Time for change

So, we have yet to see the final version of the Part L revisions. This is not really a surprise, when you consider how difficult compliance will be under the horribly fragmented construction methods still commonly applied in the UK. But, to me, it is a big disappointment.

One reason for this hold-up is the number of people bellyaching about difficulties and lobbying for a watered-down version so that compliance can be assured within the existing methods – but they are missing the point.

If you want to achieve change – if you actually want to do something which will make a difference – then you shouldn’t be able to achieve it simply by tweaking what’s already being done. You should have to do something fundamentally different. This struggle to attain something seemingly impossible has characterised our greatest achievements; without challenges, innovation will simply wither and die, leaving stagnation in its place.

Most people need a profound reason to catalyse change – but if you haven’t yet got the message about climate change, it’s time you faced reality with everyone else.

Why do so many feel the targets will be difficult to meet? Primarily because of the fragmented way we go about design, construction and operation. We all know that good design is about compromise, yet our processes generally fail to reach realistic and sustainable conclusions.

Imagine, if you will, something akin to a bicycle wheel. In the centre is the meeting point for every way a decision can be optimised – you might call these specialisation spokes. So, these specialisation spokes are aesthetics, efficiency, capital cost, constructability, flexibility, operability, operating cost and sustainability.

It is very difficult to work in all specialisations at once, so different functions sit at different points on the wheel.

Designers (architects and engineers, etc) sit at one point, where they are able to optimise aesthetics and efficiency and stray onto capital cost and sustainability, but that’s about as far as they can spread. Further round the wheel are the contractors, on the constructability and capital cost spokes and straying onto the flexibility and, occasionally, the efficiency spokes.

Integrated collaborative working is the only way to achieve Part L targets and address the crisis behind their introduction

Next are the facility managers, anchored to operability and operating cost, but reaching over the sustainability and flexibility spokes. So you have at least three major groups all focusing on different specialisations, all trying to optimise any decisions to suit their particular understanding of the required balance.

To make matters worse, these groups are not all on the wheel at the same time, so decisions that impact all areas may be made in isolation.

Thus, energy efficient solutions that are optimal from a design efficiency point of view may be selected despite being extremely difficult to build, maintain or operate in practice. This explains why later arrivals subsequently ‘value engineer’ them out, without fully understanding the reasons for their selection and, bingo, another target doomed to failure.

Does it have to be like this? Well, no. I believe it is entirely possible to resolve these conflicting requirements. For most, it is going to take a step change to achieve it.

However, the model exists. Integrated collaborative working is characterised by early involvement and by commitment to parties who will represent all parts of the wheel from onset – this is, in my view, the only way that Part L targets are going to be achieved. Then we can begin to address the crisis behind their introduction.

So roll on Part L and let’s have some more tough targets. That way, we can finally make it impossible to work in the same fragmented manner that has been holding our industry back for so long.