Behind The Built Environment Episode 21

David
Hello, I'm David Frise, Chief Executive of BESA. Welcome to behind the Built Environment podcast. Joining me today is Mark Enzer. Mark is one of the built environment's leading voices on systems thinking and digital transformation. He's a former Chief Technical officer at Mott MacDonald and former head of the UK's National Digital Twin programme.

He has also held senior roles with the Centre for Digital Built Britain. Mark's work focuses on how we can use better data, connected thinking and clearer outcomes to improve the way buildings and infrastructure serve people, nature and society. So welcome, Mark.

Mark
Thank you.

David
We always like to kick off, apart from five, yes, no questions. But the first question is always, did you choose the career or did the career choose you?

Mark
It's probably both, isn't it? But I feel in some ways I was condemned to being an engineer from a very early age. I was one of those kind of people who took things apart, tried to put them back together again. Always found there was something missing. It didn't quite always fit. But, yeah, I think maybe the career chose me.

David
Was it parents influence involved in this at all? Was it just yourself? Just school?

Mark
Less so school, but I had the kind of childhood where I was given a lot of opportunity to roam around and do things and experiment and make things and see if they worked. And so I think through that I got to find out what type of engineering I might be interested in. But, you know, it was childish stuff.

It was kind of making dance and breaking them and making go karts and seeing how they worked. But an awful lot of it was about kind of making and trying and testing and so I think, yeah, probably I had to be an engineer.

David
So five, yes. No questions. That kind of sets the agenda for what we're going to talk about. Yes. No, please. Never as easy as you think it is. First one, can digital twins truly transform infrastructure delivery?

Mark
Yes.

David
Are we overbuilding instead of optimising existing assets?

Mark
Yes.

David
Is data sharing the industry's biggest untapped opportunity?

Mark
No.

David
Can we reach net zero without digital transformation?

Mark
Oh, you said they were difficult, didn't you? Can I have like a Probably not. I'll go with a no. I'll be confident.

David
Thank you. Is collaboration improving fast enough? No, actually, we'll start there because collaboration is really important, it's key. Yeah. And when you say no, it's not. What do you mean by that? We're just not collaborating enough or it's the quality of the collaboration?

Mark
I think we are collaborating pretty well, actually. And I do think that across the built environment we are good at collaborating, you can compare it to some other sectors and I think that in fact we are pretty good at collaborating and yet still it's not improving fast enough. And part of the reason I say that is because I think we need to have a much more radical approach to collaboration and joining up across organisational and sector boundaries in order to address big challenges.

And I think we're getting better at collaborating around projects. Probably we need to think beyond that and like I say, have some more radical collaboration where we pull together across government and industry and academia to achieve better outcomes.

David
Is it about the quality of the collaboration? I'm old enough to remember partnering agreements which were fantastic when things were going well, but as soon as they went wrong, it was so what does the contract say? It reverted as soon as things ran into difficulty.

Mark
Yes, and that really is a danger, isn't it? And I think that one of the things which we need to get to is to have incentives which are aligned towards the outcomes that we want. We don't start from that point. Normally we don't start from what are we trying to achieve, what are the actual outcomes we want.

But if we were to start there and we were to be really clear on what we're trying to achieve, then we can line up the incentives towards those outcomes and that then hopefully, helpfully, would be able to get people to work together towards those outcomes. And then even if things go a little bit wrong, like you indicated, if there's the overall incentive to achieve outcomes, then we're incentivized to help each other out to get to those outcomes.

And that might sound a little bit theoretical, but we do see examples of that. There are examples. I think Project 13 is fantastic in that regard, where you can see a much more enterprise based approach to delivery rather than just transactions. And so a focus on outcomes seems to be one of those things that enables us to work together towards something that is shared and not fight each other in a little local fight rather than a big outcome achievable.

David
Is that shared within the project team or have we got a bigger picture in mind, the societal outcomes that we want to achieve?

Mark
Yeah, I've definitely got a bigger picture in mind, but I do think it goes all the way down to a project level. I think that what we're talking about already is systems thinking. It's about being more joined up in how we do things. It's the radical collaboration that I talked about, but I think that that applies whether you're looking at a project level, working together on a project towards shared outcomes, or whether you're working at a much bigger level at a city or a region or even country level.

So yes, I do think that this same approach can work at multiple different levels. It comes down to the same thing. It's know what we're trying to achieve so that then we can put in place what is needed to achieve it.

David
So can you tell me a bit about systems thinking, which you referenced there briefly? What is systems thinking in this arena?

Mark
Yeah, I think it's easy to get worried by terms like systems thinking, isn't it? And I know some people don't like the terminology, in which case we don't have to use the terminology, but very simply it's just being joined up in how we do things. I think it is about being clear on outcomes, I think it's understanding how things fit together.

I think it's about being aware that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. And because of that, because of that fact that we're all familiar with, aren't we, that expression the whole is more than the sum of the parts, it's kind of recognising that if you only focus on the parts, you probably don't get the full value.

And I think that what systems thinking does is it enables the combination of the parts and the whole to get more value. Putting it simply at a built environment level, I think that if we apply systems approaches, if we get this systems thinking right, if you have something which is more strategic and long term and joined up, the promise of it is that we get better outcomes per pound.

And what I mean by outcomes at the biggest level is environmental, social and economic outcomes. That's what we want, surely, and we don't have so many pounds left. And therefore it clearly makes sense to try and get the best we can, the best outcomes per pound. But more often than not, that's not how we think.

The way we think is about minimising the cost of projects, minimising the cost of inputs, rather than maximising the value of outcomes. And that's an easy thing to say, but it's quite a big shift in thinking. However, I think if we go down that route, if we're aiming for better outcomes per pound, then an awful lot of stuff gets sorted out.

So that's a little bit of a long explanation as to what I mean by system thinking. But if you boil it all down, it's just about being joined up. It's kind of common sense.

David
But the thing about common sense, it's not that common, is It.

Mark
Exactly.

David
But we see this everywhere, don't we? In construction in particular. We look break things into projects and we bring all that thinking to breaking things down into projects. So there's a skill shortage. So what we need is more brickies, more plumbers, more electricians, rather than going, well, what is it we're trying to achieve?

How do we get there? And taking into account other factors like the role of direct employment in that and payment cycles in the industry and workloads, and all of those things rarely really get inputted into this. We just go, we need more of this. That's the answer.

Mark
I think that's exactly right. That's exactly the way we think. We kind of jump straight on to doing a thing rather than working out what we're trying to achieve and then coming back from that to work out the best way of achieving it. And I think we do that at pretty much every level.

And you've given some great examples there. But in saying that, I probably need to emphasise that I'm not anti project. Projects are still the best way of getting things done. Projects are marvellous. We need to be really good at projects. But I don't think it's enough on a project just to kind of break it down into its component parts and work out all the bits that need to be done and tick each of those boxes and think the job is done because it never is.

The more important thing is to work out how do all of those bits come together into something that actually works and something that actually achieves the outcome we want. And I think sometimes we tend to do just the first bit. We're good at breaking things down into work, breakdown structures and understanding all the activities and dividing them up into different responsibilities, and not necessarily so good at working out how they all come together into something that genuinely works.

And so I think even at a project level, this kind of systems thinking is really valuable. But we can think beyond the projects and imagine that the same kind of thinking is really helpful for us to achieve better outcomes for people in nature, in an area, at a city level, at a country level.

And I think we kind of desperately need this way of thinking that starts with, what are we trying to achieve?

David
Shall we assemble products rather than build an overall integrated product?

Mark
Yes, too right. And I think picking up on, you know, some of the other terminology that goes around this, because I've kind of emphasised the outcomes, but it's also about purpose. It's being clear on what we're trying to achieve. It's starting with the end in mind, there's so many ways of saying the same kind of thing, but I'm sure you can imagine just the same as I can.

You know, so many times where people just jump in and get busy doing a thing rather than working out what are we really trying to achieve? Because if you start with the what are we really trying to achieve, sometimes other stuff comes out the woodwork better ways of achieving it, which are not just get busy and do something, it's work out the clever way of achieving what we're trying to achieve, which quite often will end up being a lower

David
cost hurry scurry industry though we like to get things done rather than think about how you could do it a bit smarter. I've got a question here that says what's wrong with the way we currently see the built environment? I'd like to reframe that. She said, what would. What would really good built environment look like if we delivered projects that were focused on the outcomes?

And I'm presuming this has societal benefit area as well.

Mark
Very much so. If we're getting it right, then fundamentally it means that we're doing the right projects because there's no point in doing the wrong project really well, because you might deliver it on time to budget and you think great, that's a success. But if it's the wrong thing, it doesn't actually contribute to better outcomes for people in nature, then what was the point?

And so I think if we get this right, if we get the systems thinking right, then we will spend our money more wisely. And it means that we can imagine things like co investment for co benefits. It means that we will be much cleverer about how we get the thing we want rather than just focusing on reducing the cost of the thing that we're doing.

I think there are other things which would be signs of getting it right. Because at the moment, if I take it up to kind of a really big level, if that's okay, like big, big overview. I think if we look across the whole built environment, we see something which is now incredibly complex and interconnected.

Because we've been building it for hundreds of years, we keep adding to it and what we've now got is quite amazing. But if you just consider it for a moment, every part of it depends on every other part of it. So transport depends on energy and energy depends on telecoms. And if you're building a building, then the building makes no sense unless it's connected into all that economic infrastructure.

Everything is kind of connected and interdependent but we don't run it that way. So if we've got this connected built environment, we have disconnected organisations that are running it, so that doesn't kind of compute. And then another thing is we've got really connected challenges, not least of which would be climate change. It's becoming increasingly important that we adapt to that, that we provide climate resilience.

But it's not only that, it's kind of energy security and providing protection for biodiversity or moving towards a circular economy. All of these things are connected challenges. You can't solve them in silos, they don't happen in silos, so you can't solve them in silos. And so we have this situation of very connected systems, very connected challenges, but disconnected organisations set up to address them.

And then another key thing for me is that even if those organisations got their act together and worked better across the kind of the silo boundaries, they actually still wouldn't be able to do their job right, because the data they need to do it is also in silos. And so I think we have these two fundamental issues at a high level, and I know it's a big high level summary, but silos are a problem, the siloed organisations and the siloed data, and if we can address that, then we will be moving a long way towards getting better outcomes per pound.

And actually, David, that's kind of one of the reasons why the stuff you said earlier about the digital transformation is very connected to systems thinking. Because we've got the data in silos, we need to kind of connect that up, enable data integration and data sharing infrastructure, and that's part of the solution.

David
We have a bit of a toxic relationship with data and information though, particularly within construction in the view is that if you're being asked for data or information, how could that be used against me? And actually it's a lot safer if I hold onto it rather than give it to you. Because you can't use it against me if you haven't got it.

Mark
Isn't that another one of these fantastic examples of not aiming for the best outcome because you end up with a suboptimal solution where the data could be genuinely valuable for a better outcome, but for the reasons you just outlined, people kind of keep it and the incentives are all wrong then. But I think that if we see data right through the right kind of eyes and can see that its value is in giving us insight so that we can make better decisions, and actually the route to better value is making better decisions faster, then it's in all of our interests to get the right data to the right people at the right time to make the right decisions, and then we all win.

And therefore we should be incentivized towards doing that, and not incentivized in a perverse kind of way to keeping our data to ourselves. Because keeping our data to ourselves is exactly the data silo that I was talking about.

David
But you have structures and mechanisms in place. I think everybody would agree with that and say, yes, that's a fantastic idea, I'd love to be able to do that. But there are structures and mechanisms in place, say in contract law, that actually prevent me doing that to protect my own position. I spend a lot of time in Finland.

In Finland, because of their imperative to have solid defence. They've got the biggest land, border with Russia. Everything is integrated, both civil defence, infrastructure, utilities, transportation. It is by necessity integrated. So there's an imperative to make it happen through national preservation. We don't have that, do we?

Mark
Well, it's a really interesting point, because I think in reality we do have that necessity, but maybe we just haven't recognised it yet. And yes, it might end up being a defence necessity, because we all know that war is closer now than it has been for a long time. So it might be that.

When I talked earlier on about climate resilience, maybe we need just resilience, resilience against all sorts of other shocks, which could include military ones. So in some ways it could be the very same necessity that the Finns face, as you've indicated. But I think, even if it weren't, that we still should realise that we've got a necessity because we don't have so much money left.

There isn't a lot of money in the coffers, so we can't waste it. It kind of means that we have to get better outcomes per pound. And I think that we should recognise that, therefore, as a necessity that drives us towards the kind of things we're talking about. And it's no good to just say the structures and mechanisms are in place which prevent us from doing it.

It's like, so change the structures and mechanisms, there's a bigger thing at stake and if the structures and mechanisms are wrong, change them.

David
So are we measuring and therefore, I guess, valuing the wrong things?

Mark
I think so, yes. You are asking big questions, aren't you?

David
That's my job.

Mark
I think one of the things is that we're so accustomed to measuring value in terms of pounds that we think that that is value and that we think if we saved a few pounds, that that itself is value. And again, I'm not against saving money, we've got to be careful about it. But I think there's something bigger at stake and really what I think we need to be doing is seeing that these outcomes that we've been talking about, those actually constitute value.

If we've come to a place where we know what we're trying to achieve, that is the definition of value. Like surely it is. Because if it's the thing we want, if it's the thing we want to achieve, then it has value. In which case we should be starting to articulate value in terms of outcomes, which then means we can go to that place I mentioned before of trying to maximise outcomes rather than just minimise the cost of inputs.

It's a big change, but I think at the moment we're probably not valuing the right things. We're not recognising that environmental, social and economic outcomes actually are value. And maybe part of the reason why we don't do that is because it's hard. It's much easier to put a pound sign on something which is measurable in pounds.

But social and environmental outcomes are really important to us. That's what makes life worth living. In which case, surely it's valuable, Surely we should try to see that as value.

David
In BESA, we represent designers and installers of building engineering services make up more than half the building. But actually, if we succeed, people are not aware of what we've done. They're not hot, they're not cold, they can't see it. That's a difficult thing for clients to value until they haven't got it. What's the role of building engineering services in this systems thinking world?

Mark
Again, it's huge. And what you just touched on there is really significant, isn't it? In some ways your value is recognised when people don't notice it or when

David
they haven't got it.

Mark
Yes, but that is real value. That's a good outcome. If people are always complaining because they're too hot or too cold or too sweaty or whatever, then that's not a good outcome. And so I think that this stuff that I've been talking about, maybe in theoretical terms, you know, outcomes and whatever else, it comes down to being something very practical around what it's like to be in a building or to, you know, to live and work.

And so I think Beza has a huge part to play. And I also think, you know, it's therefore fantastic that you're kind of leading in this space that you're not just saying that your job is about ventilation or something and it's just about the individual isolated part. I think this whole conversation, even the fact that you've invited me to have a chat just now, shows that you've got a bigger view.

It's not just about the part, it's about how the parts come together into a whole that works. And it just happens that when you bring those parts together into a whole that works in a building, you don't notice it. But that is value. In which case that's what we should value, that's what we should aim for, that's the outcome we want.

David
The statistic we quote a lot is that 90% of us spend 90% of our time in a building. So the social benefit of buildings that work is incredible in terms of mental and physical well being.

Mark
Absolutely. And everyone's heard of kind of sick building syndrome, haven't they? And that's not good for people's health and well being. I think somehow or other people need to recognise the value of what you guys do.

David
Thank you. Paying us more. Bailey. The role of digital twins. How do you see that developing over there? What's a reasonable period of time? 5 years, 10 years? What's going to happen?

Mark
There's been a lot of development in the digital twinland over the last five years. Things are without a doubt moving. I think a lot more people have heard of digital twins, know what they are and maybe I should just explain very briefly for people, please. Not familiar. A digital twin is basically just a thing that makes a connection between digital and physical worlds.

And so the physical world is very familiar to us, isn't it? It could be the building that we're just talking about, but then you can imagine a digital version of that building and it becomes kind of a digital twin or a twin system when you make the connection between them. And so in other words, you've got data going from the physical world into the digital world, where you've got a model of it, you generate insight, make some decisions which then enable some kind of intervention back in the physical world.

So you've got this two way connection, data going one way and interventions going back the other way. That's a digital twin. And so we can see digital twins potentially being useful all over the place. You absolutely can imagine digital twins of a ventilation system or of a whole building or of an energy network.

You can imagine digital twins being useful in each of those cases, helping to make better operational decisions. But I think if I boil it down to what digital twins are really good for, it's helping to make better decisions faster. And if we can make better decisions faster, then we can get better outcomes.

And that's a nice thing. It's like we want that, and that would be a really good thing if we were using digital twins for that purpose in lots of places around the built environment. But what we can imagine, I think, is even better than that, which is getting some of the digital twins to talk to each other.

You're getting a federation of digital twins, because then if you've got digital twins talking to each other and sharing relevant information, then you're making even better decisions. It means that you can help to understand the whole system better and then intervene more effectively. So boiling that down, where I think it becomes simple to see is look at individual digital twins for making better decisions faster and look at federated digital twins for understanding the whole system better and intervening more effectively.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what we said a few minutes back is what we want. That's what we need in the system space. So, hopefully digital twins and federated digital twins are really helpful to us.

David
From what we were talking about earlier is projects are split down into packages and smaller and smaller packages, which has led to a great deal of fragmentation within the industry. So how does someone in an SME, who, I don't know, tier three, tier four, how do they engage with the digital twin programme or digitization programme?

How do they get themselves involved?

Mark
Yeah, it is a good question and I think it's a really big challenge because I think that that exact fragmentation that you talk about is kind of one of the things that you've got to deal with across the industry. And I spoke about it earlier, in terms of the siloed organisations, it's the same thing, siloed organisations, fragmentation.

And this is one of the big challenges. I don't think that an SME all by themselves can solve all the problems. Of course they can't. But they can be willing to be part of others coming together to solve the problem. And I think that's part of what we have to do here. Actually, right at the top of the podcast, we started, didn't we, talking about collaboration and radical collaboration and doing better than we're doing at the moment, because I think we're willing to collaborate and I think it's an industry that is actually pretty good at collaborating, but we need the incentives to do that.

What enables us to work across organisational and sector boundaries. And so that does mean quite a big coming together. It means not just the SME of your question, trying to sort it out by themselves. It means kind of them working with the client, with contractors, with the others who are around them to come to that better solution that ends up being of benefit to them all.

Not just the individual, but to the whole enterprise.

David
I guess the same is the question really around systems thinking in that most contractors then are time strapped. But it strikes me from what you've saying that if you actually adopted that within your business and you're an SME, you'd end up with a better business. Where's a good starting point for getting into systems thinking and engaging with others on this?

Mark
There's two ways I'd like to answer that because I think that the basic approach that we talked about before is probably relevant right down at the level of an individual SME. The whole thing of starting with the end in mind, what is it we're trying to achieve? I think that that message works at whichever level you look at it.

At the national level, city level, project level, SME level, wherever you look. It's kind of a good idea to start with what you're trying to achieve. I think there's another part of it which is understanding the system that you're dealing with. And that could be a relatively simple system. Down at an SME level it might not be, but whatever it is, it needs to be understood because those outcomes you're aiming for come from the system.

Which then means with that greater understanding you have, you can work out better interventions. And so I think that the, the fundamental message of systems thinking will work at an SME level. So we can just go ahead and apply that. I think if we're going to try and be more joined up though, across the industry, we need more of a kind of a joining up force.

Something, some kind of energy put into the system to make it get joined up a bit more. And that's one of the things that I've been working on with a growing group of other people. We've called ourselves the built environment connective, invented a new word to cover that. So the connective is sort of like a collective but with two N's in it instead.

And the idea is that it's about how we can work together to get to a place where we're doing more joined up thinking across the built environment. So a couple of years back we started working together. We co created a shared understanding of systems thinking in the built environment. We took 18 months over it with about 200 people.

This co creation was then published last year on the 2nd of July. We called it Connect to Change. If people are interested, they can go and have a look at it. But it outlines a lot of the things that we've been talking about. It certainly outlines that fundamental framework, the one that starts with outcomes, understands systems, works out interventions.

So what we're trying to do is get more of that to happen across the whole built environment. So now we're working with clients, with government organisation to try and understand how we can bring it in a helpful, useful way, a doable way, so that we can start moving towards what we've been talking about, getting better outcomes per pound.

And so it's a bit of a long answer to your question, but I think that there's, you know, I'm trying to point to two ways that this SME can get involved. There's one is directly in whatever they're doing, just start applying systems thinking because it will probably be good, probably help them, but also can be part of this wider movement across the built environment.

To say that we collectively would like to see more systems thinking because we collectively can see value in it.

David
What most SMEs don't understand is actually someone who comes in and says, that's fine in theory, but in practise, this is what happens. Can we design something that actually takes that into account rather than how you. We talked before we even started the podcast about the say do gap, the difference between what people say they do and what they actually do, or it's even in many cases, I think, between what they think they actually do and what actually happens.

And the SME are very good at kind of puncturing that view of. This is how it happens. No, practically it's more like this. The pragmatism comes in.

Mark
Yeah, I think the Seydou gap that you talk about is a really important gap, isn't it? And maybe that's why I like this idea that an individual SME can just get on with some systems thinking in their own kind of sphere of influence. They don't have to wait for anyone else, somewhere else to sort things out, that the SME can in some ways address their own, say, do gap and get some value from systems thinking.

But then what I'm talking about at more the industry level, which hopefully will enable all of us to start moving towards a place where we start by knowing what we're trying to achieve quite intentionally, we do that. We don't start a project without knowing what its purpose is. And then we can all pull together to achieve it.

There's some practical things there too. And again, there's probably a say do gap, because it's easy to say that and it might be more difficult to do, but surely it's a direction we have to go in, because down that route we do get this better value. We waste less money. It means we get more of what we try to achieve.

And I think, certainly I can. I'm sure you can. I'm sure that your viewers can imagine an awful lot of projects that they've been involved in that have just gone ahead and done some stuff without really being clear on what they're trying to achieve. Because if they were clear on what they're trying to achieve, they would have gone about it a different way.

And if we can imagine we remember those kind of projects that we've all worked on, you think, how different would it be if we just did this simple thing? That would be a good starting point, wouldn't it?

David
Again, we talked about this, how good it would be if you designed the building before you started building it.

Mark
Well, exactly.

David
It'll never catch up.

Mark
Exactly. You're on.

David
Wouldn't be much of a podcast in Engineer if we didn't talk about the impact of AI. So is AI going to supercharge systems thinking and digital twins? Just the ability to use them, develop them, look at options, improve productivity?

Mark
I think it definitely has the potential to do that, but also it has the potential to mess things up in quite a big way. I think that it's really important with AI that we determine the future we want and then we move towards it, rather than just dumbly receive the future that somebody else gives to us.

And so I think that, particularly with AI, it's really important for us to define a human future where people are at the centre, where digitalization is all about enabling people. And so we don't kind of trip up or suddenly sleepwalk into this place where we have humans serving machines. It should be the other way around.

Machines serve the humans. And I do worry. I worry that, you know, if we're not intentional about that, if we don't start with the end in mind, it's the same point, isn't it? If we don't do that, we'll end up in a place where humans are just slaves to machines. So if we sort that out, if we work out what we want to achieve with AI and then understand the steps to get there, I think AI can be fantastic for us.

For sure, it can be, but I don't think it's a given. I think that we have to kind of fight for this. And definitely when it comes to digital twins, there's so many ways in which you can use AI around a digital twin, which I would love to bore you about, but I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't.

But there's just one I would mention which is the whole thing of using AI within the heart of a digital twin. Because in the heart of a twin is a model and those models are usually physics based or agent based models. You can imagine with AI is replacing those models with an AI based model, which is really good, but because it ends up being cheaper and faster.

And the trick is to train the AI model on the physics based model that it's replacing. So there's a lot of opportunity in there. But as I said, I would worry that if we don't determine the future we want with AI, we will sleepwalk into a future that we don't want.

David
The final question on this section, which was really about are we teaching people coming out of university now, Engineers coming out of university, are they learning about systems thinking or are we? We're still teaching old school stuff, shall we say?

Mark
A lot are, but then it doesn't mean that they kind of step into jobs where systems thinking is what is required. So I think that when it comes to systems thinking, we need to kind of up our capability across the board. It's not just people kind of learning in universities, we kind of need to do it across us old guys.

Am I allowed to say that?

David
I don't think so. I think I definitely fit into that category.

Mark
But I think the language which has been used around this just kind of works for me that very often we get trained, we have trained people to be I shaped, meaning you learn about a particular subject and go into deeper and deeper depth and you're kind of I shaped. And the argument is that for systems thinking you need T shaped people, meaning that yes, you get the depth of knowledge in a particular area.

We will always need more depth of knowledge. But also you've got the kind of the crossbar at the top of the T which means you can join up with others. Because it's that joining up, it's that connection across people, across organisations, across sectors, that's what makes systems thinking work. And so it's kind of the connections that we have to add.

David
I'm an ex Submariner, so that's the exact model that we follow. You learn about all the systems, everybody else's role before you really learn your own. And the benefits of that are massive in terms of professionalism.

Mark
Yeah, absolutely. Did you call it I shape and T shaped? No, we didn't.

David
Part one, two and three.

Mark
But you recognise that kind of.

David
I recognise that's what it is now, you describing it. Well, thank you, Mark. And I didn't warn you about this, but I'm going to ask you one question right at the end about if you could change one thing, what would it be? But before that, I'm going to attempt to summarise what's been a.

A truly fascinating discussion about the built environment. So let's have a go at that. The built environment is incredibly societally important to all of us. We spend a lot of time in buildings. We should treat it. Treat buildings as projects when they're done, but with a bigger picture view and outputs in mind rather than say simply financial or time.

It's about the longer term, the longer picture and, and the connectivity within that. The use of digital twins digitization AI are tools that can help us to get there, but they are not necessarily the most important bit. You need to be able to collaborate across engineering practises and trades throughout the whole process and I presume that runs into operation of buildings at the same time.

And if we do that, we'll end up with a better societal output. People who are with better physical, mental, well, being more productive, able to do the things they want to do and a better society, I think.

Mark
So all of that, everything you just said, for fewer pounds.

David
For fewer pounds, yes.

Mark
Surely we want that. That sounds like good economic sense, doesn't it?

David
You should become a politician. There might be a few roles open after this evening. Back to that one question. What thing would you change if you could?

Mark
I think it probably is something we touched on earlier on, which is the definition of value, because that's kind of what ultimately matters. And I think that if we could tweak it so that we defined value in terms of outcomes, then we would start to reorient the kind of the whole industry and that would kind of force us to work out what outcomes we want, if that's what value is.

So, yeah, that would be my one thing. It's not an easy thing, by the way, but that would be my one thing.

David
Mark Enzer from Mott MacDonald, thank you very much.

Mark
My pleasure.

David
Thank you for tuning in today. Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast for more in depth conversations and if you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a review and share with your colleagues. Stay connected with BESA for the latest updates and insights into our industry. And until next time, I'm David Frise, and this has been behind the Built Environment.

Goodbye.