finish line. The finish line is a place that works for the people who use it and the organization that operates it. The quality of the handoff, the durability of the product and the confidence in the schedule all matter long after substantial completion.
That is why I believe in an integrated delivery table. It creates more context before the expensive decisions are made, and it gives the project a better chance to arrive as the place everyone intended to build.