While that is cool I have to say that Italians in Canada did that concept over 10 years ago in an even more compelling way. Rather than bring the "facilities to the site" they simply took a large hangar if you will and built full sized (2000-3600 SQ FEET) homes, complete with furnishings and finishes in 3 days rather than bringing all the materials to the job site. It cut their costs incredibly and they were able to train crack "commando" teams to build homes in no time. Same approach but I believe way more flexible with what you can build. The houses that were built here are brick and stone homes not the cardboard look that these houses have.

World's 1st... NOT.
Prefabricated house building, not even remotely new.

I'm trying to decide if you could possibly have missed the point more completely Matt, and I've concluded that no, you really couldn't.
It's not the prefab aspect that's novel (hell, we had prefabs all over the UK after WWII) but that the house is basically created from scratch on site by a machine brought to the site specifically for the purpose of spitting out a house.

I can't help but notice there are no costs listed for this "incredibly efficient" construction technique.
Probably because it's actually incredibly inefficient.

I also think I'm missing the point. So you ship in a CNC router, and stacks of plywood. The CNC cuts plywood to assemble into beams, sheathing, floor, walls, etc. Don't you still need to ship in electrical, plumbing, HVAC, insulation, windows, and roofing. Other than putting together a jigsaw of plywood parts instead of a stick frame, I don't see how this is so innovative. And stick frame can also use sustainable/manufactured lumber. I would like to understand how all these plywood parts are assembled... glue and screws?

Most construction that is highly valued is of very low quality in the US. Easy to harm and difficult and expensive to repair leap to mind. The destruction of Country Walk in Miami area by a minor hurricane is a great example. It was a colossally expensive disaster and upscale home went to pieces as if made of toilet tissue. Those homes were expensive and the eye appeal must have been high. Materials that burst easily, burn easily, can't take a dunking in water or are easy to penetrate by a burglar have no place in modern housing. Ever see one of those expensive floors that look like wood after a water heater bursts? Or how is it we allow water heaters that burst? it is endless.

800 sheets of spruce plywood? That stuff is the most expensive plywood in existence! It is usually used in limited quantities to build aircraft and exotic racing shells.

It'd be even more efficient to design and pre cut everything at a central facility, then ship a package containing *everything*, right down to the nails and shingles, to the build site.
Oh, wait. Already been done by Sears Roebuck & Co. from 1908 through 1940. Somewhere around 70,000 to 75,000 homes were produced by Sears. That's around 2,100 to 2,340 home per year. Any other company produced that many homes a year, even for one year, let alone 32?
With the way Sears did it there was no waste at the build site like there would be with Facit Homes process.
The number of homes under construction with Facit's process is limited to the number of mobile facilities they build.
I don't know if Sears homes' components were made in a collection for each house or if they made stocks of many common pieces which were drawn from to assemble a package for a specific design.
May have been a combination with stock components produced in bulk and pieces unique to each design or not used in many designs made as needed.
When Facit cranks out 2,000 homes in a year, then they'll have something to crow about.

Bruce here from Facit Homes, to answer the questions - Before we came up with our approach we asked ourselves - prefab has been around for 100years yet hardly any homes are made in a factory, ( in the Uk) why is this? 
The first thing we noticed is the tendency of factory produced homes to lack appeal or character, which is down to the nature of the factory itself- the factory as opposed to the building site has an overhead; heating, water, rent, cleaning etc. The building site is free.  This means that in order to compete factory has to continually turnover and produce homes thus reducing the relative overhead - this in turn leads to standardisation to aid production. Which leads to thousands of identical homes which history shows are not popular - people want choice, want individuality.
 We realised that there is very little differentiation in prefabrication between fabrication and manufacturing - in that a house can be made in a factory but if it's made by hand then it's going to be very expensive. It is utilising manufacturing processes that truly has an effect on cost, and in the 21st century that means digital manufacturing that has no 'tooling'. So rather than trying to radicalise the traditional construction processes we decided to integrate technology into exiting on-site methods. In this way we gain the most out of the manufacturing tools but without the factory overhead, or transport logistics and taking advantages of low cost local labour.
And yes we still have to fit plumbing, electrics, MVHR etc but in order to improve and guarantee the installation we make the frame aspect much more advanced - we call it a chassis, like the you would find on a car - pre routed channels for cables ducts etc, ventilated cavities integrated in to the panels, falls for drainage designed in, interfaces for window fitting, joinery around bathroom fittings, stair case caracas - everything is included in the monocoque chassis - this is a big advance on stick built frames which tend to be fairly basic.
Waste - we sell back our timber off-cuts back to the same timber supplier, who burn it in a CHP plant to make more timber, which we buy.
Cost - We guarantee that like for like the  homes we are making currently cost less than the competition - that means bespoke, super insulated, air tight quality homes.  
We would love to have the opportunity to build 2000 homes and prove that we can also do that for less than the competition too! ..... Watch this space! 

I can not see moving the factory to the build site as being the cost effective solution.