{"id":374,"date":"2023-08-07T12:12:53","date_gmt":"2023-08-07T12:12:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/?page_id=374"},"modified":"2023-08-07T12:39:13","modified_gmt":"2023-08-07T12:39:13","slug":"design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023<\/strong><\/h2>\n

GEORGE We did the Digital Construction Week event where we picked four questions and then tried to relate those questions in a very practical way in terms of trying to see what were the answers on that. What we\u2019ve also done this last couple of weeks is we\u2019ve gone through and tried to do a refresh on the original guidance that was done and that\u2019s been very useful because we\u2019ve had another set of eyes on all of the asset types. We\u2019ve done all 12 and Richard is going through them at the moment updating the guidance with that, but one of the particularly useful things from my perspective is that we\u2019ve had more people look at them than we had originally. So for example on sprinkler systems, originally we only had 2 or 3 people engaged in that, and they did a good job. Whereas this time we had a much bigger group and all of that is contributing to it. We had one last Thursday, that Jim was very actively part of, on signage. As a layperson like me you\u2019d have thought that signage was pretty straightforward, but I\u2019ve learned that\u2019s not the case, and in fact as Active Plan we\u2019ve been doing floor plans with some big scan-to-BIM surveying companies for Tower Hamlets and Origin Housing etc.<\/p>\n

What we were trying to do was come up with a standard set of symbols: What symbols should you use for an AOV? I spoke to Jim on it and he said actually, there aren\u2019t any. There\u2019s stuff that\u2019s been discussed, but there\u2019s no definitive standard and what we\u2019ve had to do is arrive at something which is a compromise.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Well, no, because in the standards they\u2019re laid down as notices because they\u2019re for fire & rescue and not for the general public. The case in point of everything that I spoke about on Thursday is over Andrew\u2019s left shoulder because here we have a sign that theoretically supposed to be illuminated internally, but it isn\u2019t, so it\u2019s relying on viewing distance from an external light source, and we debated that for about half an hour. The graphical symbol is not standardised anywhere in the world, but it\u2019s being used as being familiar and understood by the whole of Andrew\u2019s office environment and yet research has shown that it\u2019s not understood because the white rectangle is very difficult to resolve and it\u2019s open to assumption. In certain contexts it could be a cubicle, another room, but we\u2019re left as an assumption to understand what the graphical symbol means. So that absolutely galvanises everything about our group in the design because these things should be laid down fundamentally as an arrangement for day one.<\/p>\n

But that one is a sticky thing stuck on a luminaire that the engineer gets out of a box and if it happens to be the right one, lucky, if it\u2019s not it\u2019s my old Airfix Spitfire that was half ME105 on one side, because that\u2019s what the little symbols were on the box of Airfix, or a proper Spitfire decals on the other side. Anyway again, I illustrate my point about signs and I think in retrospect last Thursday we made the whole thing so complicated, because you\u2019re right, the Standards Committee spend huge amounts of time building a registration system for graphical symbols which are safety signs, but then there\u2019s a lot of other things like fire & rescue deployment which is about dry risers and other pieces of equipment. And the plethora of graphical symbols, there\u2019s a test method to make sure that people understand it.<\/p>\n

So currently the notice for dry riser is \u2018dry riser\u2019 in text because the committee make the assumption that fire & rescue services in the UK can speak English because that\u2019s an international safety language, but its got flames on it as a determinant, meaning it\u2019s for firefighters. So there is a vocabulary for it and unfortunately very few people, my committee know these things, but externally outside that everybody assumes that signs are easy. And so they should be because they\u2019re communication so we should understand them, but when we start to look at them like the one over Andrew\u2019s shoulder we have to be critical about it because what does the arrow actually mean?<\/p>\n

GEORGE The other thing, Jim, I actually misspoke earlier because I was talking about signs, whereas actually what I meant to be talking about was CAD symbols. The point is there\u2019s no standard for CAD symbols for a lot of these things either.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Well, that\u2019s not correct because there\u2019s CAD symbols as a British standard for the older fire certification plans, it\u2019s still there, it was never taken back. And again, this was also coming out on Thursday about what the definition is of a fire safety sign. People wanted to take it off on other tangents, but fire safety signs have a definition. The safety sign has a definition, and there was a comment from somebody who said we want to call it signage, but internationally in standardisation it\u2019s called signing. But oh, because we\u2019ve always called it that way and we\u2019ve put out a contract for signage. This is not correct because if you want an expert like me to come and do you a safety sign survey and tell you what you want. you make it into all signage, you are gonna have me looking at everything like \u2018do not put your bike here\u2019 because that\u2019s a sign, it\u2019s not keeping what it should be as an arrangement for fire safety, and that\u2019s this forum specifically after Grenfell, specifically because there\u2019s been a problem with communication.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I guess the point I was trying to make is that what\u2019s become clear from the various different workshops is that there are different views and part of that is how people interpret the guidance. For example, just on the location and positioning of signs, there was a conversation as to whether they should be at eye height (maybe at 6 ft) or at 300 mil.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK You must be feeding me because there\u2019s a specific height for an escape route sign and it\u2019s 2 metres, that one above Andrew is way above 2 metres. It\u2019s specific, it\u2019s 1.7 metres on walls for escape route signs. It\u2019s already in the standard and it\u2019s very prescriptive.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, but the point I was making is that it isn\u2019t that clear. it may be in that standard, but the point that Andy Cunningham makes, who is also a specialist in signs, is the signs should be lower down because of smoke.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Yes, but that\u2019s already covered in another standard for low location safety way guidance systems, and yes I agree, but because it\u2019s never been proscribed in law, and I come back to this thing I was talking about with Jiss which is the difference between compliance and conformance. If you want to do a safety way guidance system and you can go above code it\u2019s perfectly correct, that is the place to put them. But again, in this context, we need to deal with what the current guidance is under ADB, and unfortunately there is no guidance in ADB for safety way guidance systems, it\u2019s only a recommendation.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Good, OK. I hope my point has been made.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK And I\u2019ve probably done what I normally do, and thank you for helping me, yet again is to try and put this thing at a higher interest level. I hope I did that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, you did. The point is that if, for example, a landlord is asking for an expert\u2019s view of whether they\u2019re complaint or not, it does appear that having one expert\u2019s view may not be adequate. We need to have that consolidation of views so that the safety angle is being properly covered. Anyway\u2026we\u2019ve got the new guidance coming out.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 The guidance\u2026are updates to the guidance for specific assets that everyone\u2019s been working on, is that correct?<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yes, we\u2019ve done 12 asset types. Actually I\u2019ll show you what we did at Digital Construction Week because that will help with context to that. (shares screen). Just for anybody that's not aware, this is what we did 18 months ago that we fed back into the golden thread process. So we produce guidance for the 12 asset types that are set out there and that\u2019s what we\u2019ve been refreshing. This is what the fire door one includes: what is the risk it mitigates, what do people do to the fire door to stop it from working, what information do we need for specification, construction, installation. We\u2019ve done that now for all of those different asset types. Then this is what we did at Digital Construction Week that both Pauls on this call and Jarek contributed to. The first question we came up with was how do we prevent incorrect design, selection and installation of fife safety products. We had same good outputs from that group. We probably need to decide how we\u2019re then going to use this information, I\u2019d be grateful for peoples views. So that was one table.<\/p>\n

Another table was how do we ensure that what information is captured about a product is actually related and then can be updated through the lifetime. I\u2019ll just explain the context of this. As Active Plan we\u2019re doing some work at the moment for Barnet Council and they\u2019ve asked us to create something that pulls together their safety case information, fire risk assessments, external wall surveys and all their O&M information so that they\u2019ve actually got something that\u2019s joined up. What they\u2019ve also asked us to do is tie in some live sensor data from the emergency lighting system and the sensors that are in the flats. As we were going through building it up we discovered that they had two different fire stopping data sets. They\u2019d got one, the fire risk assessment that was done 2-3 years ago had resulted in some fire stopping work that was recorded in a software application called Bolster and when we then started going through this with them we found that they were also using, the current work on fire stopping was being done using an application from Hilti.<\/p>\n

So we asked them how they were using the Bolster information, in other words, if they\u2019ve got fire collars that were inspected 2-3years ago and remedial works were done to them how was that then being fed into the new system, Hilti. And it wasn\u2019t, basically it was a completely discreet record of that work. And it then became clear to us that what was happening was each time somebody does an inspection they\u2019re creating a brand new data set, so therefore there\u2019s no history of what was inspected last time around, which is a fundamental break in the golden thread. And that\u2019s broadly because the client didn\u2019t have a good record, maybe from a baseline, to work from to say what that asset was from their perspective, irrespective of who\u2019s doing the inspection and the remedial works. So that\u2019s part of what we were saying here. That particular group looked at this and we came up with this methodology to say that each asset that is then being inspected needs to then be identified and then any inspection or maintenance work that\u2019s done against it needs to be against that particular asset. That may sound blindingly obvious, but it just shows the importance of feeding through to the asset team exactly what\u2019s been installed.<\/p>\n

The other question we had was how do we ensure that the building safety data is actually a live thing, not simply a report of a snapshot in time. The reason we\u2019re doing that is that we are finding that understandably landlords are under a lot of pressure at the moment and they\u2019re registering their buildings, they may be commissioning a building safety case report, but what they\u2019re not realising is that\u2019s got to be kept live and up-to-date. This group here led by Andrew Holley was working on this. We\u2019re working with this company called RiskBase now, they provide risk management software to be managing that through. So this was the findings that came from there as well. I think we\u2019ll get some rally rich data. The final thing was how do we deal with this problem of building services design being done after the rest of the design is complete and during construction. That\u2019s something that Paul McSoley is very passionate about, so he led this particular group. That\u2019s my report from DCW.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s really cool, George. The question we asked in terms of where could it be located, there are some slides someone in the team sent through from the building regulator conference which I\u2019ve been going through because I wanted to refresh my mind in terms of things that are moving. I have a couple of basic but very important questions. I notice there\u2019s a lot of links to the HSE website, for example, the new gateway 1 planning advice link. The HSE have created this planning advice where web app that allows developers to ask questions at that early stage to meet gateway 1. I\u2019ve been in one of my one notes rewriting and updating myself about things from these various presentations. So could it be that some of the findings from the groups, I guess at the moment it\u2019s probably in the BIm4Housing website, could there be a discussion with the HSE about links to those findings? It has a general section about golden thread, it just says the right information at the right time to the right people, and in the HSE website your building information must be kept digitally, kept securely etc. But maybe there\u2019s links form the HSE website to your findings which may then keep it centralised. But that\u2019s a government website etc and they\u2019d want to make sure the information is censored or checked or whatever. Could that be a portal? Or could that be a way?<\/p>\n

GEORGE A couple of people from the HSE were actually at the workshops at DCW. It\u2019s a good idea. At the moment I\u2019m just trying to think through\u2026as I say, Paul White, Paul McSoley and Jarek were on those workshops. Paul White, do you have a view as to how we could take what we did and then turn it into something that is consumable my people?<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I suppose we can pick a trade association or the group that Paul McSoley is in and publish it through that, if we come up with a format.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, I\u2019m just trying to get my head around how to take the great comments that people made and then turn it into something that is useable. Maybe it\u2019s something that we feed into some sort of risk management questionnaire or something like that.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE We could put it into a form of FAQ and then put answers to the questions. And then send it to\u2026<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s a good idea. Those are answers to the questions though, aren\u2019t they?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 On the HSE website I\u2019ve seen where they talk about different templates they\u2019ve got for the planning stage, so could it be a very simple checklist or a prompts list. Simply a list that people could download and use to check their processes against or their workflows against. Obviously this is all guidance, but it\u2019s just in a downloadable format, a simple PDF that people can use internally, whether they want to digitise it internally or not that\u2019s up to them, but just as a set of prompts I was thinking.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE That makes absolute sense, but there\u2019s some of those already. I was looking at one yesterday, I think it was Richard that gave that link to building regulation 156 and we could perhaps help with making sure people have got the right information. A lot of this is about the law being very simple and with the law and the guidance being very simple people avoid doing any work and therefore they don\u2019t consider everything as a whole. I think what I was reading yesterday that was good guidance was the one from the insurance, BDM 01 from the FIA. There\u2019s quite a good section in there which says really you should be doing this, this and this before you even get to this point. But again it involves people who don\u2019t normally do stuff doing stuff that they doh\u2019t think they should be doing. But I think this is where everything is starting to change and the fact that design rally does need to be design, and construction needs to be construction because just waiting now to see if it\u2019s going to work when you get to it is clearly becoming more and more unacceptable.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I guess what we want to do is try and reduce the number of clicks or whatever that you need to do to get to the findings form the roundtables, hence why I though the HSE might be quite good because that\u2019s where a lot of people go. That\u2019s where I would search for any kind of guidance or help on this matter, or gov.uk or something like that. So if you do speak to the HSE representatives that were there and ask them could it be a simple checklist or a prompt list, that would be the way to get the most coverage.<\/p>\n

RICHARD If that\u2019s actually a route that would be just as much a route for our overall guidance, wouldn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Exactly, because it\u2019s gone through so many knowledgeable people in the various groups that it\u2019s got to be as good as anything else that the government bodies would be doing. And because you do have connection with the HSE directly that would make sense to ask them. I wanted to bring it back to a couple of very basic questions. As I said I was trying to refresh my mind with all the information that\u2019s been coming from various sides. The first one, I saw a post from you, George, about the HSE not necessarily being the building regulator anymore. I don\u2019t know really if it changes anything from a designer point of view because whether we\u2019ve got to submit it to\u2026.whether the building regulator is an arm of the HSE or not, if the process hasn\u2019t changed and the timelines haven\u2019t changed, as designers it doesn\u2019t make much difference, it\u2019s just knowing who it is. But I don\u2019t know if there is anymore information about that, there was murmurings of the HSE not being the overseer anymore.<\/p>\n

GEORGE My understanding is, and I don\u2019t think anybody knows at the moment, is what I think\u2019s happened is that the legislation has gone to the House of Lords for approval and Baroness Scott, she\u2019s been part of DLUHC, so although she\u2019s in the House of Lords she\u2019s obviously been very closely involved with DLUHC and Michael Gove. They\u2019ve introduced the possibility of a new regulatory authority being set up which some people I\u2019ve spoken to have said that\u2019s probably going to mean it\u2019s going to be more stringent because, to some extent, the regulator being under the HSE is going to potentially soften it because the HSE is there to encourage people to do the right thing. And therefore (this was a view of one of the people who seems to be very knowledgeable about this said to me) it\u2019s a bit difficult for the HSE to then become the enforcer because they\u2019ve got both hats, as it were. Whereas if a new regulator is set up to enforce the legislation and HSE is there to support the legislation then that\u2019s a positive thing.<\/p>\n

The other thing is that the HSE at the moment from a government perspective reports into\u2026the HSE is under a different government department, it\u2019s not under DLUHC. The fire is under the Home Office and building safety is in theory under DLUHC, but the HSE reports into a different government department, I can\u2019t remember which one. So that\u2019s one of the things I\u2019ve learnt just in this last week, so I think what they\u2019re trying to do is trying to clarify it so that there\u2019s a stronger regulatory body there that can take enforcement action.<\/p>\n

JOE STOTT I\u2019ve just Googled it, it\u2019s the Department of Work and Pensions.<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s it, the HSE, which is quite different, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE So there\u2019s going to be a lack of work and no pension out of this then.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And then the other basic questions that I had is have they changed the height parameter for relevant buildings now? Because I\u2019ve seen three heights now, 11, 15 and 18. Is it still 18 for a relevant building, or has it gone down?<\/p>\n

GEORGE This is an interesting one. From a fire perspective my understanding is it\u2019s all buildings. The 18 metre rule only relates to the Building Safety Act, not the Fire Safety Act.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Yeah, generally everything is for everything, but then the additional bits for HRBs is anything that then comes in over 18 metres, and then there\u2019s some considerations at 11, but I think HRBs are basically starting at 18.<\/p>\n

RICHARD I had a number of one-to-one conversations on the Fire Safety Act with landlords, a lot of Housing Associations, And they were all working on the basis that that only applied over 18 metres.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, they\u2019re wrong.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Really. Some of them have gone lower because they know it\u2019s going to become lower, but they were all working on the basis that legally it only had to be above 18 metres.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I think there's a difference between some of the prescriptive measures and the management. The management side of it is actually for any, including homes in multiple occupation, so the management comes in and then it\u2019s 11 metres and then it\u2019s 18 metres, but it\u2019s the prescriptive requirements over 18 metres.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Well, if it\u2019s the Fire Safety Act that applies to all residential buildings, then it applies to all residential buildings.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s all buildings. You just said it\u2019s all residential buildings.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Yeah, in terms of us. But I can absolutely tell you, and I must have had 20-30 meetings with major housing associations, local authorities, and every single one of them was working on the basis that it was over 18 metres. And these are the people doing it, not somebody in a different department or something, so that\u2019s quite astonishing.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yes, I think that when it comes to the Fire Safety Act it\u2019s all buildings, all use classes and all heights. When it comes to the relevant new build, the definition of relevant, I\u2019ve kind of extracted from various, either the HSE or the government documents. From the list that I\u2019ve been seeing I\u2019ve got flats, student accommodation, hospitals and care homes (but they need to go through other gateways for design and construction only, not the management side), prisons, hotels, boarding houses and hostels. Is that list correct? And I also have different heights for those. I\u2019ve got 11 metres for flats, student accommodation, hospitals, care homes and prisons, but 18 metres for hotels. boarding houses and hostels. I don\u2019t know if there\u2019s a website which has a definitive definition now of a relevant building anymore.<\/p>\n

Like I said, this is extracted from the BSR slides and form the HSE website info. The only other one was sprinklers are mandatory on new build if the finished ground level to the finished floor level is 11 metres or more. So flats, student accommodation and institutional buildings (I guess that\u2019s prisons), then they talk about hostels, hotels and boarding houses which are kind of expanded, and then the care home has also come in. I don\u2019t know, Joe, whether from an architectural point of view from within the office these are the right use classes and the types of buildings that is internally in discussions with yourselves.<\/p>\n

JOE STOTT I\u2019m not sure, I think I\u2019ve got the same reaction as Richard, really, there\u2019s an awful lot of confusion around this. I think I\u2019d have to ask our building surveying team because they\u2019re the guys that are dealing with this more, but the priority does seem to be anything that\u2019s high risk 18 metres and above, that\u2019s what I see going on in the office at the moment.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And that\u2019s what I have for new builds, definitely, for anything which is residential, definitely, but there are these other\u2026it used to be just simply dwellings and now they\u2019ve obviously started to add things like the hotels, boarding houses. If people are sleeping, that\u2019s the general driver, if someone is sleeping in these buildings, whether it\u2019s for one night or multiple or living there, then that seems to be the trigger and that seems to be why they\u2019ve added things up. But I\u2019m a little bit confused because I\u2019ve still got different levels being mentioned, 11, 15 and 18, and also different sectors or use classes being defined. I\u2019ve tired to summarise the gateway timelines and what\u2019s required, there\u2019s a couple of diagrams that I\u2019ve extracted from the Building Safety Regulator conference and then a couple of diagrams of the height definitions. I\u2019ll share that and I\u2019ll share the link to all the slides as well. From a design point of view these are quite basic questions which I should know, but when I research I\u2019m not so sure.<\/p>\n

And then the only two other things that are going to impact us as designers and suppliers in terms of the projects is the need for this as-built specification and as-built drawings, which theoretically changes everything in terms of what do we tend to provide. For example, we issue a final record because we don\u2019t go around remeasuring the installation and checking that every build up is exactly as per our drawings. We obviously keep up-to-date if we\u2019ve been informed by the contractor because it\u2019s a VE exercise or a pure design change from the client. So those kind of things we\u2019re keeping a tab on and tracking in our documentation, but the fact that it specifically says that the final record can\u2019t be issued as final record, it has to be as-built information. That puts quite a bit of onerous responsibility on, let\u2019s say, from an architectural set of drawings how do we know exactly how it\u2019s been built. And I don\u2019t think anyone has necessarily answered that yet, but it will affect all of us.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK My reading and understanding of this from day one, and that\u2019s why I\u2019m on the design group, is that so much now is theoretically influenced by the risk assessment. It used to be the old purpose group of building, but now the one arbiter of arraignments within the building is the person that\u2019s carrying out the risk assessment. Now, if that risk assessor decides to just use the old basis for purpose group of building then he\u2019s not actually taking in some of the new risks involved. From my perspective now in the design side, we do really have to lean on the person that does the risk assessment with the developer or the property owner to determine what that risk matrix is, regardless of what height it is. But with all of the different types of buildings that you mentioned, Andrew, it\u2019s perfectly correct because the risk matrix is different for all of them and you can\u2019t have one thing that fits everything. So it\u2019s the risk assessment that determines the arrangements.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I agree, and one of the things that Steve Coppin, who\u2019s our guru on the CDM and safety side of things, has said that the risk assessment obviously is the critical thing here and that is going to be the driving force. The point he\u2019s made, for example, what does HRRB stand for? High Risk Residential Buildings. That\u2019s what it originated on, and that\u2019s the point that Steve\u2019s made. but they changed it to High Rise Residential Buildings.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Which is just one form of HRB which is a high risk building which is what I think they\u2019re aiming for.<\/p>\n

GEORGE He gets quite cross with the HSE over this because they\u2019ve changed the terminology from High Risk Residential Building to High Rise Residential Building and he thinks they did that intentionally because it cuts back on their responsibilities.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I\u2019ve a problem with even the definition of high risk because we\u2019ve had this long running debate that\u2019s going parallel to this about PEEPs and people with disabilities and the HSE haven\u2019t come clean with that. And one of the reasons why I don\u2019t think they want enforcement of things is because of how it impacts onto social services. I still think that eventually us in design will have to determine what the risk matrix is ourselves and where that is in high risk, because high risk can still be a home of multiple occupation. If you\u2019ve got 5 or more, let\u2019s say immigrants from Syria that don\u2019t speak English, they\u2019ve got an elderly grandmother, young children in a single bedroom, you\u2019ve got a whole bunch of risks to do with fire that needs our discussion in design.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Just going back to the fact that this is where design is design, going back to our previous subject. If you want to make changes that are significant you\u2019re going to have to run them back through the HSE anyway and therefore you should be tracking those changes in your as-builts. So nowadays design is not a wishlist anymore, it really has got to reflect the as-buits and you\u2019re gonna have to keep all the drawings completely up-to-date on a daily basis. So if somebody does something different then you\u2019ve really got to make sure that you\u2019re tracking that. I was brought up in the old days of engineering in the manufacturing shop and we couldn\u2019t change anything without informing ten people and getting it signed off by three people above us. But very drawing that was issued was always up-to-date and we\u2019ve lost that skill, that nobody has to check anything, or it\u2019s just peer reviewed by the guy who\u2019s sitting next to you and we\u2019re not actually reviewing anything and I think we\u2019re going to find our ways back into this because I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any choice.<\/p>\n

PAUL McSOLEY Jim, your language on purpose group is so refreshing when you hear it. Because I work in construction you don\u2019t always hear this kind of language being used, which is good because I think when you look at purpose group and you look at risk of space, risk of space is affected by purpose group, so the hard bit I think is you end up going that you\u2019ve actually got to know every space in the building, what classification of risk is associated with it, and this will even apply to emergency lighting and things like that because some things are on escape routes, some things aren\u2019t. This all effects actually what you\u2019ve got to do to the wall, what goes through it all, how you treat the space, it could become really hard, getting to your point, Andrew, about how you track this for\u2026purposes. You\u2019re going to end up, and I can\u2019t think about the best way to portray it, because I think those Excels are spot on, George, which is how you do the ontology for pipework and it\u2019s mega-complicated.<\/p>\n

You look at it and you go you\u2019ve got to record that for every single location in the building, link it back to the detail for the manufacturer who\u2019s done the seal to make sure that\u2019s correct in the as-built condition, they you need to have the original drawings from yourself that says we had a hole here, refer to this which tells you the detail. it\u2019s going to be really difficult, because you\u2019re not going to do it on one set of drawings and my biggest fear is that Navis is a great tool, but it\u2019s fluffy, you can\u2019t actually see the detail, you need to have a good set of drawings to actually understand what is there. And that \u2019s what I\u2019m finding, you can\u2019t see it in model space very well at the moment.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think rewinding everything back, within the office here we\u2019re kind of assuming everything is a relevant building, generally speaking, because that seems like, from a de-risking perspective. Assuming going forward, obviously a lot of clients will not necessarily want to do everything that in a relevant building needs to be done, but that\u2019s where we\u2019re starting as a baseline on the assumption that these heights will come down and encompass all buildings. So we\u2019re starting from that as opposed to trying to start trying to figure out what the limit is and then work just above that. In terms of the final record or as-built nature of things, the tricky thing is we can draw and stuff, but then you\u2019re relying on the contractors, the specialists etc to feed back up the chain to inform us of various changes. Going forward, on a relevant building, that clearly has to be done on a formal basis, so theoretically change should be very little, which is great for everyone. But that does need this feeding back up the chain to say we\u2019ve actually changed the wall buildup here, it wasn\u2019t a variation but it\u2019s just something that we had to do on site.<\/p>\n

But to get someone on site to feedback all of those changes is going to be unrealistic for a number of things, but again I think we have to start with trying to get maybe 80% of the 80\/20% rule where lets get 80% of it right, if possible. The 20% may be critical but if we don\u2019t start we\u2019re never going to be able to get into that thing, but it does require other, at the moment we\u2019d simply ask the contractor, OK, here is the final record information we issued for construction, can you inform us and mark up any other changes that you\u2019re aware of during the design and build project that we need to be aware of. And they may do a markup, this is happening live on a couple of residential schemes which don\u2019t fall within the relevant heights or fall into relevant building category, but we\u2019re basically saying, look, here are the drawings we issued for final construction, has anything else changed? And that\u2019s the only way we\u2019re kind of trying to capture anything that might have happened.<\/p>\n

The design managers who are walking around aren\u2019t necessarily going to know everything that\u2019s changed or everything that\u2019s been built differently. They will just do it because they know or because they can physically see that partition isn\u2019t where it is in our drawing and provide a markup. That\u2019s the kind of level of accuracy that we\u2019re getting back. Some other contractors are doing the point cloud surveys to make sure that every wall is adjusted slightly to match the as-built scenario, but that\u2019s probably a minority rather than a majority at the moment.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think there\u2019s a lot of things going on at the moment where people are using technology to create their golden threads, but they\u2019re not being brought together. So you\u2019ve got people that are using things like HoloBuilder and OpenSpace and things like that, and I think largely contractors\u2026what that\u2019s doing is it\u2019s creating a discreet set of information, it looks pretty cool that you can walk through afterwards and see what\u2019s been stored and what\u2019s missing and it\u2019s being done largely for valuations and things like that. But I\u2019ve not seen anybody then taking that and then reinterpreting it back in to produce the as-builts. People are using Revitza? 54mins 29secs and things like that for doing snagging and recording things, but again, I don\u2019t know whether there\u2019s any budget for people to actually update their information. But what I found interesting, we were having a conversation on fire doors in a recent session and there was a debate between the fire door suppliers and the people that were interested in the asset management information and somebody mentioned Regulation 38 which actually from a fire perspective is something that does require information that is otherwise seen as confidential actually to be reported. So the asset information, and I guess the as-builts, Das, which is what your saying as well, that is a legal requirement for the delivery team to complete, and yet how often is that actually being delivered.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I\u2019ve got first-hand experience because in the last ten years I\u2019ve been on about Regulation 38 and it\u2019s just been the M&E manual. They\u2019ve failed to bring across specialist contractors stuff in the regulation 38 paperwork as handed over to the building owner or the manager, and I\u2019ve been banging that drum for ten years. That is the legislation, that\u2019s all you\u2019ve got to produce. The golden thread is a wishlist, and on piece of legislation is Regulation 28 and it doesn\u2019t say as-built, it says what\u2019s the situation now because you\u2019re supposed to update that Regulation 38. You don\u2019t necessarily have to have history, but you do have to have, it has to be handed over from a new building or you have to start it again if you haven\u2019t got it. So you have to put a line in the sand, and I\u2019ve had this discussion with regulators, specifically the fire & rescue inspection, and they didn\u2019t even know about Regulation 38 as far as fire is concerned, they though that was just an M&E handover, so how you turn over on the central heating and stuff like that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019ve just looked up Regulation 38, it expressly says fire safety.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Yes, and I\u2019ve been saying to people now that, for instance, your smoke control design needs to be complete and you should be handing that over as building 38 because if somebody else comes to inspect the building they\u2019re going to need to know what you\u2019ve designed otherwise they\u2019re gonna have to condemn it. If you\u2019ve fire engineered it in anyway they need to know that because you went and looked at it and it didn\u2019t do what you are expecting it to do from a so-called compliance system, then you need to refer back to the design information and that should form part of the BR 38 stuff.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK It\u2019s true that many people don\u2019t even know about the regulation, from where I stand I don\u2019t really know what to do with it. Going back to previous comments regarding how to capture the information, we work with a few contractors who do point could scans free of charge because they can benefit financially from it afterwards. That\u2019s the only way to really capture the as-built information, the better way of doing it is companies like Buildots. We generally have a technological and financial barrier to capture this. It seems me that technology like Buildots is the way to go to capture this information accurately and then have the golden thread, everything else, it\u2019s manual and will introduce error and there will be some omissions. I can\u2019t see any other way of\u2026automating it, scanning with point clouds or something like that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE But if somebody is using Buildots, all that Buildots does is identifies where there are differences.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK And whether it\u2019s done according to design.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yes, but if it\u2019s not done according to design is there a workflow that then updates the information? I don\u2019t know whether there is.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK It does checks and highlights whether it has been done correctly to the design or not, or it\u2019s not done yet or it\u2019s done incorrectly and flags it up and sends a report. And then you have to do something about it, it\u2019s a reporting tool.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Bit do you know anybody that\u2019s actually using that to update the as-builts?<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Not personally built, but I had some communication email exchange with some people from Buildots when I was doing my research, so not like hands on.<\/p>\n

PAUL McSOLEY It\u2019s interesting that the on thing that\u2019s getting us all into a pickle, the holy grail we need to fix is you need a mechanism that you know what it was to make the risk of the space in the building, then how it changes to the end because all of these systems, Buildots, ? 1hr 1min 5secs, Operance, they\u2019re great systems, but the one thing they cannot do is tell you the thing is functioning correctly for the hazard of the space, and that\u2019s the bit that\u2019s really hard to get right. If you know that the room\u2019s got an EIS risk, an EW for a revision panel on a door, that is not traceable in that system at the moment because unfortunately those templaters don\u2019t exist for all that different classification information for those products. It\u2019s got usability and function, but you\u2019ve still got to make sure what goes into the O&M is right because you might end up with a record that\u2019s digitally recorded and it just comes back loading the gun to incriminate you later on, because actually it\u2019s functioning correct for the space, but you\u2019ve got a nice record of it.<\/p>\n

ANA MATIC George, I just wanted to follow up on your point about federated golden threads. I think we\u2019re now at a point where we\u2019re all going to get much better delivering as-builts, but who\u2019s going to pay for this I don\u2019t know yet because there\u2019s an unclear grey area at the end of the project from what\u2019s been designed a s design and then what\u2019s been built and what\u2019s been actually handed over to the client, so that the client can manage the building and manage the updates to the building as things progress. I\u2019m working with lots of different clients as we\u2019re heading over our designs and also with some clients who are actually having designs from other architects and trying to work out how to manage their buildings in the future. My point is we need a new type of PDF, something that everyone can read. We don\u2019t have those things yet, very complicated digital twins are obviously available, but I think it\u2019s a long way until our clients will be completely ready to take those on and maintain them.<\/p>\n

So in between those two we do need to find several very simple strategies for clients to be able to receive the information, keep on top of it and then be able to manage the building. I think this space needs very much more development, and the biggest issue is that it\u2019s not really making money for anyone at the moment. If it was, lots of people would jump on it. So what Buildots do and what digital twin does, we\u2019re part of this conversation very much, is giving solutions, but you still have to spend quite a lot of money to get those solutions in place and then you have to spend money to keep them maintained. So I don\u2019t think we have a fully resolved situation, I think this is going to take a couple of years until it settles.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 You\u2019re obviously going live through a relevant building in terms of the stages, how is that going? Because I guess it\u2019s nothing more so that the proof is in the pudding. Last time you spoke i think you\u2019d tried to follow everything, but there were some subcontractors who had gone bust.<\/p>\n

ANA MATIC Still there, still there. The live project that\u2019s approaching gateway 2, the subcontractor with whom we\u2019ve developed the entire builders work strategy is no more, and now there is a big argument of who will take the risk or whether the new subcontractor will actually have to redesign everything and we will have to then submit a variation. We're not progressing very quickly on this.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Ana, you\u2019ve hit the nail on the head, who\u2019s gonna pay, and this really is the crux of the matter because I\u2019m on the manufacturing side as well and for years I would be looking at drawings that would have mistakes on them and when I went back and said these have got mistakes on them to the procurement they\u2019d say can you put the changes on there for me and send it back and we\u2019ll send it out to all of the other people tendering for this business so that they can tender for the right specification. Well, after a while we had two options: we either just discarded the possibility to quote for the business or we rubbed our hands saying we can quote for the cheapest possible solution because somebody in design has got it a bit wrong. I\u2019ve been advocating that specialist contractors need to be called in at design stage and we need to be able to charge for that design service, taking into account everything that we\u2019ve written and done over the last 6 months.<\/p>\n

Because, as I say, I still look over Andrew\u2019s shoulder and the escape route door opens the wrong way, the sign is incorrect and it\u2019s in an incorrect position. It illustrates everything that I\u2019ve spoken about over the last 12 months. So yes, it\u2019s about paying, because we need to pay for competent people, good contractors, and we don\u2019t want to go to the lowest common denominator. Grenfell was caused by \u00a314 million going back to \u00a311 million, You can\u2019t take \u00a33 million out of a contract without cutting corners. I really do hope the scheme works, but if everybody\u2019s expecting just free information it\u2019s going to be worthless.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Basically, and Ana\u2019s example really proves it, if the design is done at gateway 2 you can give it to any contractor because they know what they\u2019re quoting for, but if you\u2019re then expecting them to do design at a later stage they\u2019ve got to look at everything because they\u2019ve got to check everything. I\u2019m seeing a lot of specifications that just aren\u2019t worth the paper they\u2019re written on, but of course the people who\u2019ve written them have no responsibility for them. This is the issue that design needs to be design and if you need specialist designers, exactly as Jim said, you pay for it then. Because the basis of people giving you free design for things like smoke control and Jim working with the doors is that you get the job, but if you give all of that information away and somebody goes and gets it quoted for elsewhere then you\u2019ve wasted that time and money. So what you\u2019re actually getting is the true cost at the right time rather than them getting it done apparently for free.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK I\u2019m going back to what Ana said, and I think Jim touched on this as well, regarding how to make sure the as-built information is correct. You all started referring back to design and I do agree with this, but they\u2019re two different kinds of systems or processes because you then have to design according to regulations, guidance, specification and so on. Someone needs to verify and check that design and approve it, but then you have to monitor the progress on site and capture it, that\u2019s the technology. And then you have unfortunately often a rework of updating the designs, so there\u2019s completely different stages and processes involved. Also, earlier in this meeting we started saying about the design and how we\u2019re feeding into the wider population and basically how do we provide the guidance. This is a question to `George, how do we publish the guidance? Or is it just a collection of our meetings and so on, on the website. Is there actually anything published?<\/p>\n

GEORGE The guidance is always published. it\u2019s published on the BIM4Housing website.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK I\u2019ll tell you why I asked that question specifically. It\u2019s because I was part of the UK BIM Framework and co-author of one of the guidance notes. So the way they organised that was a group of people (like this group here) would actually write the guidance and meet separately to resolve issues within the document, but I feel like to really get some engagement and have something to go to agency or any other body we actually should write a proper guidance in whatever form, it could then be published on the website as a report blog or whatever. There\u2019s a lot of knowledge in here and other groups where this can happen and basically in a similar way of what UK BIM Framework did with guidance notes for ISO 19650. We should take all this knowledge accumulated for the last 2 or 3 years, review it systematically and then provide guidance. That\u2019s what\u2019s missing, I think. Unless it\u2019s there and I\u2019m not aware of it.<\/p>\n

RICHARD The original guidance we published on the website 18 months ago, that\u2019s been open for comments, we\u2019ve had a lot of comments. It wasn\u2019t just form a couple of roundtable sessions, it was numerous meetings online, telephone conversations, and emails which gave us what we had 18 months ago. This time we\u2019ve had 20-30 people in meetings.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I suppose the question is really, Jarek, you\u2019ve seen the guidance that we produced. Is it what you would call guidance or is it more of a brain-dump from a number of different experts?<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK I don\u2019t want to rub anyone the wrong way, but I see it as a brain-dump rather than guidance, so it needs structure, it needs to be reviewed systematically and to provide proper guidance. I think that\u2019s not where we are at the moment.<\/p>\n

GEORGE No, I agree. It is guidance for people to read and interpret and apply, but I think you\u2019re right that we\u2019ve not turned it into something that\u2019s formal. Having said that, to actually achieve that is a significant piece of work by somebody. The reason the UK BIM Framework was able to do it was because they have funding.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Well, we have, I hate to say it but I will anyway, just an example, obviously you\u2019ve all heard about Chat GPT, you\u2019ve got various ways of harvesting the AI to summarise all of this information we\u2019ve gathered as a first step of filtering and systemising this information, creating a checklist. And that can be done fairly quickly, I\u2019ve done some tests on various documents comparing documents and it works very well. I\u2019m using Notion. So, we could do this fairly quickly to analyse, systemise and group information and create checklists, and then there will be a lot of work to do it. But we need proper guidance documents.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I do agree and what we\u2019ve done form the recent workshops is we\u2019ve asked for a number of people to come together afterwards and look at things from a data perspective, from process perspective and also from an application perspective. I think your suggestion is a good one, perhaps we can explore that.<\/p>\n

RICHARD We\u2019re willing to improve it, we\u2019re open to that all the time. At every stage this goes out to people within the meeting, other experts who weren\u2019t at the meeting to add their comments and help us improve it. It\u2019s not a static document, it\u2019s supposed to be dynamic, and anyway we can improve that then obviously we will. But by the same token, as George said, within the constraints that we\u2019re all volunteers, there\u2019s only so many hours in the day and we all have to work too.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Jarek, are you thinking from something which gets like a BSI or an ISO stamp? So it\u2019s got that level of authority or reassurance to people.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Working towards that goal, that\u2019s what I mean, yeah.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Jarek, why don\u2019t you and I chat and you tell me what I can be doing, or what you can help me to do to start that track. Since you\u2019ve already done it, gone along that path, if you can point me in the right direction to that we can give it a whirl.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK As a real dinosaur, Jarek, five years ago I\u2019d be totally with you about having some editor edit the work and giving it provenance, as the years have progressed I\u2019ve found that because there\u2019s so many loopholes in guidance, specifically guidance that\u2019s already out there, I can name one in my own sphere, L64, which offers absolutely crap guidance. I can talk about all the documents that give you guidance to the fire safety legislation in purpose groups of buildings, there\u2019s great gaps and anomalies within those guidance. I started to look at guidance, and I quite like the term brainstorm, because that\u2019s how I look at guidance now, and what I\u2019ve managed by brain to do now is to decide what fits in with my professional competence and what I can handle and what I have to leave behind.<\/p>\n

So whilst I totally and utterly agree in a perfect world I would love to have guidance that I could really put my soul on this, there\u2019s so much guidance out there that I now almost turn back to the legislation and look for the objectives that I\u2019m trying to achieve, rather than the written word all the time on what I know is someone\u2019s contribution that hasn\u2019t quite really understood the basics of what the legislation is trying to achieve.<\/p>\n

RICHARD I think there\u2019s something to be said for having the voice from the coal face as well. I think it\u2019s OK being very formal, and there\u2019s lots of guidance out there and regulatory compliance etc out there with that kind of formality. I think ours is different, it may not be as organised and certainly not as formal, but it\u2019s an authentic voice from people who actually know what they\u2019re doing, because they\u2019re doing it.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Well said, and that\u2019s what I meant to capture what we\u2019ve discussed for the last God know how many months. But working in a structured way with high standards in mind and capture what we\u2019ve discussed.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Yeah, I think it\u2019s important we do.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I\u2019ve had a little bit of experience with Chat GPT, specifically where I was looking for a definition with something that got printed in ADB and I was very pleased to find out some of my own texts came back at me as part of what Chat GPT actually put on there. But when I really examined what I actually got from artificial intelligence was a brain-dump, because it wasn\u2019t actually contextual to the question I asked which was the context of wayfinding in conjunction with fire & rescue deployment signing and signs, I got a full breakdown of what wayfinding is. Really helpful, and then I find out that on Chat GPT a couple of legal people in the United States quoted case law that was on Chat GPT and are now facing a prison sentence because it was completely fictitious.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK That\u2019s why we have you, Jim. I\u2019m not proposing to use this instead of our brains, I\u2019m proposing to use it to help us to systemise and structure information, but that\u2019s why we are having our brains to use it, not to just blindly trust it.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Just going through what you said, I don\u2019t know whether anybody clicked on the link that I put in there, but I\u2019m just going to briefly share it. (shares screen). Basically they\u2019ve come up with A-Z essential principles, title and descriptions. The one that comes in in here is support fire fighting operations which is an interesting way of putting it because it tends to get ignored. It then gives you a consult with the fire rescue to do this, that and the other, but it might require additional measures. And then you go through the different bits and then\u2026prevent the fire starting, property loss etc. Then basically it goes through and tells you which of these that the principle applies to and where it would fit in the thing. And then you\u2019ve got that in the different work stages which I thought was quite an interesting thing.<\/p>\n

Then you go through the checklist, we\u2019re looking for C. Each one has then got its principles. It\u2019s an FIA document. It\u2019s principle C, support fire fighting operations, and then we get principle evacuation fire, consider fire engineering the whole building, compartmentation sprinkler rules, fire & rescue service consulted, combustibility, looking at principle P as well. There\u2019s so much in here, but I don\u2019t know if anybody is taking any notice of it. It\u2019s a really good checklist and if you follow this sort of thing, if we can maybe think up the principles that we were looking at. Within this C, consideration for firefighting, there are 26 principles that people should be thinking about and I bet that most people never even thought there was 26 principles to do with whatever it is. I think it probably bears a bit of analysis.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think you\u2019re right. The interesting thing for me is that it talks about the protection of buildings, not the protection of people.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE That\u2019s because it comes from the fire industry and therefore the insurers are involved. So they\u2019re maybe looking for extra things, but of course this comes down to the where does it tell me that I have to do that. Actually the bit that people tend to forget is that in design we have a duty of care to the firefighters because if they go in then they need to be protected, or essentially if there\u2019s no persons reported they can let your building burn down. So they are important principles. There\u2019s a chance that there\u2019s nobody there and everybody is evacuated then they\u2019re not going to risk their own lives to go 8and put the fire out, then you\u2019ve got business continuity issues.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 It\u2019s been really useful. I\u2019ll share the notes that I have and then some of those key questions. The reason I keep asking them is because they keep changing and for me as a designer and advising clients, like we all are, it\u2019s good for us to know what are the definitions and the current requirements. I\u2019ll also share the slides form the building safety regulator conference. I think, Paul, what you\u2019re trying to say there is if you\u2019re talking about producing this guidance for the different things it\u2019s little things like making sure the terminology that we use across those guidance is the same. I guess, Richard, that\u2019s where the particular wording and the references to certain things as assets, properties or whatever, is consistent across the various guidance that we use so it doesn\u2019t contradict ourselves. I guess that\u2019s where that rigour comes in, in terms of becoming more guidance documents standards. Thanks again everyone, and see you all soon.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Just picking up on that point, Richard at the moment is trying to pull these things together and what we now want to do is apply them effectively. So that\u2019s why we\u2019re looking for a bit of additional help over the next few weeks to pull these things together. I had a meeting this morning with Adam Sanders from RiskBase who\u2019s a data person, a lot of the housing associations use their software to do fire risk assessments and things like that. What we\u2019re talking about, you know the information section in each of those things with the RACI analysis, we went through with him with Paul Oakley this morning showing how Templater could be used to group properties together. So that we end up with a data dictionary, exactly what you just said there, Das, so that we\u2019ve got common terminology across the different documents, because at the moment each of them has been a brain-dump by people that are specialists. It would make a lot of sense if we can come up with a standard taxonomy between the standard dictionary.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And maybe a sort of glossary of terms which de-jargonises stuff for everyone for the lay people who are working on these projects. whether installers, designers or occupiers.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Absolutely, because there have been so many times in these meetings where it\u2019s 10-15 minutes talking about terminology. Jim mentioned something earlier on about signing and signage, we were talking about that for 10 minutes and there was no agreement at the end.<\/p>\n

ADDENDUM<\/strong><\/p>\n

CHAT<\/p>\n

Joe Stott<\/strong><\/p>\n

I was having a discussion around the topic of information overload the other day in one of our offices and as a result - (very sadly) counted the number of signs within one stair core. Running from the 4th floor to the ground i counted over 100 different pieces of signage.<\/p>\n

Paul White<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.thefpa.co.uk\/advice-and-guidance\/free-documents?q=BDM01%20A%20to%20Z%20of%20Essential%20Principles%20for%20the%20protection%20of%20buildings&utm_source=gvconnect&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Newsletter%20and%20Promotions&utm_campaign=Approved%20Document%20B%20Volume%201%20%26%202%20Insurer%20Requirements%20for%20Publishing\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Joe Stott<\/strong><\/p>\n

HSE is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/department-for-work-pensions<\/a><\/p>\n

Joe Stott<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jim Creak (Guest) - i am going to send you a picture of some amazingly bad fire signage i have to pass in a council carpark every week. Every time I see it I think \"I wonder what Jim would make of this\"...<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 GEORGE We did the Digital Construction Week event where we picked four questions and then tried to relate those questions in a very practical way in terms of trying to see what were the answers on that. What we\u2019ve also done this last couple of weeks is we\u2019ve gone…<\/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-374","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nDesign Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 - BIM4Housing Design<\/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\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 - BIM4Housing Design\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 GEORGE We did the Digital Construction Week event where we picked four questions and then tried to relate those questions in a very practical way in terms of trying to see what were the answers on that. What we\u2019ve also done this last couple of weeks is we\u2019ve gone…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Design\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-07T12:39:13+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\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\\\/\",\"name\":\"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 - BIM4Housing Design\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-07T12:12:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-07T12:39:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Design\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/?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":"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 - BIM4Housing Design","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\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 - BIM4Housing Design","og_description":"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 GEORGE We did the Digital Construction Week event where we picked four questions and then tried to relate those questions in a very practical way in terms of trying to see what were the answers on that. What we\u2019ve also done this last couple of weeks is we\u2019ve gone…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Design","article_modified_time":"2023-08-07T12:39:13+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\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/","name":"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023 - BIM4Housing Design","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-08-07T12:12:53+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-07T12:39:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-bim4housing-05-07-2023\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Design Working Group Meeting BIM4Housing 05-07-2023"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/","name":"BIM4Housing Design","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=374"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/374\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":377,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/374\/revisions\/377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}