DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 21-01-2026

One-Page Summary

1) Meeting purpose / context

This Design Working Group session focused on practical delivery of the Golden Thread through better design-stage information, with particular emphasis on classification, taxonomy, and safety-critical information that must remain usable through handover and into operations. The group explored how the industry can reduce rework, reduce compliance risk, and improve consistency by adopting joined-up standards and repeatable workflows, rather than bespoke approaches on every project.

2) Key themes discussed

A. Golden Thread needs usable, structured information (not “data dumping”)

A core message was that good design and safety work is frequently lost at handover, because operational teams inherit poorly structured or inconsistent information, and then have to start again. The meeting reinforced that the Golden Thread must be maintained through connected information flows (design → construction → handover → FM/asset management), not treated as a one-off compliance output.

B. Fire stopping / compartmentation: modelling, evidence, and repeatability

A significant part of the discussion was about fire stopping, builders work penetrations, and compartmentation—and how teams are being forced into heavy manual effort (e.g., coordinated elevations) that may not be the most efficient method if the model can generate repeatable schedules and rule-based outputs.

The group shared practical approaches including:

  • Using model filtering and clash testing by fire rating to identify required fire stopping locations
  • Using Dynamo routines and Excel lookups to generate model objects and opening sizes
  • Coordinating against manufacturer/system rules (e.g., deflection head constraints and spacing rules)
  • Ensuring cavity/fire stopping details are within tested/certified limits and adjusted where required

A key takeaway was that design teams are increasingly needing to model and schedule fire-stopping-related elements, to support traceability and installation tracking later.

C. “Required fire rating” vs “achieved fire rating” (and over-specification risk)

The meeting highlighted a common problem: elements may be over-specified due to other performance drivers (e.g., acoustics), which can unintentionally inflate fire requirements and cost. The group discussed the importance of separating:

  • Fire strategy required rating
    vs
  • Partition system achieved rating
    This prevents confusion and helps teams avoid unnecessary upgrades (e.g., installing fire doors everywhere when only certain compartments require them).

D. Classification and the “common language” problem

A major focus was the need for a common language across design, cost, operations, and compliance. The meeting featured discussion on why a single classification system cannot solve everything, but joined-up mappings can support different purposes across the lifecycle.

Andrew Green (Atkins / NRM author) described the industry effort to align:

Uniclass (design / structure / filtering)

  • NRM (measurement and costing)
  • SFG20 (maintenance regimes)
  • CIBSE LifeCycle / “Life in” (renewal and lifecycle planning)
  • This alignment is intended to reduce fragmentation and allow consistent handover into operations.

E. Real industry pain: “validation not verification” and inconsistent IM demands

From the chat discussion, participants shared examples where models were rejected due to tick-box validation (classification present) rather than verification (classification correct / meaningful). There was also frustration that multiple contractors and information managers require the same outputs (e.g., COBie) but each uses different processes/tools, creating significant time cost and confusion for design teams.

3) Practical outcomes / agreements

The meeting reinforced several practical directions:

  • The Golden Thread requires structured, auditable, and transferable information, not fragmented deliverables.
  • Fire stopping / compartmentation is a high-value topic for deeper follow-up work, including repeatable modelling + scheduling approaches.
  • Industry should prioritise joined-up standards and mappings to reduce reinvention and enable lifecycle outcomes.

4) Actions / next steps raised in the meeting

  • Follow-up session proposed for members interested in fire stopping / compartmentation improvements and practical workflows.
  • Continue sharing learning from live projects going through gateway processes, including how to avoid assumptions and manage change risk through better evidence capture.
  • Support development of guidance that helps clients stop asking for the wrong information and enables suppliers to deliver what is actually operationally useful.