{"id":185,"date":"2023-02-21T06:13:00","date_gmt":"2023-02-21T06:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/?page_id=185"},"modified":"2023-02-21T06:13:00","modified_gmt":"2023-02-21T06:13:00","slug":"contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/","title":{"rendered":"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205"},"content":{"rendered":"

Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205<\/strong><\/h2>\n

IAIN I think it seems to be clarifying a little bit, big pieces around the competency work, I think we\u2019re starting to see how we can get that moving. I think we\u2019ve got a path, we just ned people to do stuff now – I know what stuff we need them to do, I don\u2019t know how we get them to do it.<\/p>\n

PAUL That\u2019s the hard bit, there\u2019s only a limited amount of people that are producing anything.<\/p>\n

MARTIN We were talking last week about passports for supervisors. it was a health & safety drive, I was part of it. They\u2019re looking quite seriously to increase the number of modules that blackout supervisors need to do before they can do their stuff on one of our sites from 4 to 12. That\u2019s a trebling of training that\u2019s going to be offered and mandated, all online through M-site or one of the induction type providers. I think that\u2019s a recognition we need to be part of this.<\/p>\n

IAIN Be good to try and capture that so e know that there\u2019s a bit of consistency around us, they\u2019re not having to do a slightly different one for Balfour\u2026so if you can capture that a supervisor’s done this level of training, what we can translate would be because otherwise it could become quite onerous, couldn’t it.<\/p>\n

MARTIN It\u2019s topics rather than stuff and I\u2019ll capture the topics that are covered. You\u2019ve right, it\u2019s a positive thing, it does need to be more joined up but it\u2019s positive that our organisation has recognised that. We can\u2019t just demand this; we have to help or offer it as well. Regarding the CSCS card I get the impression that people are waiting for that, but I don\u2019t see it coming, I don\u2019t see it happening.<\/p>\n

IAIN We had a meeting with them about it around 2 years ago and whether anything\u2019s changed, it was sort of not in your lifetime that was pretty much the message I took away from it. We\u2019ve developed the conversely passport stuff with MPP which effectively just overlays the card. You don\u2019t really need the card to do it, you just need a mechanism for the card to be carried through your reader. So the conversy passports, they say MPPs a cracking system, they use it elsewhere, cheap as chips to run, nice and simple. In a way I think CSCS are probably going to miss the boat or by the time they get to the party the party will be over.<\/p>\n

MARK It\u2019s frustrating, and it goes back to that them of we\u2019re very good as an industry of inventing new platforms for everything which in essence just waters everything down. There\u2019s a platform sitting there, why can\u2019t it be used, or are they quite happy getting the revenue in that they want to get, controversially maybe.<\/p>\n

IAIN It\u2019s more a question for Build UK, they\u2019ve got more direct involvement with CSCS than we have. We tried to take over our own cards, to set our own card scheme up but we were told in no uncertain terms that whilst there\u2019s many that exist there can\u2019t be any new ones. There was going to be a CSCS Intel inside type things, they weren\u2019t going to revolutionise or change, but we wanted to deal with all the development work we\u2019ve done with MPP with CSCS at the front of it, but we were just cut off at our knees. I don\u2019t know by whom, it was a CLC missive, but I don\u2019t know who on the CLC or how the decision was come to, we were just told no.<\/p>\n

GEORGE At a workshop a few weeks ago I was asked to go in and talk with a small group that was meeting from the Institution of Construction Management (ICM) and they\u2019re doing work on supporting the new standard on competency. They\u2019re quite keen to move that forward to make that part of an insurance led\/supporting insurance premiums.<\/p>\n

IAIN i don\u2019t know, is the honest answer. I\u2019m sick of people trying to won competency. The ICM I think are doing some good work, but the first correspondence I got with them seemed to be a veiled threat to say they were going to sue me for trying to use the word competency in the context of construction because they patented it. I told them, have fun with that. There\u2019s too many people trying to own it rather than do it. But they are doing some good work, one of the main contractors (Waites) is doing some good work around trying to unify the stuff on cladding.<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s the thing, it\u2019s a matter of encouraging people to do stuff and not trying to own it. I get thins all the time where people try and discourage you because somebody else is doing it, but actually when you query it and drill into a bit more detail you find that, no, they\u2019re not.<\/p>\n

MARTIN I\u2019ll do a recap of where we\u2019ve got to, because it is the end of the year. We started talking the end of last year but didn\u2019t start having the meetings until January. The contractual workstream, the initial idea is that we were going to advise upstream and downstream people how they were going to be impacted by the Building safety Act and the Golden Thread, and what life would be like for them in the future and give them some joined-up thinking about how they could be better prepared for the legislation that came in. But we never really produced any, there was not outputs from it, but the conversation then in the last 2 or 3 sessions veered towards what would be useful is some sort of joined-up library that asset owners and asset developers could start using, deploying and benefiting from. I think that\u2019s where we\u2019re heading towards now.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think that\u2019s an output that we can do quite easily. Also, I think the work that we\u2019ve done over the last few months, in particular around the contractor design portion, I found particularly helpful because I think we started they year without any clear way of addressing the gateways (for example). through the conversations we\u2019ve had we\u2019ve identified that the contractor design portion does need to get moved into an earlier work stage and we\u2019re pushing at an open door there. What we\u2019ve also done, that hasn\u2019t yet turned into something that\u2019s an output, the conversations we\u2019ve had about what the challenges are with that, and also some potential solutions (particularly around what Paul has done). We\u2019ve got a vehicle to actually turn that into something that is meaningful. So, I think it is a bit more than that, Martin.<\/p>\n

MARTIN I appreciate that, i did have some other things on my list. Also, one of the things I think we have done is because we\u2019ve been talking (and I don\u2019t just talk to people on this call) there is other groups and collaborative things going on and the message is permeating out from the conversations we\u2019re having here to other forums.<\/p>\n

PAUL on the Construction News announcement from last week. That\u2019s the Passive Fire Knowledge Group (PFKG) and it\u2019s nothing to do with North Korea! it\u2019s a good thing because there\u2019s such a big issue with skill sets in the industry anyway, everyone\u2019s got different bits that go together. I\u2019ll show you a few bits on some of the stuff we\u2019re working around on process because it fits nicely into the conversation. You\u2019ve got to get the industry to a point where, because you\u2019ve got the fantastic purple book that comes out of FIS about how you do part 3 penetration seals. When you look at the whole system approach that\u2019s the panacea, it\u2019s getting people into doing that. we\u2019re looking at trying to get a passive fire code of practice. There\u2019s loads of individual one\u2019s out there (maybe for part 3, maybe some stuff around linear gap seals) but there\u2019s nothing that encapsulates the whole thing like\u2026<\/p>\n

It needs like a Cibse Code M, like a commissioning code of the industry fro how you manage passive fire from cradle to grave. Most of that is touched on in the purple book, Iain, but it doesn\u2019t go as far as the whole approach like it does in Code M, it\u2019s like a hybrid of combining that into a massive sort of thing. Paul shares his screen. That\u2019s the 2 that came up before, FIS which is\u2026the code M1 is basically regulation 44, how you commission buildings, which is all part of it. This is a diagramatic, it\u2019s about getting things into a very similar flow as to what was done in Code M. This is what we presented at Build Expo when we launched it. So you can kind of see about how you actually look at getting your purpose group right, how you do your risk groupings and seal and descriptive groupings.<\/p>\n

it\u2019s all about, like the things we issued previously Martin, on discrepancy, statutory management, change management, it all kind of kicks back into it. It’s getting these things right about descriptive changes and actually prescriptive changes because the way I\u2019ve tried to pitch it is to actually describe it properly and it\u2019s adequate for the intended risk class of the building and the space, then you can\u2019t touch that once it\u2019s set, but you can mess with the prescriptive because all you\u2019re doing is just selecting products around that descriptive. This is where the CDP thing becomes a bit difficult.<\/p>\n

The whole process about how we manage it all from cradle to grave, that\u2019s the big thing., so when you get into refurb and someone\u2019s changing thread later on\u2026One of the things everyone\u2019s going on about is they have the Golden Thread and actually they don\u2019t, they have a digital record or they have something that looks at it at the end or does something with O&Ms. it doesn\u2019t do the whole description of it from cradle to grave and that\u2019s the hard thing, it\u2019s about products and how you get those products completely right from day one and how they go into a system approach. Referring to the Process required for descriptive flow chart. At the Build Expo we said, look, if you look at it in context you\u2019ve got the fire safety type of the building, the space risks – so it could be sleeping, it could be high-rise (there\u2019s obviously a fire risk in all buildings). It could be a student block, residential block, a council home, it could even be a commercial office, wherever it needs to be from principle.<\/p>\n

Then you\u2019ve got to look at the operational, the system types that are in that building by risk space. Some systems might be static, like fire dampers (they sit on a wall, they may open and shut but the don\u2019t move) whereas a fire door is transient because you\u2019re going through it. That thing you were talking about the other day, George, which is good because you\u2019ve got Dock M, Part Q, all the other things that go onto a door, and it\u2019s about how those things are procured at the right time. The you\u2019ve got things like smoke control, sprinklers, they\u2019re all dynamic, they perform a function. the once you understand what that is in relation to that then you can start looking at what the relative classification is for that product. Once you understand that then you can look at your supporting constructions and to look at how you install it. What we try to depict is that when you look at relative skills that we have at the moment this is kind of what I think goes on.<\/p>\n

You might have a fire engineer who\u2019s being relied upon to do this. Then you\u2019ve got an architect who might do the wall side internally, but it won\u2019t be on anything prescriptive because someone is procuring it later, but they\u2019ll draw the walls out. Then the services consultant should do this, but they\u2019ve got no knowledge field in these areas, they\u2019re just going it\u2019s a smoke control system or it\u2019s a sprinkler, it\u2019s all CDP. Then you\u2019ve got the principal contractors who are generally throwing risk down the line, or pushing it upwards or sideways (generally they\u2019re not designing anything themselves). Then you\u2019ve got specialist trades, people like BG or\u2026you might do the walls, you might have a company that does fire damper installations, but then don\u2019t know anything about this. Then you\u2019ve got the product suppliers who can tell you a classification number but they can\u2019t tell you the fire engine and the same people that supply the wall BG can\u2019t tell you the relevance of this to their wall. And that\u2019s kind of the issue that exists, you can see it as you walk through it all, where that bit..the gel\u2019s missing in the middle.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Well, that\u2019s where the breaks in the Golden Thread happen, to carry on the analogy.<\/p>\n

PAUL So in order to get to that, you\u2019ve got to have gone through that process and what that tries to depict at the top is a method of going through it all, then when you get onto subjectology of each individual part, you can describe it. But that\u2019s the problem of describing it at the moment in CDP terms, no one\u2019s actually\u2026we\u2019ll have someone go to a damper manufacturer and go can I have a fire damper, or someone goes can I have a door please. And they\u2019ll go what do you want, I just want a fire door and they\u2019ll go here\u2019s one of these. But they\u2019ve got no knowledge of this area of it all, you don\u2019t know what that performance of the door is doing. Because even fire doors, if you\u2019ve got them in corridors, they\u2019re still down to have the air breaks as well between certain compartments for smoke, they\u2019re still performing a function for that. But they\u2019re transient, so you have to understand the whole system.<\/p>\n

So when they get down to the rest of it, which is obviously understanding your prescriptive information: how you install it, your workmanship, regulation 7, how you benchmark it, you\u2019ve got to have done the first bit. This is the kind of bit where you look at it and you go, well, the CDP element kind of falls down because in this situation if you are putting a wall in all these different parts that sit around it are generally via someone else, it\u2019s the whole procurement of how that comes together as a system that\u2019s the problem, which is that flow chart above. When you look at it, you\u2019ve got a big passive fire code that leads it, you need workbooks for individual subjectology where you can go through and this is the big key bit that\u2019s missing.<\/p>\n

This is where there\u2019s going to be a big reliance on Bim4housing, getting this bit completely right in templaters, so we understand what that asset information is and how it\u2019s recorded, then you can do your builders work (and the record of it done). One of the things you can\u2019t do is have all the builder\u2019s work on one schedule. you\u2019ve got to break it out by typology. The common denominator is having common walls that it all goes into but referenced on a schedule so you can actually record what that product was. All that really is, you can’t see the detail is because it’s just too much to go into. it’s that put on that so you can then record what you’re putting in that builders work location, the commonality being the support of construction with a wall reference to reference it because the common denominator is that the biggest thickness of requirement for this is going to lead to the thickness of the walls, there\u2019s nothing you can do about it. If you\u2019re procuring it out of sequence we\u2019re going to get into trouble.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where we got to on that working thread, and what I\u2019m trying to at the moment is put together the bones of actually writing a bit of a passive fire code around it. The big bits going to be getting that digital side right which is getting all of the parameters in. The workbooks (excel files) you\u2019ve got, but it\u2019s just having that in a constant flow and you can see to get this right we\u2019re gonna have to get the whole code right and the bits that lead out of it for each individual subjectology to bring it back in because the skill set, it\u2019s not actually just with only one person, it’s with individuals that need to be brought together correctly, rather than mis-procured. It\u2019s a lot easier than putting up, do you remember the excels? They\u2019re a bit mind-blowing, too put it all into perspective, you\u2019re not going to digest it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think the point is, it is overwhelming, but that\u2019s because it\u2019s bloody complicated. And therefore by doing what you\u2019ve done it\u2019s then a matter of bringing it back to make it simpler.<\/p>\n

PAUL shares \u2018Key Topics – Contract\u2019 on screen. I did this for the BN students on the last year of the H&D. It\u2019s the whole thing around the client wants a cup, what\u2019s in the documentation, all leading back out to that previous stuff that we\u2019ve done there. You go, well, the contractors priced that the PQS has bought this one, the planning requirements the statute records indicate this, but the salary images that, and it’s getting away from the fact that people are still trying to push to get what they priced into the job. So they’ll give back three handles to the PQS only to find they got to put two back in later. You\u2019re still seeing it going on, all of that. So you need you need a mechanism to try and get to that right conclusion from day one, rather than this lot all have a bit of a conversation about who\u2019s priced what.<\/p>\n

GEORGE yeah, and what does it include, that\u2019s the point really, to have an explicit set of requirements that you can then test everything against PAUL it was falls back to that. Everything that Malarly case, it always comes back to this. iI we’re following this for the Golden Thread, you’re not going to get it wrong anyway because you always end up with what statute required. and in this particular case, it’s the cup with two handles, because the cup with one handle you might have a problem, contractors don\u2019t want to give that one straight away.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I was sent something by a mate at Pinsett Mason and it\u2019s talking about new EU legislation that is going to require information about products to be correct. And if they are not correct there\u2019s unlimited liability (whatever that means). So it’s just feeding back up the line to enable product manufacturers to know where their products are being used.<\/p>\n

PAUL I had it with one of the consultants recently where they\u2019ve gone to a company and asked for a damper, and they\u2019ve got one but it\u2019s the completely wrong piece of kit because they\u2019ve asked the wrong questions. There\u2019s so many different variances on space type, risk type and wall types that the manufacturers just can\u2019t do it. You\u2019ve kind of got to force people, you\u2019ve got to give the platforms so that when everyone gets together (this is what I\u2019m trying to do with this passive fire) so at the end of stage 3 you\u2019ve actually got your descriptive right. The biggest risk on discrepancy, adequacy, statutory matter is that if you come out of gateway 1 and you\u2019ve not got the shape and form of the building set they\u2019ll get you at gateway 3, it will haunt you because that\u2019s when it will come up. No one\u2019s got the knowledge to spot it in between. Even when you do spot it people think you don\u2019t really mean it, do you.<\/p>\n

MARTIN used to a swing, didn\u2019t it, that analogy you\u2019ve got with the cup with 3 handles, swaying how the client envisioned it, how the contractor priced it, what they ended up with.<\/p>\n

GEORGE One of the things that we’ve been doing just this last week is working with PRP on a live project that we\u2019re doing for Peabody. We\u2019re trying to align the context in which a product (a door) is being installed in the building with the fire strategy. So to be able to see visually where the fire compartments are but then be able to relate that back to assets. This is something we\u2019ve been experimenting with. George shares the Active Plan spacial model on screen. That\u2019s the Active Plan spacial model and you\u2019ll see here we\u2019ve got, these are intelligent objects (this is a door) and we\u2019ve got there the information about the door. At the moment there\u2019s no real data behind it because it\u2019s still in design. PRP are producing fire drawings within their models and these fire drawings we can pull into Active Plan and we can have them visually\u2026this will tell me what the fire compartment is in terms of its fire rating (we can see that\u2019s a 120 minute fire compartment).<\/p>\n

Tomorrow, we\u2019re going to be tying these all back, just as I was showing you earlier, to connect into the object itself. The relevance of this is that it\u2019s this system-led approach that Paul was talking about earlier. That we\u2019ve got the fire compartment and the asset, so if we\u2019ve got this as both machine-readable data we can check that a 60 minute fire door is at least in a (in this case) a 120 minute wall. We\u2019re hoping to also have the penetration seals sorted as well. I think this is one way that we could help a manufacturer to know where their products are going to be used so they can be part of the argument because of the liability now on manufacturers (according to the conversation that Michael Gove had with the CPA in terms of responsibility). The manufacturers were arguing that they couldn\u2019t be held responsible for where their products were being used and Gove said we\u2019ll let the Courts sort that out. My point is that manufacturers do need to have a little bit more engagement in that context.<\/p>\n

PAUL I agree. The opportunity we have here is once we get that templater out. I\u2019m gonna try and do the diagrams against specific case examples, like a case study they go that\u2019s everything a manufacturer needs to have on their information, to enable someone to go, oh, I can only put it there. The way to explain it is to become a fire engineer it might take you the best part of 10 years to become an MIFE, but even then your knowledge of products is probably not as good as it could be because you\u2019re not looking at products, you\u2019re looking at fire engineering of a complex building. A product manufacturer goes through a specific training on how they do their door or damper, they never touch the inherent fire engineering of the applicability of space.So, you\u2019ve got to somehow get everyone cross-educated to the point where there\u2019s a platform you can use to select it.<\/p>\n

The only way you can do it is by the templating in BIM: we have everything that can possibly be there. So the manufacturer goes this is the applicability of what it can do, here you go, is it applicable to what you want? Because otherwise, I\u2019ve got consultants going to manufacturers we\u2019ve got some rally good robust kit, we\u2019ve been paying for testing, and going can I have a fire damper that fits on the face of a wall and they go \u2018here\u2019s one\u2019, but it\u2019s not appropriate for the type of wall it\u2019s fixing to. When people feel that their information is going to be misused they generally don\u2019t want to give you as much information as they normally would. So you\u2019ve got to break that stalemate where they go \u2018this is everything we believe you might want to do with it, check you\u2019re happy with this list, then come back to us\u2019 rather than go \u2018her\u2019s one of these\u2019. There\u2019s so many variants of it all. if you look at it from Gove\u2019s POV if he started doing electron fire doors, I\u2019d have to be there to watch it. I never realised how the knowledge was until you get sucked into it over the last 2 years and you realise \u2018oh, jeez\u2019.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We had a guy join a Bim4housing session last week, this was landlords and we had the National Fire Chiefs Council on it, it was about the preparation for 23rd January. I met a guy at Homes UK 3 weeks ago and he\u2019s amazing. He works in the Houses of Parliament as a volunteer over the last 3 or 4 years and advises the MPs. he got a task of taking the Building Safety Act and summarise it onto an A4 page. He\u2019s done this in the past and he\u2019s the one that\u2019s been educating MPs and the people in the House of Lords.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Specifically the Levelling Up committee and Gove, he\u2019s been working on this for 3 years, but he\u2019s worked in the Commons and Lords for 20 years.<\/p>\n

MARTIN I had it really well described to me, I was in the Institute of Civil Engineers a few weeks ago, they\u2019re on Great George Street, directly opposite the Treasury and 200 metres from the Houses of Parliament and he says when they ask us for something and we send something to them you would think it\u2019s like 20 miles and 200 miles distances they had to travel. Also, that factor of ten comes into account when you look at the inverse logic of their memory retention, he says, because the House of Commons has the memory retention of a goldfish and the treasury are still pretty stupid but they\u2019re 10 times better. They do a lot of advising on transport policy, but they have to keep banging the same message out in order for it to sink in.<\/p>\n

RICHARD the reason that this guy was so fascinating is that he has a direct route, he speaks to Gove directly. He\u2019s now putting together a book which some of our members are reviewing the first quarter to give some feedback that will do that with the Building Safety Act, break it all down and make it very easy to understand. More importantly, it will make it very searchable. if you\u2019re looking for something that mentions contractors, for example, you\u2019ll find it very quickly. We\u2019re gonna be doing some more stuff with him moving forward.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Coming back on to my pet project the product library, last week I went to the GS1 launch for construction. GS1 is the international organisation that manages barcodes worldwide. It\u2019s a not-for-profit, they issue the barcodes that all the manufacturers use, so when people are selling trainers and things that\u2019s where they get the barcodes from. It\u2019s a unique identifier called GTIM. They\u2019re coming into construction in a big way and the manufacturers will then buy a barcode or QR code from them and that unique identifier then is for every single product that they they produce. It\u2019s being included in BSI identify, it becomes universal because it\u2019s not actually behind any paywall, so it seems to me to be a no-brainer.<\/p>\n

What they\u2019re able to do is go down to an individual SKU (individual item) which is obviously where the wholesalers want that information, but they also group it up for distribution into palettes. Obviously, they\u2019ve been doing it for a long time in retail so it\u2019s pretty robust. The event I went to, I was introduced to them by Travis Perkins 6 months ago and I\u2019ve been discussing things with them over the period and they are vey interested. There was a guy there from Tata Steel, he said something like 80& of the manufacturers of products that go into the construction industry employ less than 20 people, an extraordinary figure. The point was there\u2019s a lot of very small organisations and they need some help in getting their GTIMs. The idea of them just providing a PDF of their products if we can then provide a simple way of them getting their GSI codes then that could be a very good way of engaging with manufacturers.<\/p>\n

Also at at that session there was the Builders Merchant Federation, the Electrical Distributors association, BMA the building services people, ETIM (the standard for all wholesalers, worldwide classification). CBRE were presenting at it, promoting and endorsing it and so were Travis Perkins. I floated the idea to anybody who would listen to me of having a simple database, free database of product data sheets and I got 100% approval of it, so I think it’s something that we could probably get some very quick adoption with some support from people on the manufacturing end. Iain is more connected than I am in the area, but that was my view.<\/p>\n

MARTIN What would be the blockers, George? Why hasn\u2019t it been done before? What would stop it?<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think the major blockers are probably the people that make their money as information intermediaries. So people like MBS and Specified By and the like, because their business is about they\u2019re all competing with each other to be THE product library of the industry. And they charge the manufacturers, so the manufacturers have to decide which product libraries they put their information into and therefore you don\u2019t really know where to get it from and it ends up being very fragmented. MBS\u2019s principal role is on specification and the way their information is structured is according to the way people will look for it when they\u2019re trying to specify a product.<\/p>\n

PAUL For me, the bit that is the kind of panacea for everyone it\u2019s kind of having that library is fantastic, and I think it would be really good. The blocker is people\u2019s understanding of what it is and what it\u2019s for. That\u2019s half the battle, it\u2019s alien behaviour for them to think \u2018what do I want that for\u2019. having that kind of library, it all comes back down to where you\u2019ve got all those key attributes in there as well, it\u2019s the key part to it. The bit I\u2019m missing in my own knowledge field, because one of the biggest things on comms? 45mins 58secs is understanding what you don\u2019t know yourself. For me it\u2019s how that template looks in a library fashion. I need help with this PFKG thing in relation to this from us as a group as well, is how I get\u2026if I look at the BIM sheet,<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll do smoke control because it\u2019s more complicated. Shares on screen an Excel sheet. How do I get all of this in that\u2026there\u2019s a product, here\u2019s what it can do in practice (maybe that\u2019s the word I\u2019m looking for). This is what its classification is but this is what it does in practice, this is what it means. Because that\u2019s the bit I\u2019m really struggling to get in a simple fashion. It\u2019s operational, so it\u2019s what the diagram represents which is how you get it in a templater to go that\u2019s what it kind of looks like.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So, the way that\u2019s done, you\u2019ve got for example time periods 30\/60\/90\/120 – that would be what we call an enumerated list, so you\u2019ll be able to pick from those and then see the context of that in the template. The point is against any, this is\u2026PAUL It\u2019s for a smoke control duct, there\u2019s so many parameters that you need to know when you select it. GEORGE I appreciate that. If I can just share my screen for a minute. The fundamental problem that we\u2019ve got is that for each of these asset types (here we\u2019ve got a fire door and here we\u2019ve got a smoke damper) and all of this information in green is standard information that is constant whatever the type of product. So if we get a data sheet for a fire door or a smoke damper the information in green is going to be added as a data set against that particular product. So the information about company name and model etc will all be standard and searchable.<\/p>\n

The information here that\u2019s in orange or pink, again that\u2019s standard information, but it\u2019s unique to an instance. So the first one is against a product type, the second is the thing that tells you that uniquely is for that particular item, that individual fire door or that individual smoke damper. The next level is is the thing that makes it different. So a fire door, you wouldn’t have things like blade edge or frame type because that’s relevant to a smoke damper, not a fire door. Now this is the challenge that we’ve been wrestling with over the last few years in Lexicon and the other initiatives that we’ve been involved with. It’s determining what additional attribute information we should be collecting for fire doors as opposed to smoke dampers and this is the conversation I\u2019ve been having with Iain, as to whether we use, for example, the essential characteristics in declarations of [performance to simplify this because that then ties you back\u2026for example, designers would want to know the maximum airflow rate for a smoke damper, but I don\u2019t know whether an asset manager would need to know that.<\/p>\n

PAUL This is the bit that\u2019s causing the big issue. On the diagram I showed earlier with the classification showed basically a picture of an opposed blade damper. This is the panacea. if you use smoke control dampers and you\u2019re putting it in a basement and it\u2019s doing multiple rooms and general ventilation as well as smoke there\u2019s only certain blade dampers you can use to make that air work, but you can\u2019t necessarily use them with systems of different classifications (it could be an MA system rather than an AA system). And that effects the type of blade which effects your airflow. So when it goes to this dreaded word of CDP and they go just give me a system in the basement for 10 air changes and out 300 degrees C that\u2019s all they\u2019re declaring. And it is getting better, people are giving more information because we\u2019re educating externally.<\/p>\n

They go to a manufacturer and they go \u2018here you go\u2019, it\u2019s a basic opposed blade damper it\u2019s an OA system and they shove that in the spec, but it\u2019s not appropriate for the circumstance because no ones gone through that descriptive of the whole system. o the way I want to try and drive it is by having everything listed and I think more isn’t necessarily the wrong thing in this particular instance because it’s got to be used by someone that has the relative knowledge to go, Okay, what options have I got? I don’t know if anyone\u2019s ever seen and this is a good thing that app used to do years ago. They used to give data sheets with all the key attributes on it in a tick box, but I think they stopped doing it. I haven’t seen it for a long time. But to have in the asset specific type all of that stuff listed it forces someone then to click on it and go well actually, it\u2019s a smoke control damper, it\u2019s got to do 20,000 cycles of C-mod, it\u2019s got to be MA and have this type of blade for this type of balancing. But all the things you can click are there.<\/p>\n

You don\u2019t get curtain dampers on smoke control, but you\u2019ll get opposed blade, single blade or parallel blade, each has a different level of authority of control. This is where the complication comes into it, I\u2019ve tried to dumb it down in the the five items, but the bit that sits behind it is still quite complex and I can’t see anyway to resolve it unless the BIM attributes are there.<\/p>\n

IAIN Isn\u2019t this the point of the process that you’re laying down because we\u2019re not going to fix all of this at once. I think that’s the important thing is to look at the process you’re laying down and start phasing because I think one of the fundamentals is even if you go back to the thing that George had up and there we refer to door seta and doors. We end up with is it a product or a component? One person\u2019s product might be another person\u2019s component because the closers are a component on a door set.<\/p>\n

PAUL Doors are quite complicated, everyone\u2019s underestimated doors, the dock ? and part Q thing as well, so you\u2019re spot on. I think when it comes down to smoke control dampers you can\u2019t add stuff to them, they\u2019re either A, B or C type, there\u2019s not like add-ons. Fire doors are more interesting, that\u2019s why I\u2019ve called them transient because you move through them whereas smoke control system is actually a dynamic function. It’s extracting a hot gas that can be used for compartmentation, it can be used for air balancing, and all those attributes have got to be fixed day one for the product to do what it says in practise. So I’m kind of looking it and going I need to get the manufacturers to a point as well because the process will fail if only one part of it isn’t completely thought through, because it’s like a process within a process within a process: it\u2019s sort of like a tree root, it stems out.<\/p>\n

So the one for me that I’m desperate to get into a literal form to show it is how you do the attributes for something like a smoke control damper, what that selection list looks like. Because once people see it and feel it they’ll go, okay, now that makes a bit more sense and how you’re selecting it. Does that make sense?<\/p>\n

GEORGE It does. What you’ve said there, Iain, it\u2019s a limitation of how Uniclass defines things. If you look at Uniclass, there isn’t a classification for fire doors, there\u2019s only one for fire door sets. Similarly, there\u2019s no classification for fire dampers, it\u2019s a fire & smoke damper.<\/p>\n

IAIN That\u2019s because the product is the door set and the other parts are really component parts thereof. So if you think of the product as installed, and I think this is the question of where is the product fabricated. And this is changing in terms of derogation from the EU as well because they’re starting to bring into scope on site fabrication as a CE mark process. The way they worded that in the consultation is to get round this gap in the legislation, or that they perceived the fact that you can getaway with building stuff on site and not applying a CE mark to the product as a as a work around or as some kind of a fudge rather than a than a requirement.<\/p>\n

So I think there’s a logic to saying that at this level we consider this to be a product and these are components within the product and you\u2019ll simplify a lot of this stuff if you start there. It might be that you cascade beyond that, but I think you you\u2019ve got to start at a recognised product level and at some point somebody takes responsibility as a package for either putting in a door set or fabricating a door set on site.<\/p>\n

PAUL You look at a fire door being transient with all the bits on it and you look at a smoke control damper being static and the possibilities are quite endless in what they do differently.<\/p>\n

GEORGE You\u2019ll see here within the templater you can have multiple classifications against any asset type. I think Uniclass is great but it\u2019s not sufficiently granular to do everything, so therefore what we need to do is to make sure it\u2019s horses for courses. In terms of your attributes, here we\u2019ve got a hundred or so attributes, and these are just IFC attributes, they\u2019ve just come through from design. What we should be doing, manufacturers have got different attributes and all of those can be put in here as well, and they’re then provided as what are called property sets. So they’re groups of properties that are there to fulfil a function. So here, for example, we’ve got the sort of common ones that would be applicable to any type of door. Then there\u2019s other information like the type of information you\u2019d expect to get from a manufacturer.<\/p>\n

This is the technology we built that\u2019s behind Lexicon, so we can add all of that information in in due course. The problem at the moment, because of the complication we\u2019re not getting started whereas if we can just have a data sheet with this additional information in it\u2026<\/p>\n

PAUL Send me that Excel, the one on the right. I\u2019ve got a few big aims to get done for Christmas, one is to get this passive fire coding into a bit of an order for PFKG and I think we need to do a bit of cross-pollination with some of this stuff. The other thing I want to do is get this whole, for me the lynchpin is the BIM part, without the BIM part I can just see it all falling down. I need to get the BIM part in such an order that it actually prevents people from going of at a tangent and going oh, it\u2019s just all CDP. It\u2019s got to be done in such a way that if you do talk to a manufacturer this list comes up and you go, well, just select what you want. Fire doors are harder than smoke dampers because you\u2019ve got lots of different products that can go on the door.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I can give you access to this which allows you to print off any\u2026this is the housing master list that we\u2019ve created for housing developments. Martin, this is what we\u2019re using on Russian Park which is one of your jobs. This allows you to generate either a word document or an Excel spreadsheet or form. I\u2019ll just generate this, for a smoke damper. Here we\u2019ve got the attributes that were selected against that. PAUL What I kind of looked at was like a passive fire attribute sheet with everything in one place so\u2026GEORGE That can be a property set, so for example here we\u2019ve got template attributes that have been added to this particular field, this is a way the data can be used in an application (this is our application but anybody can use the templates).<\/p>\n

These are the attributes that have come through from the data templates and there’s potentially, there\u2019s 95 of them, and you can pick which ones you actually want to incorporate. What I guess I\u2019m saying is that\u2019s a data dictionary that you can just pull together.<\/p>\n

PAUL shares screen. This is just a smoke damper on a wall but it\u2019s like getting to the point that you have all these key attributes where you know how to click and select on the one that you want. I\u2019m trying to marry up manufacturers to process as well, so when someone asks for something they go here\u2019s the list rather than this is what we can offer, here\u2019s the list. Fire doors I need to think about a bit differently, that\u2019s why I need your help with it Iain because you\u2019ve got the Dock M and the Dock Q part as well which makes it a bit more interesting because say the transient, the static ones are a bit easier. One of the hardest ones to get right is pipe work because it\u2019s temperature, material and X? 1hr 5mins 14secs driven which no one every bothers about until it\u2019s too late.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I suggest we break this off, Paul, we can pick up on this. I think you\u2019ve met Paul Oakley who joined us from BRE, I\u2019ll get him to go through this with you and then we can look at how you can put this into the templater. The other, thing I might Adam Oliver at a Sodexo training course for their engineers to be trained on doing fire door inspections. Having been on the course I\u2019m now a fire door expert, by the way, I\u2019ve got a certificate now. Adam Oliver used to run something called Checkmate, he was then at BRE and now he\u2019s doing training. I can plug you into him as well, Paul, and also some of the manufacturers of fire doors who have been extremely helpful in terms of our work. But to roll back on what I’d like to see if we can get underway in some ways, just this simple idea of a data sheet for every product that you\u2019re going to install.<\/p>\n

I can provide the platform to do it, we\u2019ll do it under the Bim4housing banner and it will be free. What we can try and do is look at how we can provide some sort of funding for it, maybe from identifying some additional information services off the back of it. Just providing a database of where people can put their data sheets which means that we\u2019ve then got a register which anybody can access and use.<\/p>\n

MARTIN I\u2019m just defragmenting everything that\u2019s gone on in the last hour. In regards to pitching this and selling it on, would you say this is primarily of use or a tool for people who are looking to replace products in buildings like asset managers or FM contractors, or is this primarily a tool for designers who are matching up their aspiration against the products that are available on the marketplace? Or both?<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think it\u2019s definitely both. And there’s a third group in there as well and that’s the people that are putting together your O&M information, so it\u2019s your procurement and your production of O&Ms. MARTIN But that should follow your design. if the designer has gone through the process and then selected from the free library something that meets his criteria, you then follow up with we\u2019ve put it in, here\u2019s a photo to prove it and here\u2019s the O&M manuals saying that\u2019s what we need. That\u2019s your Golden Thread, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s exactly it. I\u2019ve also been through it with Sodexo and they\u2019re very keen on receiving that type of information. MARTIN Yeah, I\u2019m just looking at blockers and thinking why people wouldn\u2019t do this and who would abuse it and immediately my mind goes to PMQSs or doing cost comparisons or similar products. GEORGE Well, all we\u2019re talking about is a data sheet that the manufacturers will provide anyway, a library of PDFs of what they would normally issue. MARTIN But there are people out there who will play amateur designer and say, there\u2019s a cheaper on here, it\u2019s made in China.<\/p>\n

PAUL That\u2019s the whole thing about the templater, that\u2019s the bit I want to try and prevent because you\u2019ve got some really strange things going on at the moment. You\u2019ve got MEP building services contractors saying I\u2019m just gonna go for a XX??? 1hr 11mins 18secs all singing, all dancing and I\u2019m gonna shove it in, but actually it\u2019s not appropriate for where you are putting it because they\u2019re longer, a lot thinner, they cause secondary problems etc. The PQSs, what they\u2019ll do is go actually I\u2019ve got this one here which is an FD and it’s \u00a3100 and you’re one is \u00a3600.I\u2019ve got to get that descriptive line done in such a way that if anyone tries to change it in the VE ripple, and it\u2019s not easy it\u2019s cost management because you know a capex is going down.<\/p>\n

You go, well, it\u2019s different to that number that\u2019s been selected by a fire engineer, a building services consultant and an architect and specialist within the Tier 1 whoever that meets the thread – if it doesn\u2019t do that you can\u2019t select it. And if you change it you\u2019ve got to go back to basically stage 2 effects because the ripple of it effects everything else. When you look at this problem it\u2019s actually all so simple, but it\u2019s the PQS\u2026to quote my fried Charlie it\u2019s many conflicting motivations by many conflicting people that causes the issue, everyone\u2019s got a different driver and you need something no matter what driver you\u2019ve got once you\u2019ve gone through that process at the start and you\u2019ve locked it in descriptively and you\u2019ve got everything set around the walls as well, you can\u2019t just go, well, that one\u2019s cheaper because it\u2019s got to tick the same boxes as that, and if it doesn\u2019t. If it\u2019s cheaper and it ticks all the same boxes and it\u2019s appropriate for the circumstances who am I to complain.<\/p>\n

But if it doesn\u2019t tick those boxes\u2026the first principles. It\u2019s like when you look at the analogy of BG6, it says if someone\u2019s selecting alternatives the consultants go \u2018I\u2019m getting my hands off of it\u2019, it all goes back to that initial problem where someone goes away and messes with the inertia of what it did originally. I\u2019m so interested in ventilation because the minute you do something that effects pressure drop you\u2019ve messed with your part L calculation there\u2019s nowhere to go. You can\u2019t derogate Part L, it is what it is, you must achieve X, Y and Z, it\u2019s the only one in the building that you cannot mess with. I\u2019ve got jobs where we\u2019ve gone with the higher rates of 1.6 watts a litre of air delivered and it\u2019s all the wrong kit, you\u2019re going to be at 3 watts the way you\u2019re going. The body\u2019s too big for the skin because everyone\u2019s gone off at such a tangent over cost.<\/p>\n

IAIN Paul, in terms of next steps do we need, because we\u2019ve got the water\u2019s 1hr 14mins 31secs assistant group mirroring the passive fire knowledge group, would it be sensible to set up small working groups and look at each class of products? And say what level do we need for each of these kinds of products. If we start with focusing on the fire critical stuff, that\u2019s the most important thing. Some of the other stuff can follow, we could use some exemplar at this level covering these attributes and then other things can start to come through. I know that\u2019s paring it back a little bit, but at least we can achieve something in the short term. I expect we might find out that not everything is possible with everything – quite often there might be no magic product that does all of those things.<\/p>\n

PAUL The habitual habit is we try to make complex less complex and I\u2019ve tried to make all of that into that, for how you do one product. The reality is when you interface between all of these different groups, for me you need workbooks for each individual subject. So, if it\u2019s a door it needs a workbook, if it\u2019s a damper it needs a workbook and the workbook enables you to get the classification information right. The common denominator is comparing all of that against the system design.<\/p>\n

IAIN But it\u2019s not wrong to set somebody else a problem. If we say, look, at the door set level this is the information that we expect, because this is what you\u2019re setting down here. Then, if you\u2019re building an assembly it\u2019s over to you to prove how you\u2019re doing this, it\u2019s your problem.<\/p>\n

PAUL You \u2019re right. The hard bit is I\u2019ve generated these for 4 subjects and I\u2019ve probably and I get Paul White to verify that he thinks we\u2019re on the right track so I know I\u2019ve got a robust list. It gets complicated when you start doing the comparison with the wall because you\u2019ve got to get that wall type right to suit what you do, but then you\u2019ve got to compare them all in a platform like where all of those different workbooks are listed out with a common wall type so you can get the coordination of the system. If you know how to do it it\u2019s probably quite simple, but I don\u2019t know\u2026<\/p>\n

I haven\u2019t looked at fire doors\u2026 with the damper or the ductwork or the smoke control product because they\u2019re all static. When you start looking at the doors it is all the assembly where you\u2019ve got the Part Q, the security stuff, because you look at habitual flowing contracts you\u2019ll have an MEP contractor that comes on working for us as a Tier 1, he goes to a specialist contractor for security and looks at a strategy for doing security, comes back and says I\u2019m going to put mortice red locks in all the doors and then you find the door was procured 6 months ago – that\u2019s no good, is it. You\u2019ve got to get to that point where you know before you\u2019re procuring the door that without that information being in that classification box you can\u2019t proceed with it.<\/p>\n

IAIN Applicability and limitations are two words I\u2019ve written down that are key because actually what you do is you set a limitation, you\u2019re saying if now this is specified yo can\u2019t come and do that in the later stage. If you want to do that, fine, what you\u2019re not doing is installing the products that we\u2019ve developed, you\u2019re installing something else and you now need to develop that. And then you say who\u2019s responsible, this is where the role of the fabricator is missing in construction, it gets so confused. Is it an installation operation or is it a fabrication installation operation.<\/p>\n

GEORGE At the moment I\u2019m trying to simplify some of the stuff we\u2019ve been doing over the last 3 or 4 years and obviously not replicate it. If we look at the work we\u2019ve done within the Golden thread Initiative and Bim4housing we ran workshops for 12 asset types. This is the fire door one. We had 20 or 30 people who\u2019ve got expertise in fire doors working up what risk is the fire door mitigating, what do people do to a fire door to stop it from working, what information is required. These are the key things considered to be important by the experts, there\u2019s a hell of a lot of information here that has already been collected in a raw format for construction installation, maintenance etc. And then what tasks do people need to carry out. All of this is available to us to then turn into reusable data templates, but we don\u2019t have the funding to be able to translate all of that.<\/p>\n

What I\u2019m trying to get to is we can use this information and build on it, but at the moment we’re stuck with the templates as being this exercise of saying, you know, what information do we want to collect for which purpose. That\u2019s why I\u2019m suggesting that we get the thing off the ground by simply saying let\u2019s have a library of data sheets and we hold against those data sheets the information about who the manufacturer is, the model number etc. People become then interested, don\u2019t they? Because at eh moment what\u2019s been happening is we\u2019ve been having the conversations with Lexicon and Bimhawk and other initiatives and it\u2019s all a bit non-specific, whereas if we could actually say we\u2019ve got a library of data sheets of smoke dampers that are being provided and we\u2019ve got them from two manufacturers, let\u2019s say to those people, let\u2019s coalesce around that and say what additional information do we actually want to want, what properties do we actually need. And it gets it underway, that\u2019s my thought.<\/p>\n

IAIN I agree. i think the work that Paul\u2019s doing needs to carry on at the same time, but (like you said) it could be the thing that unifies and brings people together.<\/p>\n

PAUL I don\u2019t think you\u2019ll ever get construction to function in the perfect world, you\u2019re always going to get a fire engineer an architect a building services engineer, you\u2019ve just got to bring it together in such a way that the platforms make it easier for them to get it right. The hard bit will be that are people gonna abuse it the wrong way and how do you continuously keep it maintained will be the hard bit,. At the moment, no one\u2019s actually got a defined list when they go and buy a smoke damper form a company of everything that they want from it.<\/p>\n

IAIN This isn\u2019t happening in isolation either, is it. The problems begin at gateway 2 and gateway 3 unless they line this stuff up. I don\u2019t know if anyone\u2019s looked at the consultation for the building control approval process, where you kick back gateway 2 you\u2019ve got 12 weeks from submission or resubmission for the building control officer to decide if works can proceed, so who pays for that 12 weeks? And if you go back after 12 weeks and you\u2019re still a bit unsure then you\u2019ve got another 12 weeks in your program.<\/p>\n

MARK It\u2019s not even clear what that level of information is, if you actually look at the list of information presented, actually 90% of it is pretty straightforward, it\u2019s all available. And then you have statements such as provide such plans that demonstrate in an unambiguous way that you\u2019re fully compliant with building regs, well, what the hell does that mean?<\/p>\n

PAUL This is a great example: you\u2019ve got a big office building going up, even if it\u2019s not one of the high-rise risk buildings. You get into a conflab with building control and they come down and say how have you got to the conclusion that this is fine? You\u2019re going to get that problem. When you look at structure, no disrespect to structural engineers, they can design a structure pretty quickly. The fact is if you\u2019ve got a big riser out and turns on things on buildings where you\u2019ve got massive ducts going through and big fire doors and no one\u2019s gone through the relative process of actually going \u2018the ducts too big for the wall to support, I can\u2019t put a fire door underneath it because I can\u2019t put jams top to bottom\u2019 and you get to the conclusion dry wall isn\u2019t appropriate for that location, it should be block, structures designed.<\/p>\n

Building control are not going to see that because they\u2019re going to say to you at gateway 2 are you happy that the building\u2019s coordinated and you\u2019re going to go well, as a structure we\u2019re happy it\u2019s fine, here are the calculations. They don\u2019t know about all the other lead-on components because you can see on the government website, it say\u2019s you\u2019ll be able to do things in a phased approach for big complex jobs because you can\u2019t do it all at once.<\/p>\n

MARK Some of this goes back to something which is a big thing for me at the moment, design program and sufficient time, it\u2019s always going to be an iterative process. Do we have enough time, typically? No, of course we don\u2019t because everyone assumes it\u2019s a nice straightforward linear process, it never can be.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Are we on the same page that we ought to be trying to promote this out\u2026Martin, are you OK with us\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 IAIN I think it seems to be clarifying a little bit, big pieces around the competency work, I think we\u2019re starting to see how we can get that moving. I think we\u2019ve got a path, we just ned people to do stuff now – I know what stuff we need them…<\/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-185","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nContractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 - IQ Contractual<\/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\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 - IQ Contractual\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 IAIN I think it seems to be clarifying a little bit, big pieces around the competency work, I think we\u2019re starting to see how we can get that moving. I think we\u2019ve got a path, we just ned people to do stuff now – I know what stuff we need them…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IQ Contractual\" \/>\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=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\\\/\",\"name\":\"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 - IQ Contractual\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-02-21T06:13:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/\",\"name\":\"IQ Contractual\",\"description\":\"IQ Contractual Workstreams\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/?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":"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 - IQ Contractual","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\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 - IQ Contractual","og_description":"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 IAIN I think it seems to be clarifying a little bit, big pieces around the competency work, I think we\u2019re starting to see how we can get that moving. I think we\u2019ve got a path, we just ned people to do stuff now – I know what stuff we need them…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/","og_site_name":"IQ Contractual","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/","name":"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205 - IQ Contractual","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-02-21T06:13:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-session-8-20221205\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Contractual Workstream Session 8-20221205"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/","name":"IQ Contractual","description":"IQ Contractual Workstreams","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":186,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/185\/revisions\/186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}