Behind The Built Environment Episode 27

David: Welcome to Behind the Built Environment. I'm David Frise, and my guest today is Ant Burd, Director at BSI Standards. With more than 35 years in construction, engineering, enforcement, and building regulations, Ant knows how standards translate into practice. Today we're asking whether they're helping us deliver better buildings or not. Ant, welcome.

Ant: Thank you, David. Thank you for inviting me.

David: Pleasure. We always ask the first question, it's always the same. Did you choose the career or did the career choose you?

Ant: It was really a bit of both. So I always wanted to work in construction, and so after completing my O-levels, I decided to leave a comprehensive secondary school in South London and I went to Croydon College to study a 2-year OND in Building Studies. As part of that process, we had to do work experience.

I spent one week in a small building surveying practice and enjoyed it, and I spent the second week working in Croydon Building Control and I adored it. And it was from there I decided that I'd like to spend more time for my start of my career in all things building regs, approved documents, and ultimately standards.

David: You said you always wanted to be into construction. What, what was the attraction?

Ant: For me, it was building things. I've always viewed buildings as being hugely important. And of considerable interest to me. I also had some, some older cousins that worked in construction as well, and I looked up to them, so it just felt like a natural place for me to go.

David: Yeah, you have to be able to see the path, don't you?

Ant: Yeah, absolutely.

David: You need to see somebody who's doing it you could look up to. Yeah. So we— 5 quickfire questions just to set the agenda for our audience today. Yes or no, please. Uh, sounds far easier than it is. Can a building comply with standards and still perform badly?

Ant: Yes.

David: Is a qualification enough to prove competence?

Ant: No.

David: Should contractors help write the standards they use?

Ant: Yes.

David: Would you trust AI to interpret a safety-critical standard without a human check?

Ant: No.

David: Can good standards make construction more productive?

Ant: Yes.

David: Well, I think you win the top prize for that. Those are the most affirmative yes-nos we've ever had. It's normally a Ooh, that depends. So, well, congratulations on that.

Ant: Thank you.

David: What do you think people most misunderstand about standards?

Ant: Probably the biggest thing is the status of a standard. I speak to many people, and I've been in this role some 12 years now, and still they refer to standards as being rules, regulations, and mandatory. The truth be told, the vast majority of our standards are there to be voluntary in their application.

They're consensus-built and they set out what good looks like. What's critical to understand what a standard is, is the status that is conveyed upon it. If it's cited in regulation, if it's cited in approved guidance, or if it's in a condition of contract or funding, then somebody's conveyed a certain status upon it.

Thereafter, invariably, the standards are voluntary, setting out what good looks like.

David: So essentially, the role of BSI is for the industry to decide what the standard is for Is that how it works on that basis?

Ant: Broadly, we can only do what we do by bringing together our expert committee members, and it's a very broad church. You asked me a question at the start that should contractors be involved in standards making? Yes, they should, but so should everybody else from the sector. That way we can bring expertise together and understanding and talk about what good looks like.

Of course, what sits behind that is research and understanding, and when you bring that together and you You follow a consensus route, you develop standards which we then publicly consult upon, again, all of the industry and beyond, and then we answer the questions or disagreements that are made as part of that public consultation and we refine the document to ultimately have a good practice standard.

David: Can anybody respond to the consultations? They're open and—

Ant: Completely open.

David: People therefore presumably should if they have an interest in an industry.

Ant: Yes, please. We need more people to comment upon our standards. It's fair to say that since Grenfell, the interest in standards has been raised, and therefore we are gladly getting more and more commentary on standards, and we're getting more input. But whether you're a member of the public or a long-serving structural engineer, we need your input, and we need the input of consumers more than ever, and residents as well.

Their feedback is invaluable.

David: All stakeholders then?

Ant: All stakeholders.

David: Where should regulation stop and the standards take over here?

Ant: There's no one single interface. Obviously, you know, as I touched upon, for some 16 years I was a government regulator in the building regulation space, and I was always taught regulation is typically the last point, port of call. If people are not going to do things they wouldn't otherwise ordinarily do, then we might have to regulate.

And so we have lots of examples, even in our industry, in our sector, where standards hold a really important role. So for me, an example would be building information management, BIM. Right information at the right time, in the right form, to the right people. And we standardised that, and we did it as voluntary standards, working with the relevant government departments, our industry.

So we developed both national and ultimately fed into the development of international standards on BIM. And they were used in a way by government, ultimately not from a regulatory standpoint, but they conditioned their use depending upon the size of the building, the type of the building, typically for the government estate. And you had to use them.

There was no regulation. So that's making a market, developing standards to create a playing field, terminology, an interface, a trusted supply chain through our sector. Thereafter, we do have An awful lot of regulations in our sector. We are heavily regulated, and therefore they have a role. So typically across the UK, but if we take England as an example, they have their building regulations, and they're supported by approved documents, statutory guidance.

They're big documents collectively, over 1,000 pages, but they can't cover every attribute of design and construction, and so they refer out to standards, all sorts of standards, not just BSI standards, but a lot of ours. Over 300 are cited in approved documents, whether it be fire alarm systems or lift installations. And again, it sets out what good looks like, what might be one way of showing compliance with that regulation.

David: I think we've always said in BESA that being a highly technical industry, and unapologetically technical at that, that the technical standard and regulation should be the friend of the contractor in that they take the subjective to the objective. Did it meet the standard?

Ant: Did it meet the regulation?

David: Does that still hold? And what do you do when there's an apparent contradiction, say, between a European standard and a UK standard? or an international standard, both are quoted in a specification.

Ant: I think for me the big discussion is that collaboration piece, to talk it through. If we take the example of whereby we might have conflicting standards, we work hard to make sure that doesn't typically happen. So if we're working on a European standard, for example, and the UK and BSI as a top table member of CEN is feeding in the experts thoughts on the development of a European standard, we shouldn't be having a conflicting standard in place at a national level, and so we'll typically withdraw it.

So again, it's that discussion to be had. If you're having conflicting standards in place in a contract or a condition of funding, you need to explore that and talk about it. Don't leave it to the design stage, don't leave it to the construction stage, and talk it through. And actually, what you're setting out to achieve is to either achieve compliance with maybe building regulations or to meet your contractual demands.

So explore it and agree sensibly and note that down and move on. So it's surmountable, but people need to talk it through.

David: So since Grenfell, what has changed in how the industry works, do you think, and what still needs to change?

Ant: So I think thankfully we've come a long way from Grenfell. There has been improvements made and that's really important. We've seen stronger regulation. We've seen clearer accountability in terms of who is responsible for compliance, duty holders and their roles. We've seen situations where finally we've seen requirements for competency to be in place of the relevant individuals that work within our sector.

And we have seen a coming together where the importance of ensuring building safety is front and centre. However, I still speak at many events, I listen to and attend many events and similar, and there's a great part a sizable part of our sector that don't believe that building safety affects them because they don't deal with tall residential buildings.

I don't deal with that, I don't deal with cladding. The changes that have been brought about since that horrific event that is Grenfell, it doesn't touch them. But it does, and they need to understand that. So we need more consistent application, more understanding. We still need to improve skills and competency and collaboration in our sector and actually make sure we're always thinking about building safety when we are designing, building, and ultimately maintaining a building.

David: I think you left the MHCLG in 2013?

Ant: End of 2013.

David: But were still called to give evidence at the inquiry. What was that experience like and what did it teach you?

Ant: I think from my perspective, first and foremost, we need to think about the 72 people that lost their lives in that tragedy and the loved ones they left behind. So that's the all-important aspect. For me, I think it just showed that making sure you completely understand everything that's happening in your policy landscape is key.

It's really important that you capture the insight and learning. And, you know, I left in 2013, the fire happened in 2017, but I was discussing the work I undertook in the department back in 2001. But for me, it's being professional, it's being open and being honest. And my feedback after my 2-day appearance before the inquiry, I finished with those things that If I had known then what I knew now, then I would have done a few things differently.

My understanding of competition and the effects of price in the market and the capability and expertise that resided in our industry and the competence, I would have looked at things differently.

David: We briefly touched on the things that need to change in the industry post-Gramphall. We've talked about some people really still don't get it. What would you say is, what would you be looking for to go, Yeah, the industry's finally got it and has moved, moved on in a positive manner since Grenfell.

Ant: I think it's the coming together. It's us all talking the same language. It's us being collaborative and understanding that I'm not going to cost-cut. I shouldn't be bound by unreasonable timeframes. I have to— we work as a collective and we design appropriately, we build appropriately. And that's key for me. There are still too many people that think it just doesn't affect them, and it does.

And I think it will take time. I think massive inroads have been made, and I look at the professional institutions and they're doing great, great jobs. Government continue to push forward with new supporting legislation and similar. We just want that clarity that we all do understand what is needed of us, and ultimately I suppose we should be suitably competent to realise that what we are doing is correct, And where we can't do it because we haven't got the competence, we know that and we can get the right people and entities in to help us in such aspects.

David: On the competence, right, so how do we distinguish real genuine competence from just good paperwork?

Ant: Right, so real competence for me is sound judgement and practical experience and how you utilise that and apply that in every day, not least in real projects that sit before you. Yeah. For me, good paperwork is great, setting out procedures is appropriate, but it's your capability and understanding of yourself, your own personal competence, and how you apply that correctly is key.

David: So interesting you said about experience there being a factor in competence, and I think it's recognised that that is the case. With the advent of more and more AI coming into play, How do you get young engineers in particular experience when they maybe don't do the grunt stuff that past generations had to do that gave them that solid grounding and the ability to get an AI answer and go, no, that's not right.

Ant: Yeah.

David: Or yeah, that looks, that looks about the answer I'd be expecting. How do we do that? Because, you know, that ship has sailed, hasn't it? That, that experience piece.

Ant: I don't think it has sailed. I just think we need to come together as academia, employers, government, professional institutions, BSI, and set out what good looks like on a learning experience and how you engage. AI is unbelievably powerful. Yeah, I've just got the latest new iPhone. It's quite unbelievable. However, it makes mistakes.

It makes some big mistakes. And I think that understanding that it has a role to play, it can be unbelievably supportive. But the human interaction, the human knowledge, the ability, as I was taught reading a set of plans, is the plans don't look right. I can't tell you why, but they just don't look right.

That's still much needed. And, you know, off the back of COVID getting people back into offices, working with their seniors and their peers, and having things explained appropriately and properly to actually put in place that AI, yes, it's unbelievably helpful. But it's not a substitute for competent individuals that ultimately have to sign off on design or the building or the handing over of a building generally.

David: We're in a highly, highly fragmented industry and there are a lot of small contractors out there. How do you make standards easier for small contractors to access and understand and use? I mean, quite often we would get the, there's a standard for this and you go, this is all you do, mate. You should know that there's a standard for this.

Ant: It's a really good question, and it's something that BSI have been working very hard to try and address, because there is no doubt the biggest issue for us on that journey is for you to understand that you've actually found all of the relevant standards in the first place. Okay, so for me, it's being able to find the relevant standards.

Then another huge area for us is accessibility. People say to us standards should be free, and I'd love for standards to be free, but at the end of the day, we're not a government department. Our time is not paid for, and there's 400 of us working with our all-important committee experts to develop these good practice guides, and we need income to pay for that operation.

But we have been working with some of the smaller firms, some of the smaller micro entities, and we have offers in place which allows the smaller parts of the marketplace to access all of our content, not just the built environment content, all of it at view only but at a much reduced price to give them that accessibility.

Thereafter, when we think about SMEs, I think having a focused approach on different sectors and subsectors, checklists, short summaries about a standard are really important. We've been doing that more and more, but we've got more to do.

David: If we look particularly at energy performance, which is always— I've always felt is a tell on the building. So if a building's out on energy performance, it's probably out on everything because you can't just be Crap, shall we say, in energy performance.

Ant: Yeah.

David: You know, there must be holes in the building or whatever.

Ant: Yeah. Yeah.

David: How do standards help deliver that?

Ant: You asked at the start of this interview about the interface between regulation and standards, and that's a really good example. So wherever you are in the UK, okay, whether you're in England or any of the devolved administrations, the guidance that they put out that supports the regulations on energy efficiency are really impressive and they're very detailed.

And they're very focused. Thereafter, we can use standards to support that because standards typically are also outcomes-focused, okay, and they set out requirements of what needs to be achieved. And therefore, you can use those relevant standards interfacing with the regulations to actually consider what do I need to do and what do I need to achieve on the design, on the construction, on the commissioning, which is hugely important, and ultimately on its day-to-day operation.

and have feedback loops in place to aid learning and capture mistakes and improve. So hopefully by the end of you've gone through that process, you've got to a place whereby the building is performing as originally intended.

David: Has anybody ever been prosecuted for a failure to comply with Part L of building regs, do you know?

Ant: Well, you'd need to speak to Building Control for, for that.

David: I don't think they have, you know.

Ant: But the argument and suggestion would be by by having the building control function in place, they should be assessing and capturing where there have been mistakes made.

David: Yeah.

Ant: And assessing that. But you're right, it's an area, and it's the same for building safety. Obviously we've got this new regulatory approach in place, and very welcome it is too, but we've asked and we hope government and co will consider it and enforce it and be properly resourced to do it. But they should hold up these cases that they do ultimately take forward, especially where there are prosecutions.

Because it's a very powerful tool for showing our industry this is the outcome if you don't do it correctly.

David: It's almost the only tool, to be honest, and people have to see themselves in that picture and think, this could be me. We've touched on AI, so I'd like to explore a bit more around that and how technical knowledge is created and accessed. And we're still very much in industry, I think we've touched on this as well, that just good enough is probably a bit too good.

So there's a great temptation not to buy the standard, but I'll just ask Claude or ChatGPT, what's the standard? How does that impact BSI's role in the coming years? And presumably it's a danger to the business model as well.

Ant: I wouldn't worry too much about the business model. I think what's key for us as BSI, as the national standards body for the UK, is that where people are leaning into AI, which they're doing now to find solutions. I think actually making sure the core of the information that's made available, if it emanates through a standard, is kept up to date and it is maintained.

Because where we're thinking at the moment is people will be taking these questions and putting them into ChatGPT and similar, and they will get answers. But where a client or a mortgage lender asks, How do we know that's correct? Or building control? That's ultimately going to have to be answered. So what's key for BSI, as I say, is this core set of standards, typically outcomes-focused, setting out what the broad sort of approach should be, what the requirements are.

And then we'll start to see AI come together, allow us to actually consult more readily and be far more dynamic in our standards-making. It will also help capture alternative approaches. to how you might meet and ultimately comply with building regulations. And a big push for us at the moment, and it's been happening with structural design software and similar, is it's so important that our standards of the future are not just there to be read by humans, but they need to be machine readable and they need to be embedded in new software, regtech approach that's coming forward.

And that's going to be key for us. So ultimately, core standards, and speaking to my more learned colleagues, we'll start seeing packets of information be shared more readily from standards as well. They need to be interlinked back to the core, but people need packets of information out of multiple standards. And it's how they bring that together and have the trust in that to ensure that they are doing the right thing, that consensus-driven, it's correct.

And it's what good looks like.

David: And with the rate of pace of technology change, not just in the world of AI, but just across all areas, are we heading into an era of rolling, almost continuous standards changes. So they, they get updated as something new comes along rather than every 5 years we do it. It's, it's more rolling.

Is that more likely, do you think?

Ant: I think it'll be a hybrid. I think, as I mentioned a moment ago, I think we'll always have to see our core. What is the core intent? What is the outcome that's wanted to be achieved? What are the requirements? How you get there, I think, will change quite quickly and quite dramatically as learning, technological advance happens in the industry and how it's captured.

So I think it'll be a blend. of bringing that together. But again, at the end of the day, from a BSI perspective, we still need to ensure that people trust the information we bring together and make available of what good looks like.

David: And if you could change one thing about the industry of tomorrow, shall we say, you're the king of the industry for the day, what would you change?

Ant: I've thought long and hard about this for a number of reasons. I initially think about, I have a problem potentially with an industry that is so cost-driven. Wouldn't it be great if we competed on timeliness and quality and how good the end asset was? But if I take that up a tier, I'm coming back to something I mentioned earlier.

And I think as an industry, what I'd change is I'd wish to see greater collaboration, top-down, bottom-up, regulator, enforcer, builders, their supply chains, and that feedback and understanding shared. And an agreement of what good looks like, and that's what we're going to build. Then I think we'd be in a much better place and ultimately we'd deliver better, more sustainable and safer buildings.

David: Thank you very much indeed.

Ant: Thank you.

David: And thank you for listening to Behind the Built Environment. If you enjoyed the conversation, please share it, subscribe and leave us a review. Reviews are really important for our rating. I'm David Frise, and until next time, goodbye.