Avoiding Failure

A data journey, version one

• A building control officer signed off a building based on reference to approved drawings. They didn’t know a product had changed and had no way of telling there had been an incorrect specification or substitution.
• The installer worked according to approved drawings, but installed a different product. They’d relied on the distributor to supply what was suitable.
• The distributor supplied an alternative product. They checked for suitability against the contractor’s order and believed it a suitable substitution based on the product’s declared conformance.
• The contractor tendered for the project and chose materials based on previous experience, conversations with the product’s sales team and distributor prices.
• The salesperson offered their product alternatives based on design and performance requirements. As far as they were aware, all the products they offered were suitable.
• The architect used the manufacturer’s website to choose a suitable product and obtained approval for the design based on test certificates and building regulations.
• The manufacturer’s marketer obtained the test certificate and placed it on the manufacturer’s website. They weren’t to know that the test certificate was out of date, fraudulent or obtained by deception.

Everyone in this story acted with integrity to the best of their ability, but there was still a fire and people still died. So, what was missing?

A data journey, version two

• The manufacturer’s marketer places secure links to the test records and declarations of performance (DoP) for their products in their website. These are held on a secure, independent third-party website. All the product marketing material links to this source for evidence. The manufacturer’s website provides secure information about compatibility, obsolescence, suitable alternatives and other performance-related information.
• The architect chooses a suitable product and obtains approval, checking against – and referencing – the independent source in their details.
• The salesperson wants to change the specification because they have a cheaper alternative. The architect, manufacturer and building control officer approve and amend the design, which is recorded.
• The contractor tenders for the project knowing their competitors won’t be substituting products without an approved design change. This ensures compatibility and prevents undercutting by unsafe or inappropriate substitution.
• The distributor checks the product meets the specification and can offer alternatives with transparent approval back through the chain.
• The installer is confident that the correct product has been supplied and checks against the secure record. They install it according to the manufacturer’s up-to-date instructions, making a record of the installation on the project log before covering it up.
• The building control officer signs off on the building as before, but this time, the product is correct and this can be verified.

All the actors in this second version of the story are still behaving competently and with integrity. Essentially, they’ve carried out the same procedure, but this time the outcome is completely different. Why is that?

This is an extract from Digitisation for Construction Product Manufacturers: A Plain Language Guide, published by The Institution of Engineering Technology in 2021. The guide goes on to show how information is the missing piece of the puzzle when it comes to building safety, and as much of that information comes from construction product manufacturers, they above all others will need to provide structured, secure, verified, interoperable product data to the supply chain if building safety is to be achieved.

Are manufacturers aware that they need to digitise? Are they doing it? The IET is commissioning research into this as part of their #ManufacturersPLG work, which may help us understand what is happening. But in the meantime, please download the Plain Language Guide and use it to understand the challenge and how to overcome it.

It's the least we can do.