Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA)
I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to
the Research Community to put evidence to the Committee at the
meeting held on 4 December. During the meeting a number of documents
were offered to support the arguments put forward and I promised
to supply the committee with references to those that were easily
available and copies of those less easy to obtain. To summarise
our case:
Due to the long-term reduction of government
agencies with expertise in the public estate (Property Services
Agency, NHS Estates, Building Research Establishment) and the
now extinct programme of collaborative funding of incremental
R&D that partly acted in the absence of these agencies then
there is little understanding or collective knowledge of how innovation
in construction is actually contributing to performance.
A renewed focus on the performance of existing
government building assets would not only bring direct savings
to the public purse but would have great value to the remaining
construction community. We have proposed that this focus could
helpfully be administered through the Office of Government Commerce
who as part of their role are best-placed to provide evidence-based
advice to procuring departments. Mechanisms to fund this from
taxes already derived from the construction industry were suggested.
To put the proposal into context with a government spend on estate
valued at over £40 billion per annum a 1% improvement in
performance would yield £400 million of savings or increased
output. The papers used to support this position are given below.
To help assimilate the information I have enclosed
an abridged list of the questions asked of us and an annotated
numbered reference.
1. What is it about UK construction that
leads to such small R&D spends?
I refer you to Bridging the gap between environmental
necessity and economic opportunity DTI November 2006 DTI/Pub
8442/2.5K/11/06.
Page 13 shows the discontinuity between government
support for the "R&D" phase and the risk to business
in implementing new technologies. Construction has a similar profile
to Environmental products market and has similar risks. P12 in
the penultimate paragraph says "It is the lack of credible
articulated demand that is at the root of the relative failure
of innovation in the UK environmental goods and services sector
not the lack of any research, invention or innovative aspirations".
We would argue this is also true for construction.
We also made reference to the report prepared
by Sir John Fairclough Rethinking Construction Innovation and
Research February 2002. DTI/Pub 5878/1.6k/02/02/NP.
2. What work is being done to capture "hidden
innovation"
I refer you to Hidden innovation Research
Report June 2007, NESTA.
http://www.nesta.org.uk/assets/pdf/hidden—innovation—report—NESTA.pdf
Section 2.5 notes "The accumulated impact
of incremental innovation may be significant... Yet these innovations
are far more difficult to capture because the projects... are
typically much smaller, more specific and far less visible than
flagships... such as terminal 5.
3. How much co-funding is currently being
received by the construction Industry?
I referred to the House of Lords Select Committee
on Science & Technology second report Chapter 11 Table 3.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/21/2114.htm
The data supplied was in response to a written
question. No similar data is available for years following 2005
since it is not analysed for public record in this way. We do
note the recommendation of the Committee stated in 11.25 and regret
that it has not been heeded.
4. Can we provide specific examples of what
has been lost due to failing support levels?
(a) I would cite a recent judgement made
against the DCLG for failure to adequately communicate with industry.
ACTIS Vs DCLG. 2 November 2007.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2417.html&query=ACTIS&method=boolean
This case revolved around a disputed test method
for assessing the insulation value of particular products. Hastily
bought-in consultancy failed to address commercial issues and
DCLG were found wanting in developing building regulations (Part
L). By common consent had a co-funding programme been available
this would have enabled DCLG to brigade the industry to work together
to find a suitable technical solution prior to the need to embody
this in legislation.
(b) BSRIA published Design Checks for
HVAC (copy enclosed) in 2002 with support from DTI co-funding
together with 18 collaborative industry partners. This work is
noted in DTI's The Construction Research Programme—Project
Showcase February 2007 DTI/Pub 8495/02/07/2k.
This document is now "wearing out"
as new technology is employed in buildings. The business model
of selling the book at a typical price of £50 per copy does
not cover the costs of research, peer review, printing and distribution.
5. Long-term implications of failing to maintain
an adequate publication supply
We referred to Lord Sainsbury's report to
the Top October 2007.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/E/sainsbury—review051007.pdf
Page 4, last para states "Trends in publicly
funded R&D show there has been a steady increase in the amount
spent by Research Councils but a steady decline in government
department funding of R&D... This is of concern for the quality
of out public policy making and the stimulation of innovation
in the companies with which our government departments interact."
Additional data now available illustrates this
problem very well. Department of Health data shows that present
R&D spending on estate related issues is currently only around
£300k pa. This should be viewed in relation to an annual
building related spend variously estimated to be £4 billion
per annum.
In addition to the evidence given on 4 December
I have enclosed a set of letters from leading industrial companies
operating in the HVAC sector expressing their concerns about the
loss of co-funding. These letters were prepared prior to the announcement
of the inquiry but remain as valid now as they did then.
6. Can we expand on the "single government
voice" proposal?
We referred to the NAO report Building for
the future: Sustainable construction and refurbishment of the
Government estate. 16 April 2007.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao—reports/06-07/0607324.pdf
The Key findings (4) refers to "...barriers
hindering progress... in particular... the fragmentation of policy
responsibility. Under recommendations it suggests, "establish
a source of expertise available to all departments..."
Page 6, bullet 2 specifically refers to the
need for post occupancy reviews.
7. Can you explain what is meant by Soft
Landings?
A short paper covering this topic is enclosed.
I hope that this somewhat long list of references
is helpful. If you should need any further assistance then please
do not hesitate to contact me and I will ensure that every assistance
will be given to help.
11 December 2007
Annex
SOFT LANDINGS—A SHORT DESRIPTION, ANDREW
EASTWELL, CEO BSRIA LTD
What do we mean by Soft Landings?
Soft Landings aims to help deliver buildings
that achieve a closer match between the expectations of the client
and end-users and the aspirations of the design team.
The term Soft Landings was coined as an antidote
to the rushed, often incomplete and sudden handover of a building
project to the client. The design and construct team usually disband
soon after, leaving the new building owner to survive as best
they can in an unfamiliar building with all its teething problems.
As the post-handover period is the most neglected stage of construction,
these teething problems can become long term, chronic shortcomings.
Poor energy performance and CO2 emissions is usually
the major consequence.
This approach increases designer and constructor
involvement after handover of buildings to help clients get the
best out of their buildings and reduce the tensions and frustrations
associated with moving into and working in new buildings. The
initiative focuses on the need for greater involvement of the
designers (and the constructors) after Practical Completion when
contractual obligations are traditionally minimal. Soft Landings
extends the contractual duties of the team in both the handover
stage and the occupation period beyond the defects liability period.
There is also the option to incorporate a financial penalty to
encourage the meeting of agreed targets for the performance of
the building.
Soft Landings as a specific process was devised
by consultant Mark Way (formerly of the consulting firm RMJM).
How prevalent is it?
Soft Landings has proved to be a very powerful
tool/process (see below). However, in terms of widespread adoption,
Soft landings has only been used officially on one project. The
intellectual ownership of the method still resides with the people
who devised it. However, the spirit of Soft Landings is being
adopted by farsighted clients, often owner-occupiers who have
a vested interest in protecting their investment, improving energy
efficiency, and in having comfortable and productive employees.
That said, elements of Soft Landings have been
adopted on many projects, with clients and/or design teams increasingly
investing in post-occupancy evaluation (POE). However, strict
POE can only be a post-mortem activity (and in the worse cases,
life-support for a seriously under performing building). POE is
therefore a subset of Soft Landings, the latter extending from
pre-design right through to the early years of operation.
Are there any specific examples (that show that
it does good things)
The process has been successfully piloted on
a range of building projects at the University of Cambridge—the
site of one of the largest University building programmes in the
UK.
The benefits were:
— greater clarity of the duties
of all parties during key design stages;
— increased designer and constructor
involvement before and after occupation;
— a resident Soft Landings team
on site during the users' initial settling-in period; and
— monitoring and review of building
performance for three years (This also feeds into the requirements
of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the forthcoming
Display Energy Certificates for public sector buildings greater
than 1,000 m2).
The construction supply chain also gained:
— greater clarity and better communication
during briefing and early design stages, that reduced re-work
by the design team;
— more effective building readiness;
— better fine-tuning to improve
the product, its performance and the experience of the building
for both the client and the users; and
— better feedback to designers
and constructors to improve future buildings.
Why is it not widely used?
The full methodology of Soft Landings has not
yet been published, although moves are now afoot by the Usable
Buildings Trust and BSRIA to define all the procedures, test them,
and create a toolkit for wide adoption by the construction industry.
The project currently lacks funding, although both BSRIA and the
UK Green Building Council has expressed willingness to fund the
process, lack of funding has been a barrier to the development
of a toolkit in recent years, following the decline in government-funded
construction research.
Soft Landings requires post-construction involvement
by architects. However, architects rarely stay involved in a project
beyond defects liability. Despite Part M Feedback having long
been in the RIBA Plan of Work, it is rarely invoked in contracts,
and until recently was not actively supported by the RIBA. Part
M feedback has now been subsumed in Part L of the updated RIBA
Plan of Work, so this may change. However, contracts rarely contain
provisions to pay for fine-tuning. BSRIA and others estimate that
0.25% to 1% of a contract value would fund a Soft Landings process
and enable architects to remain involved in fine-tuning and follow-through
after project handover.
At the annual BSRIA Briefing on 16 November
2007, entitled Schools for the Future—are we learning
the right lessons, Tim Byles Chief Executive of Partnerships
for Schools promised that while POE will be carried out on every
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) project, there is no money
to pay for it. In his presentation, Tim Byles said:
"...We also want to learn once those buildings
are up... and we will be carrying out a post-occupancy evaluation
of every BSF school, because we want to be sure that we are learning
the lessons not just at the beginning, but as those things are
delivered."
Byles' statement elicited this question from
a delegate: "POE is very rarely done. So who will pay for
the POE, and how do we share the lessons?"
Tim Byles responded: "I am open to offers
from the floor as to who would like to join me in paying for those."
Ty Goddard of the British Council for School
Environments also responded: "A major national scheme [BSF]
without post-occupancy evaluation at its heart seems to me nothing
short of crackers."
| 
