{"id":362,"date":"2025-06-03T14:08:11","date_gmt":"2025-06-03T14:08:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/?page_id=362"},"modified":"2025-06-08T16:17:22","modified_gmt":"2025-06-08T16:17:22","slug":"advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

BIM4Housing: Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025<\/strong><\/h2>\n

RICHARD FREER \u2026to the people they\u2019re advising, but also their own. Tackling Gateways and delays in the approval process by identifying information blockers. So, I\u2019d like you all to participate in this. What do you think? Does that cover it? What else would you like to add to that list?<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR I would say there needs to be an inclusion, or certainly a mention, of management of design risk as well. Specifically relating to achieving the design intent. The reason I mention that is that the common assumption would tend to be for me to be stating that, that would be helping consultants manage the acquisition of that risk. But I disagree with that. The number of times that we are asked to, or it\u2019s assumed that we\u2019re effectively buying up the design risk of the principal designer. So therefore, it\u2019s up to me (and this is hypothetically, it\u2019s not), but it\u2019s assumed that it\u2019s up to me or my organisation to prove and confirm your design intent as a principle designer.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s simply not the case. We can provide advice, we can provide opinion, we can provide substantiating evidence to support certain design intent, certain design arrangements. But if the test information does not exist to prove it, or if the testing standards don\u2019t exist to be able to provide proof of compliance of the design intent, all e can do is say that is the best solution that we\u2019re able to provide. It\u2019s then up to you as a principal designer, the architect or the main contractor or whoever the principal designer might be under CDM, it\u2019s up to you to decide whether you\u2019re happy with that. Or whether you want to revert to a much simpler arrangement and completely redesign that area of the building, or the entire building entirely, to align with arrangements that can be tested.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Patrick, what\u2019s your opinion on that as an architect?<\/p>\n

PATRICK WILSON The correct management of design risk starts at the beginning. So, if a design is partially completed, or in the architect\u2019s sort of thinking complete, and it throws up unmanageable or difficult to manage design risks, then they haven\u2019t done the job properly. I would assume that whether it\u2019s under CDM, I mean there are complex circumstances where this might not apply, but where it\u2019s under CDM or under the BSA the lead designer is also the principal designer. And if somebody else is able to point out that they haven\u2019t managed the design risks until partially down, they\u2019ve obviously not started at the beginning. And considered the consequences of every line that they\u2019ve drawn.<\/p>\n

It shouldn\u2019t be getting to the point of, it\u2019s part of a design team collaboration. I\u2019m not quite sure what Matt\u2019s business is. If a client needs Matt to come in and say actually, this is a cockeyed design because there are areas that can\u2019t be tested, or where the risk cannot be properly assessed. Then actually that represents a very serious slap back on the rest of the design team, and indeed on the client for not having managed the collaboration process that includes that sort of cyclical iterative feedback from the beginning. I don\u2019t mind if somebody can demonstrate that I\u2019m wrong, but from bitter experience i\u2019ve barged ahead and done things in the past and then found\u2026<\/p>\n

You can come up with any brilliant design, but if you can\u2019t hold it up, quite apart from the design risks. But if it\u2019s structurally challenging or impossible, well then, the design is hopeless. It\u2019s got to be buildable and it\u2019s got to be buildable safely.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER So, are you saying that we don\u2019t to check on that, or are you agreeing with Matt that we do?<\/p>\n

PATRICK WILSON You do need to check on it, but you shouldn\u2019t need to check on it. The checking on it is done, that is part of the design process. Because we know things now, it\u2019s not the same thing as building the Rotherhithe tunnel in 1810. Or rather that Grand Union Canal, the Regent\u2019s Canal, where actually everyone was relatively careless about the fate of the Irish labourer running wheel barrows up 30-foot ramps and falling off of the edge of them.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER OK, so we\u2019ll add that in. Does anybody else have something they think we should add in there?<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES I\u2019m technical director for Clarke Banks. I\u2019m with Patrick, everything should be agreed upfront. There\u2019s no harm in checking the checker. That\u2019s the whole point of what was the principal designer role and now has obviously been extended to principal designer for fire or Part B. Everybody is overlooking what\u2019s been suggested, and I mean this is the nicest possible way Patrick, but architects have the most fancy ideas. And sometimes bringing it to fruition, science won\u2019t allow it. So, that\u2019s why the design team as a whole has an input, that won\u2019t work because of this.<\/p>\n

Or we can\u2019t make it work under ADB, so if we apply BS9991or 9999 it will work, but it still needs to look like this. So, I don\u2019t think that we need to reinvent the wheel, but there is always a need for checking the checker.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER And is there anything else you think we should put on our list, Gareth, in terms of things that we should be aiming to do?<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES Let me give it some thought, there\u2019s nothing that springs to mind at this moment in time.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER OK, let me just read it out again. Supporting competence and information management. Addressing liability concerns and helping consultants manage risk, including their own. Tackling Gateways and delays in the approval process by identifying information blockers. Bex, let me come to you. is there anything you think we should be including in that?<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON As you know, I mainly work on post-occupancy side of things, so I would say that element. So, the Building Safety Act requirements in terms of Golden Thread and building safety case reports and things like that. And best practice in terms of that side of things. So, you\u2019ve mainly been talking about construction and Gateway, which is very relevant, but so is the post-occupancy side of things.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER So, is there anything specific you want us to put on the list?<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON It\u2019s just good to talk to people on what we\u2019ve found is best practice, especially now that the building assessment certificates have been issued for successful applications. So, what people\u2019s experiences with that is and just sharing best practice, because there\u2019s not a lot of conversations that I\u2019ve been involved with for the post-occupancy for successful applications yet. So, that would be really handy.<\/p>\n

SYPRIAN A PITKIN I work as building designer and a compliance consultant, BR\/PD role at Franken? 10 mins 38secs. My comment on this is basically from my experience, at the moment we\u2019re not getting the basic right at the moment. So, to be adding things to it, I think it would be a bit at this stage, more onerous. The thing is consultants, whether that be designers, whether it be clients, are not getting the basic right at present. They\u2019re not getting their basic duties. And I think what we need to be doing at the moment is actually trying to get them to understand what\u2019s required at this stage.<\/p>\n

We need to understand what is to be done. And I find that I\u2019m struggling in projects where people are even arguing, trying to put up an argument that they don\u2019t need to. So, it\u2019s about getting everybody onboard right now.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER So, as a consultant you\u2019re saying the first thing that we need to do is communicate the requirements and the needs, so that we can get our clients and their workforce or other consultants onboard. Is that what you\u2019re saying?<\/p>\n

SYPRIAN A PITKIN That\u2019s what I\u2019m saying.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES To add another point, the items lessons learned. We have to share lessons learned through all of the process, good and bad. And also share any best practice, or any innovation. So, any innovation that makes things simpler. Legislation is very complex and that\u2019s why we find ourselves in this muddle where so much has, been thrown at the industry, everybody is trying to interpret it. And when you assume, it makes an ass out of you and me. So, communication has got to be right the first thing that we\u2019re doing, clear and concise. Best practice, lessons learned, things like that.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Absolutely. I think also actually as consultants, we have an obligation to make sure that we\u2019re right up to speed on anything that effects our specialism. Which is not always the case, I\u2019ve found.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES No, absolutely, and sometimes that\u2019s more of a business model where people are holding on to information because you\u2019re the gatekeeper then and it generates revenue. Whereas I think about things differently. We\u2019ve got an on-boarding process that\u2019s soon to start with clients and, for instance, if a client engages with us for a Gateway 2-3 process, they will receive a CPD, them and their team, on what\u2019s expected to get through the Gateway process.<\/p>\n

So, the size of drawings, what information is required etc. etc., so that when they leave our experience they can take it into the next scheme. It\u2019s not about me being on the next scheme, I want everybody to be up to speed and almost be self-reliant. And that\u2019s kind of talking consultants out of a job, but we\u2019ve all got a duty of care to make sure that the built environment lasts beyond our legacy.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER I think what you\u2019re saying and touching on is really important, and that\u2019s we need to be very clear and know our own processes. We have to put processes in place that are repeatable and scaleable for the way that we operate and the way that we\u2019re going to operate with clients. It\u2019s not a seat of the pants thing.<\/p>\n

GEORGE STEVENSON I\u2019m just apologising because I\u2019m travelling down to Digital Construction Week, so I\u2019m sorry that I\u2019m not fully engaged in the project, but I\u2019ve been listening to everything. I just wanted to reinforce something that Gareth has just said there. It ties back to what we\u2019re trying to do with the Golden Thread Taskforce and that is that the recommendations that Gareth would give to his clients will filter through to their supply chain. Now, that supply chain will also be working for other clients who will also have consultants who will also be advising them on what needs to be done. And i think it\u2019s really important that we try and align what those requirements are because otherwise the supply chain will get mixed messages in terms of what\u2019s expected of them, and they will get it wrong.<\/p>\n

So, we raised this in the development group meeting last week and all of the development group said that they would be keen to standardise what they were putting into their EIRs and their requirements. So Gareth, I think that would be a really good thing for us to look at, as far as the Taskforce is concerned, so that we\u2019ve got a standardised set of information requirements that we can then work through. Would you agree?<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES Absolutely. I know that you and I follow each other on LinkedIn, and those who follow me on LinkedIn, I put out probably monthly simplifying guides to different processes that break down legislation into language that people can understand. So yeah, I\u2019m in total agreement.<\/p>\n

Olayemi Usman I work for Turner & Townsend as a ? carbon ? 17mins 20secs. One thing that I want to add as what we need to do as a group, as a consultancy, is we should help clients not to just think about the initial benefits, but the long term goals. Because once I understand working with people, they just want the initial gratifications. So, if we add into our roles the group tasks like OK, having clients understand the long term benefits of applying a particular technologies or a particular standard on a project, it\u2019s going to help them more when thinking throughout the project lifecycle.<\/p>\n

And in addition to what Syprian said, it\u2019s about understanding the why of what the group is all about, what consultancies want to offer. So, I understand that when you talk about consultancies it\u2019s in very, very broad terms which involve a lot of things. So instead of us looking at different things at the same time, I would suggest we should just take things in bits and we can expand from there. So, the first question is to understand they why and, of course, the challenges we want to actually tackle as a group. That\u2019s one thing that I would suggest because consultancy might be simple and complex in the same instance, if we don\u2019t manage it very well.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER And we\u2019re certainly on a path on the same page, in terms of the need for better communication from us. OK, so we\u2019ve got some interesting additions to our original list. Now, George mentioned the Golden Thread Taskforce, which some of you will have heard of and some of you won\u2019t, which is very germaine to our discussion on the communication side of things. George, are you able to give a run through on the Golden Thread Taskforce?<\/p>\n

GEORGE STEVENSON The principle is that what we\u2019re trying to do is standardise, as far as possible, what information is being requested from people, as Gareth was saying earlier. But more importantly, to produce a standardised method of auditing what\u2019s being provided so that we can give a health check to clients and construction teams as to whether the information that they are getting, and maybe will be presenting to the Regulator or to Building Control, is going to be adequate.\u00a0 And if we can standardise that, at least at a basic level.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve been concentrating on fire safety on the basis that if they can\u2019t get the fire safety bit right with all of the effort that\u2019s been put in to that, then the likelihood is that the more complex things aren\u2019t going to go very well either. So, we\u2019ve produced a video on Saturday which Richard can send you a link to which explains what the Golden Thread Taskforce is doing. Some of you are already involved in it, but if you could spread the word that would be good. And the principle idea is that we\u2019re going to be able to give to projects, or clients or organisations, a sort of assessment to say that they\u2019re aware of the Golden Thread and they understand the principles of what the Golden Thread is trying to achieve.<\/p>\n

Now, if we can do that it means that we can start to raise the standards of what people are doing. And also start to influence senior management. The one last thing that I would say is that we did a survey at the meeting a couple of weeks ago, in terms of the state of the industry in terms of information that\u2019s expected. And importantly, whether senior management actually understand and appreciate their duties under the new regulations. And when you take a look at it, I think you\u2019ll find that it\u2019s quite shocking. Not surprising\u2026<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER That\u2019s in a nutshell roughly what we\u2019re doing with the Golden Thread Taskforce and I\u2019ll share the video link when I can find it. Has anybody got any questions or comments on that as an idea, a methodology, a tool?<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES If you don\u2019t mind if I share, I\u2019ve got a number of publications that I wrote that I can share with the group. One is simplifying PAS 1192 which is surrounding the Golden Thread. It simplifies and breaks down that in language that everybody can understand, hopefully. I\u2019ve also wrote another publication which is leveraging change management to better your Golden Thread. So, I\u2019ve got lots of publications I\u2019ll put together that I can share with the group.<\/p>\n

As I say, my and George\u2019s intent is if everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet and delivers the same, then we can weed out the problems that we\u2019re faced with every day and take away the fact people are afraid to build because they are unsure of how to get through the Gateways. We obviously need building to keep going or else all of us on this call won\u2019t be doing anything in 12 months-time. So, I\u2019ll drop them into the chat.<\/p>\n

GEORGE STEVENSON Just one little point. The idea of the Taskforce is also to enable people like the group here to be able to work collaboratively on fee earning work, to be able to advise people, but be able to draw up people with different expertise. So Matt Taylor, for example, is a real expert in partitioning and ceilings\/sealings? 25 mins 36secs and things like that. And therefore the fabric side of things, he can provide a lot of practical experience to anybody that needs that level of experience. And we\u2019ve got other people on the call who will have diverse experience. So therefore the intention with this is that we\u2019re creating within the Taskforce a community of people who can provide absolute expert guidance to clients.<\/p>\n

And to contractors, because the challenge that main contractors have got at the moment is that actually what they\u2019re doing is they\u2019re taking information from many dozens of different specialists. And they\u2019re then trying to pull that together into something that\u2019s coherent. And unless they can get that in an aligned way, then their Golden Thread is going to be broken. Matt\u2019s got examples of that. The other thing is the point that Patrick\u2019s made at the beginning is very sound. The challenge is that the procurement process means there\u2019s normally a complete disconnect between who designed the building and then who\u2019s delivering it.<\/p>\n

And we\u2019re not going to change design & build even if we want to in short order. So therefore we need to recognise that procurement methods at the moment are breaking those Golden Thread connections and also the design responsibilities. So we need to figure out how we can have that, maybe the DNA of the information management being able to run through from design into design and construction, into construction and then into asset management. And that\u2019s really what the Golden Thread is about.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER We\u2019ve got a list of aims of the group, so what do we do next? What\u2019s the first steps? Do we take one of those individually and break it all down? How should we address it? Syprian was talking about starting at the beginning and breaking it down into manageable bits, does that make sense? Is that what we should do with our aims? What is our methodology?<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR I think we need a clear definition, as in key points that we\u2019re aiming to achieve through this. If we\u2019ve got an overall outcome, what are the key points that we\u2019re hoping for? So, we might have understanding of the information requirement to meet Gateway where consultant advice is brought in. That\u2019s an ongoing concern for us at the moment. I spoke at London Build not that long ago, I was on a panel, and the input from all parties was we need specialist trade consultant advice involved earlier.<\/p>\n

We had an architect from one of the larger practices involved and she stated there is benefit to having it involved earlier, but the architectural budget just doesn\u2019t allow for it. So, everyone involved is saying the same thing, but the changes aren\u2019t necessarily happening that need to happen, to be able to build more efficiently.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Well, to some extent the role of a consultant in many cases is actually to help the client save money or do things more efficiently. So having a consultant onboard earlier is not mutually exclusive from watching budgets, is it?<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR Absolutely. More or less every project that we\u2019re involved in, you look at the point where we\u2019re involved in and normally at a point in the project where it\u2019s been acknowledged that the design information is wrong and inachieveable and incorrect to a point that it\u2019s now resulting in project delays, additional costs, quite severe measures. And you look at that and you think well, had we been involved 12 months earlier, all of that would have been avoided. But you never get somebody in to fix something before you know that it\u2019s broken.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Well yeah, that\u2019s part of the communication thing again, part of our communication. I\u2019m not saying that I know the answer to it. I think that\u2019s an age old issue for consultants.<\/p>\n

PATRICK WILSON Just drawing on Matt\u2019s comments. If you have work you\u2019re running on design & build and there is a reluctance on the part of the client to engage specialists at the right point for efficient execution, seamless linear progression of a design. Then, I\u2019m a bit rusty on D&B now because it\u2019s a long time since I\u2019ve done anything, but what we need to be able to demonstrate through say Matt\u2019s experience, is how much the redesign costs in practical terms and in time delays, the failure to engage the right people at the right time. Now, that does turn part of D&B upside down because you\u2019re going to have to engage in a procurement process, long before the design is finalised.<\/p>\n

And in fact this is an issue that comes up even in traditional procurement where the assumption is that the architect and other members of the consultant design team know exactly what they want and how to achieve it. But they aren\u2019t the people doing the building. And whoever is going to execute the project probably has an alternative way certainly thinks that they\u2019ve got a more economic way. But it\u2019s very often once something is onsite to determine whether that\u2019s a genuine circumstance or merely a commercial decision on the part of the contractor. So, by drawing people in at the beginning, the people who are going to build it in some form, whichever part of it, design, specialist installations much earlier on, is definitely financially, but it adds financial risk if the project doesn\u2019t proceed.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the reason, last night I sat in a community meeting of a whole bunch of residents down here in Wiltshire, with everybody agonising about an application for a permission in principle, which is a concept that is fairly new for me. But the bit that was missed out of that conversation is that the risk of bringing forward a small scheme, the risk of bringing forward a larger scheme for new housing, can be \u00a350,000 for a small builder and that\u2019s too much for them to take the risk on. Now, scale it up and the risks are the same, the cash is greater, but who wants to fork out that sort of money when you haven\u2019t even purchased the site? And you have no idea whether you\u2019re ever going to get consent.<\/p>\n

So, perhaps the task that we should be trying to achieve is an approach where it\u2019s not possible to hide the fact that the risk exists, or that you haven\u2019t considered the risk. I can see that there\u2019s a tendency for financial pressures to be put on consultant teams to deliver more at a lower cost initially, because of the risk to a client. And therefore inevitably for corners to be cut. The principle one is the recording of what you haven\u2019t done and spending the time, and I\u2019m sure there are lots of architects that argue with me really vociferously that I\u2019ve completely misunderstood, that they never make this mistake. But that is just the reality of life.<\/p>\n

GEORGE STEVENSON The thing that we need to draw back to is that what we\u2019re looking at here is the information management side of things. That\u2019s what basically BIM4Housing is about, it\u2019s about the information management. And I absolutely agree with what Patrick has just said there, but we should keep focus on what information is needed, what\u2019s the minimum level of information that can be provided to support certain activities. And if we can standardise more of that, then the cost of producing those initial information sets should be reduced, I would have thought, Patrick.<\/p>\n

PATRICK WILSON Well, it certainly should be more predictable. So, if you can devise cost certainty in delivering that information level, then at least the participants understand their position better, I think is the answer. So, if you can\u2019t identify what the commercial risks are, then you tend to say well we\u2019re not going to do it. We\u2019ll kick that one down the road and deal with it when we have to deal with it, when we know that we\u2019ve got a project to deliver.<\/p>\n

GEORGE STEVENSON So if that\u2019s the case, what we should perhaps be doing is looking at where we can really leverage some real value for clients. And that\u2019s probably at Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 and then as Bex is saying, on into the rest of it. The challenge that you\u2019re saying there at the earliest stage, I absolutely agree, that\u2019s where the Golden Thread should start. Is that there is so much uncertainty in that area that probably there\u2019s not that much we can contribute. But there\u2019s a lot we can contribute down the line.<\/p>\n

PATRICK WILSON Certainly down the line, but I think if you\u2019re generating a standardised set of information requirements, if not money but certainly risk can be attached to each item. And from all of the people that I\u2019ve witnessed in your BIM4Housing and BIM information management working groups, they all seem to say the same message, although they have their particular agendas in advocating a position, We need to collaborate on that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE STEVENSON I agree. I think the information requirement side of things and the asset information requirements is something that we can do a lot to standardise. And in fact actually I think we have done quite a lot to standardise, but we can build on that. I absolutely agree with you, Patrick.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES I just wanted to add one of my thoughts on this and I think I certainly practice it myself, is a standardised risk gap analysis against the project.\u00a0 That will declare to everybody, the client as well, the money men, this is what will happen if you don\u2019t engage upfront with this entity etc. This information is required, without it this is the knock-on effect. Everybody wants honesty, but nobody wants to hear the truth. And when it comes to commercial aspects, you\u2019ve got to pave the way and say upfront you was advised that this information was required.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve done nothing about it, this is now the outcome. So, if it\u2019s sat in delay in the Gateway, it\u2019s because of this. What we need to do is we need to influence behaviours. And I think having a standardised risk gap analysis when we engage with anybody is possibly one of the ways to better that standardisation.<\/p>\n

PATRICK WILSON I would have thought, Gareth\u2019s suggestion is, if we do it and we find that nobody pays any attention to it and they carry on doing what they\u2019ve done for the last 150 years, then at least we\u2019ve tried. But certainly moving along into the, it\u2019s consistent with what George has been saying as well, we have a standardised risk assessment. And really after all it should be a technological solution readily available. Everybody does a risk assessment in everything that they do everyday, and it\u2019s to acknowledge the residual risks.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES Yeah, exactly that, Patrick. It doesn\u2019t need to be arduous, it doesn\u2019t need to be complex, you \u2019re feeding into the metrics what\u2019s required. And it\u2019s that age old adage, you can lead a horse to water but you can\u2019t make it drink. But we\u2019ve got to reinforce the behaviours. If we want change throughout the industry and we\u2019re going to help influence that, that\u2019s the basics of what we\u2019ve got to teach people. If you don\u2019t do this, this is the knock-on effect.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s HSG68, plan, do check, act, these are the basics that people are forgetting with every risk assessment that you do. Whether it be to stop a hazard or whether it\u2019s to stop losing money, apply the same metrics and you should be able to control the outcome better.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER So, what I suggest on that, after the meeting you get highpoint notes and a link to the video of the meeting. What we\u2019ll also get out to you is the updated list of our aims which I\u2019m suggesting we then dissect one by one into more bite-sized pieces and then start knocking them off. Does that make sense?<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES That makes sense, Richard.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Debbie Carlton is actually one of the leaders of this group, but she\u2019s not been able to come today which is hence I\u2019m sitting here. She\u2019s actually started in a pre-meeting breaking down the competency side of things, because that\u2019s her speciality. For the competency side of what we\u2019re looking to do, the primary focus is on the competency of individuals providing information. Particularly, but not only, in light of new regulatory requirements. There is concern about the confusion between CPD and actual competence. We\u2019ve identified that and what can we do about it.<\/p>\n

And again, lack of standardised frameworks across institutions and disciplines, for example balconies information management is also an issue in terms of competence. The current guidance and assessment, particularly from Johns Vansen\u2019s 44mins 32 secs group, were considered to be a bit vague and diluted. Has anybody got any experience in that? Anything that you\u2019d want to say on that in terms of the competency of yourselves or the people that you are dealing with?<\/p>\n

\u2026we\u2019re talking about breaking it down into bitesized chunks so that we can actually get our head around, Debbie Carlton has already done that with competency to a certain extent. The competency of individuals providing information is a particular focus, somehow covering the confusion between CPD and actual competence, a lack of standardised frameworks for assessing competence and disciplines. And the vague guidance that seems to be coming out even from reputable organisations. Does that affect you in anyway? In terms of the competence of the consultants that you\u2019ve used?<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON As we all know, it\u2019s all a fairly new regime. I know that people in my line of work have the CIB Level 6 building safety management, which gives you the baseline of what we look at. And I know there is a competency paper that the government put out as well and there is broad guidelines.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s about being able to reach out to other people in my industry who are competent in specific things, for example, structural engineers, fire engineers, that side of things. And they\u2019re quite well represented in if they\u2019re chartered, there\u2019s quite\u2026with those specific items. And I think as we go along the building safety aspect, it will be clear what you need and how to provide competency. But there\u2019s not really a set thing at the moment.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER No, but within that particular competency it\u2019s good if it\u2019s all standardised, otherwise how do you prepare. So, is it CIOB 6 or something?<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON Yeah, so they\u2019ve got either a year or a year and a half course, Level 6 in building safety management which combines fire safety and building safety. So, it\u2019s quite in depth and it just teaches us what we look for in terms of post-occupancy.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Now, Debbie would say that training doesn\u2019t equal competence.<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON Absolutely, and that\u2019s the tricky thing that we\u2019re dealing with. So, luckily I\u2019ve got as many years of experience as you can probably get in this and the problem is that it\u2019s just not there, the experience. Because it\u2019s such a new thing and if you\u2019re just coming out of that qualification. So, it\u2019s all about training and up-skilling is what I see this as. Teaching and upskilling people who are in comparative roles, so you\u2019ve got CDM people who can probably move into building safety. You\u2019ve got structural engineers, you\u2019ve got fire engineers.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot of things that can move into it, but it\u2019s very much you do need the experience and you do need to upskill because it\u2019s just not there.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Yeah, so those qualifications that you\u2019re speaking about now are a guide rather than a be all and end all.<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON Yeah, they\u2019re crucial because they\u2019ll show you what you need to do, but absolutely nothing can really compare to experience but it\u2019s so new that it\u2019s all about training and up-skilling.<\/p>\n

SYPRIAN A PITKIN With regards to competency, what I\u2019m finding is that, and somebody just said to it with the difference with the CPD, what is competence. So, if CPDs can be classified as competence and the CPD would be part of that. I\u2019m finding that different desighers are finding it really hard to lay out and demonstrate their competencies in line with the PA 8670 which has now turned to BS 8670, and also the PAS document for the PD and PC. The thing is, while the information is there it\u2019s not set out properly within the PAS documents.<\/p>\n

So, you might get a CV from somebody who has been in the industry for doing this particular skill for like 20 years. Say it\u2019s a fire engineer, and they send you a CV and say this is my competence, but the CV does not the elements or the areas that are supposed to highlight the competencies with regard to regulatory competency, the margin the works on the HRB or what have you. So, I think looking forward, to begin with I feel that we could come up with something, a structured document or a structured process that shows help or assist how all of these competencies can be demonstrated in line with the PAS 8671 and 8673.<\/p>\n

With regard to the confusion between CPD and competencies, there\u2019s always this tendency to confuse the CPD with competency and what have you. But continuous training and education and updating forms part of that knowledge and that skill that will come in the competency. So, when you say CPD, can I ask for you to be more specific when you say is CPD classed as competency. Are you saying if a CPD alone, or just people ongoing CPD standard? 52mins 45secs class, would you say that?<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Yeah, I understand what you\u2019re saying. You see for me, CPD, you can count a CPD if you attend a webinar, if the webinar is accredited, but it doesn\u2019t mean that you\u2019ve learnt anything.<\/p>\n

SYPRIAN A PITKIN Yeah, precisely.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Yeah, in and of itself, obviously as an idea continual professional development is something that obviously is very valuable. But I\u2019m not sure that it\u2019s always very measurable.<\/p>\n

SYPRIAN A PITKIN Well, the thing is for me, CPD is about ongoing learning. But then competency should be about showing we can apply knowledge and skill in a situation. As you say, you might see the CPDs and you might not come out with nothing that you can apply to a project. But then you might do a few CPDs that are project specific. And the regulation also states that learning, whether that be education or training or from work experience, could count as competency. But as you say, how would we measure it?<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Absolutely, this is what we\u2019re hoping to identify in some way.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES What I do is something that I learnt from my time in the military. In the Navy we were given what\u2019s called task bucks, and those task bucks basically covered CPD, what you\u2019d learned, how you demonstrate what you learned. So, what I\u2019m advising my staff is to start to use a task book. So, physical training, we were talking about CIOB Level 6 or whatever it may be. And then demonstrating any CPDs linked to that and also what you\u2019ve applied and what you\u2019ve learned. So, basically you\u2019re demonstrating that you understand and that you\u2019re confident that you can give the information across.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why it\u2019s left vague because if it ever went to court you would be on the stand and you would be grilled, well, what makes you an expert? Nobody is an expert, every day is a school day as far as anybody should be concerned. You have to learn every single day. You demonstrate the behaviours and the knowledge to be able to deliver what it is that you\u2019re selling or talking to people about. So, my advice is always keep a task book and within that task book reference any projects that you\u2019ve been associated with associated with and what your role on that project was.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve got a Masters degree in construction law and resolution, or should I say conflict resolution against contract. I don\u2019t practice that everyday. It doesn\u2019t make me competent as being an expert witness or being an adjudicator. It\u2019s only if I then expand upon that that I can then demonstrate that I\u2019m putting that Masters degree to good use. `so, it\u2019s got to be a fine blend. Having an NVQ Level 12 or whatever it may be doesn\u2019t make you competent.<\/p>\n

A brick layer who\u2019s been laying bricks for 30 years is now being asked to do an NVQ Level 5, so he or she can work on a construction site. They\u2019ve forgotten more than what the NVQ assessors\u2019 actually doing. So, I think reintroducing to the industry a task book of sorts will help this whole argument around competency etc.<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR I don\u2019t think that it\u2019s wise to rely on a CPD as a particularly prominent part of the competency assessment. The reason being I was performing dry lining product CPDs 20 years ago. Even then when they were in person you\u2019d still have people in the back of the room who are technically asleep. Were they learning anything? Probably not. Now, I suspect a lot of them are done over Teams. People who are at home disappearing off. I question whether they\u2019re present most of the time for CPD hours.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m a big fan of employing a SCEB arrangement and I think the whole behaviour section of that is very under-emphasised. It\u2019s something that we really place quite a lot of emphasis on, to be honest. If there\u2019s something that people don\u2019t know, like Gareth has pointed out, you go through life not knowing various bits and pieces, you\u2019re always learning. It\u2019s not the not knowing that necessarily makes somebody incompetent. It\u2019s having the ability to appreciate that you don\u2019t know and knowing where to fine that information and what to look for, not making the assumptions.<\/p>\n

And actually trying to go out and educate yourself so that you are then able to provide a competent response. It is every going to be a question, how do we provide evidence of competency? And I think a lot of that is through skills, through training, but there\u2019s a large amount of that is the behavioural side of it as well.<\/p>\n

PAV SINGH PHULL Can I just say that I support the behavioural aspects that you\u2019ve been talking about. My request is to bring in mentoring and supervision, in addition to what we\u2019re talking about, because that\u2019s what these groups are. These groups allow us to actually be a mentor, but there\u2019s a key aspect in order to change your behaviour and actually learn, we need to write down the projects that we\u2019re on and what we\u2019re learning from those projects, both positive and negative, what were the lessons learned.<\/p>\n

So, we used to do this whilst going through chartership or whatever, but we need that, in addition to training and competency that you\u2019re talking about here, the capability needs to be evaluated. The person that needs to evaluate your capability is one, your organisation that you\u2019re actually working for. They have a duty of care because vicariously they are responsible for your ?? 1hr 5secs. But then on personal professional level, your professional memberships also need you to actually have a network of supervisors and network of people that you can approach to say look, this piece of work has led to the top part of my actual experience, will you supervise my work?<\/p>\n

And this forum allows that sort of open environment where you can say look, I haven\u2019t done this sort of work before, what do you think? And that way, in front of a judge, we can say we\u2019ve gone to industry, this is an equivalent person of my experience doing the same job and this is what they would do. So, we can test whether we\u2019re in the right circle and frame of work.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER That\u2019s absolutely spot on. You\u2019ve brought something up actually, we spoke briefly earlier on about the Golden Thread Taskforce that we\u2019ve set up. Part of that is a mentoring operation. So Pav, what you\u2019re saying, I hear you and we\u2019re looking to hopefully in a small way get some of that covered.<\/p>\n

SYPRIAN A PITKIN During the Covid shutdown I sat in front of the television and I\u2019ve always listened to this update that they give every 2 or 3 days. And there was something that I thought really intriguing and I\u2019ve used it and applied it to\u2026and it goes back to exactly what Gareth, Matt and Pav are saying with regards to behaviour. I\u2019m going to read out something, this is what the minister said. The job of the minister was not to be a subject matter expert. Of course, you need to get to grips with the subject matter, but that is only half of the job.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot of transferable skills handling parliament, communicating with the public, taking decisions effectively. And then you have the subject matter experts who advise you on it all. Nobody is a specialist in the whole health service, literally nobody, even the chief executive. And I\u2019ve used this since I\u2019ve started delivering role as the VRPD and advisory under the BSA and the Part 2 A. I believe that I\u2019m competent, I\u2019m aware of the legislation, in some areas I\u2019m an expert in that area. In some area I can grade myself and say look, I\u2019ve working knowledge, deep understanding knowledge.<\/p>\n

But the thing is at what point do you become competent? I think I become competent where I\u2019ve never done this before, I\u2019m aware of it, but I\u2019m not an expert in it. And within the organisation I ensure that somebody\u2019s appointed on that project fee wise so that I can go back to get that expert knowledge to fully delver my role. So, I\u2019ll just share that to see using this as an approach and see how we can move forward in developing something, a forward streaming process.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER That\u2019s really good, thank you. Certainly the competency bit we\u2019ve got to sort out, or put something together and it\u2019s going to be quite interesting and challenging, to put it mildly.<\/p>\n

BEX GIBSON I think, I\u2019ve just popped this in the chat, it\u2019s about being aware of where your knowledge ends and seeking advice from then. That\u2019s really what competency is, it\u2019s knowing your limits and knowing where and how to get that advice.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Yeah, knowledge is not always external, it\u2019s internal as well.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES What it is, Bex, it\u2019s being aware of your own ego. And that\u2019s what a lot of people are not aware of.<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR In terms of increasing knowledge and really gaining the information to provide organisations with more people who are competent in various areas of construction. There are a whole host of independent trade specialist consultants out there, I can only speak about my own sector in any particular depth. There are M&E consultants and joinery consultants and all manner of consultants for different work packages. Certainly in my own area of the industry which is dry lining and internal fit out and passive fire protection, most of our work is resolving project related problems.<\/p>\n

Very little of it is actually related to training and enhancement within the industry. We work with our advisory body and we do a lot to try and get out there and enhance knowledge. But the actual pull from organisations is relatively low. I can guarantee that probably at least far more than 50% of people involved in any construction project aren\u2019t aware of even the function of a deflection head detail in a partition is for. It\u2019s a fairly simple explanation, but it\u2019s just not one that people are aware of. Now, that\u2019s a 2-minute conversation with somebody who knows, and they can just save a whole lot of time and bother.<\/p>\n

If we can as an industry call on pulling on organisations to enhance and increase knowledge, then that is surely beneficial. But at the moment I don\u2019t believe we\u2019re doing that nearly as much\u2026<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER In terms of we\u2019re not doing it, or they\u2019re not doing it?<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR Well, I consider myself to be in the same, we\u2019re constantly looking for improvements even within our own organisation. But as an industry we\u2019re not, the individual parts of that industry are very focused on fire fighting the problems specifically related to the projects, rather than preventing those problems in the first place. So, are we putting enough emphasis into increasing knowledge right from the point of origin? A great company that I was with previously, a specialist trade contractor, they had their own facility where they used to run dry lining workshops. It was a practical arrangement to get people in to build a section of wall. And they\u2019d have the Tier 1 contractors with tender high level team in, their board members etc, every now and then you\u2019d have an architect., but it was people who are involved with projects. And just having that half day practical was massively beneficial to them in understanding some of the challenges.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER So, you think that the trade organisations, for want of a better word, should take a bigger hand in this.<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR I would say, I\u2019d have to think about how it would be implemented a bit more. It\u2019s one that\u2019s open for discussion. But how do we encourage people, organisations to do more, to draw on more than just trade and manufacturers, I know there is always a cost aspect. But how do we call on individual organisations to try and increase their level\u2026?<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER The problem in any industry with trade bodies is that they\u2019re very siloed. They have a very clear membership that doesn\u2019t look outside. And in most cases they\u2019re not very cooperative with each other, they tend to be, particularly as there is a fee involved in joining, very precious of their members and of sharing anything. That\u2019s not always the case, but it is in many cases. And I think that\u2019s an issue. There are umbrella organisations, but by the time you get up to the umbrella it tends to be very vague. Are you just in housing, Matt, or do you run across the gamut?<\/p>\n

MATT TAYLOR I\u2019m not in housing at all. We\u2019re involved in predominantly healthcare, commercial fitouts, the education sector to some extent. High-rise resi. we\u2019ve involved in, but not really any housing projects.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER That\u2019s good news actually because we\u2019re trying to spread just from BIM4housing out, obviously we\u2019ve been in asset management, out to the whole gamut of the industry.<\/p>\n

GARETH GRIMES It was more just to maybe give Matt some ideas. Obviously you\u2019ve worked within healthcare, Matt, obviously they\u2019ve got HTMs throughout that specify certain things that can and can\u2019t be built within a hospital environment and things like that. The only way we\u2019re really going to be able to influence any sort of change is by coming up with this standardised approach. Now, whether that\u2019s a form of documents or whatever it may be, that\u2019s the only way that we\u2019re going to get people to engage early and take onboard why a deflection head is required, the necessity whatever the instance may be. So this probably becomes that platform for us to try and influence.<\/p>\n

Everybody at the minute is in silos, coming up with wonderful ways to improve things. If we can bring the whole industry together and say let\u2019s just have a common sense approach to this. When Brunel designed and ultimately built most of the railway, he wasn\u2019t a chartered engineer. He was just very good at physics and geometry and he understood things from that sense. So, we need everybody to be part of this conversation, not just experts but also people who see things differently. And we\u2019ve got to break down the walls, the silos.<\/p>\n

People who are driving through change who really shouldn\u2019t be involved with driving through that change and they\u2019re doing it for their own agenda, their own political gain, whatever it may be. So, this is what hopefully this is the springboard for us to create a standardised approach to everything that we\u2019re going to build, design etc.<\/p>\n

RICHARD FREER Absolutely. OK, I think we\u2019ve got a plan for the next steps which we\u2019ll get into the nitty gritty of in the next meeting, breaking those aims into bitesized chunks that we can manage. If anybody wants to come to the first Golden Thread Taskforce meeting, that\u2019s on the 12th of June at 11am.<\/p>\n

CHAT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Phull, Pav Singh (External) 12:20 pm<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes please could you share simplifying building safety shown in linkedin?<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes (External) 12:21 pm<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.flipbookpdf.net\/web\/site\/d09371d7803d606055d9f5249a2c7a562019b3c4FBP33241434.pdf.html#page\/1<\/a><\/p>\n

Physical copies are \u00a310+P&P<\/p>\n

Syprian A Pitkin (External) 02:18 pm<\/p>\n

Hi Gareth,<\/p>\n

Thanks for sharing, however, I think this document advise should consider BS 8670 formerly PAS 8670. The documents does not address Legislative and regulatory competency nor Managment of design work competency. While you might be able to get someone providing their Technical competency, without specifying things, the Technical competency could be lost in random listing of experience.<\/p>\n

Also, just for clarity, are the documents suppose to be a form of satire?<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes (External) 02:50 pm<\/p>\n

Syprian,<\/p>\n

Just to clarify\u2014the documents take a deliberately tongue-in-cheek approach. They\u2019re designed to shine a light on serious topics in a more engaging and accessible way. The humour is intentional; it\u2019s there to cut through the stuffiness that often surrounds these discussions. After all, people tend to forget a policy\u2014but they do remember a good joke.<\/p>\n

The most recent document is multifunctional. It ticks all the right boxes, including for PAS purposes. As for proving competency\u2014there are six key ways to do so:<\/p>\n

1.Demonstrate Through Action<\/p>\n

2.Provide Evidence<\/p>\n

3.Communicate Clearly and Confidently<\/p>\n

4.Seek and Use Feedback<\/p>\n

5.Pursue Certifications and Formal Training<\/p>\n

6.Show Consistency Over Time<\/p>\n

What I\u2019ve created is essentially a \u201cpassport-style\u201d record covering several of these areas\u2014particularly behaviours. Of course, item 1 (demonstrating through action) is something only the individual can truly show.<\/p>\n

How others choose to record or evidence competency is up to them\u2014but this format offers a practical, flexible starting point, with a wink and a nudge to keep things memorable.<\/p>\n

Bex Gibson (External) 02:57 pm<\/p>\n

It's worth noting that this misses some really key info, so I'm not sure how reliable these documents are (!)<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes (External) 03:03 pm<\/p>\n

Bex Gibson This is just a light-touch effort to get people thinking about what\u2019s required\u2014it\u2019s not meant to be followed verbatim. It\u2019s not set in stone; I\u2019ve simply tried to fill in some gaps and offer something helpful for others.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s clearly missing across the board are practical, useful guides. From my experience, you only really understand what\u2019s needed in a Building Safety Case by actually going through the process of creating one. That\u2019s where the lessons learned need to be captured and shared more widely across the industry.<\/p>\n

You are free to ignore or share your own thoughts on improving the challenges ahead. Leonardo da Vinci said<\/p>\n

\"Iron rusts from disuse, water loses its purity from stagnation... even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.\"<\/p>\n

Bex Gibson (External) 03:08 pm<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes - of course! And it's definitely a great idea to get people engaged and to start thinking in the right way\u00a0 It's simple things like ensuring correct terminology (e.g. Accountable Person, not Responsible Person) and including what the BSR actually requires of a BSCR which may help others further on their journeys<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes (External) 03:15 pm<\/p>\n

The BSCR document mentions the responsible person not in the context of the BSA 2022 but as the literal sense the responsible person. That is the PAP \/ AP or even the Responsible person under the FSO. \u201cWe\u2019ve done all this to make sure our building is as safe\u00a0as houses (literally). Sincerely, the Responsible Person.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes (External) 03:26 pm<\/p>\n

This is a draft Building Safety Case Report (BSCR) prepared for a live scheme, incorporating the bow-tie method to visually demonstrate cause and effect, in line with recent guidance from the HSE and Building Safety Regulator (BSR).<\/p>\n

Bex Gibson (External) 03:43 pm<\/p>\n

That's really useful, thanks! It would be helpful for anyone in this group who has been issued a successful BAC after submission to the BSR to share their learning, best practices and experiences too!<\/p>\n

Gareth Grimes (External) 03:53 pm<\/p>\n

The majority of the successful BAC have been achieved by those using the software by Risk Flag. Might be worth asking them for a sample for discussion<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BIM4Housing: Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 RICHARD FREER \u2026to the people they\u2019re advising, but also their own. Tackling Gateways and delays in the approval process by identifying information blockers. So, I\u2019d like you all to participate in this. What do you think? Does that cover it? What else would you like to add to that…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span>+<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-362","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nAdvisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 - BIM4Housing Advisory<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 - BIM4Housing Advisory\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BIM4Housing: Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 RICHARD FREER \u2026to the people they\u2019re advising, but also their own. Tackling Gateways and delays in the approval process by identifying information blockers. So, I\u2019d like you all to participate in this. What do you think? Does that cover it? What else would you like to add to that…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Advisory\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-08T16:17:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\\\/\",\"name\":\"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 - BIM4Housing Advisory\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-03T14:08:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-08T16:17:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Advisory\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/advisory\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 - BIM4Housing Advisory","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 - BIM4Housing Advisory","og_description":"BIM4Housing: Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 RICHARD FREER \u2026to the people they\u2019re advising, but also their own. Tackling Gateways and delays in the approval process by identifying information blockers. So, I\u2019d like you all to participate in this. What do you think? Does that cover it? What else would you like to add to that…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Advisory","article_modified_time":"2025-06-08T16:17:22+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/","name":"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025 - BIM4Housing Advisory","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-03T14:08:11+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-08T16:17:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/advisory-working-group-meeting-03-06-2025\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Advisory Working Group Meeting 03-06-2025"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/","name":"BIM4Housing Advisory","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/362\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":404,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/362\/revisions\/404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/advisory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}