From compliance to confidence benchmarked by competence

What changing industry expectations mean for architectural technology

The built environment has spent much of the past few years responding to significant regulatory change. The Building Safety Act 2022, changes to the Building Regulations (secondary legislation), new dutyholder requirements and an increased focus on competence have all required professionals and organisations to reconsider established ways of working.

But a wider message is emerging: regulation alone will not deliver better buildings.

Recent industry discussions are repeatedly returning to the same issues. Safe, sustainable and well-performing buildings depend on competent people making good decisions, supported by reliable information, clear responsibilities and effective systems.

For Chartered Architectural Technologists, much of this is familiar. Coordinating design and technology, understanding how building elements interact, managing information and translating design intent into built outcomes are fundamental to architectural technology.

What is changing is the expectation that professionals can demonstrate how and why decisions have been made, and how their responsibilities have been fulfilled, from “does it comply?” to “can you demonstrate it?”

Compliance remains fundamental, but the industry is increasingly recognising the limitations of treating it as the final question. 

A completed form does not prove that the person making the decision understood its consequences. Building control approval does not transfer responsibility for a designer's work to the building control body. Nor does a large handover files necessarily mean that the person using the building has the information they actually need. 

The questions are becoming more searching:

Who made the decision? Were they competent to make those decisions? What information did they rely on? How was compliance demonstrated? What changed? And what was ultimately built?

Design before you build 

The last few months, data shared by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has shown more positive progress concerning Gateway 2 for higher-risk buildings. 

The principle of having a sufficiently developed design before construction was seen as a significant improvement. Current discussions are contrasting this with other smaller scale projects highlighting a longstanding industry problem where design can continue to change substantially after construction has started, characterising this as moving away from ‘design and build’, to becoming, in practice, ‘build and design’. 

Starting construction with unresolved design information creates pressure further down the line, has cost implications, is more likely to cause disputes between parties and may potentially affect the overall quality of the building. Decisions are being made quickly, substitutions are introduced, different disciplines respond independently and the consequences may only become apparent during commissioning or completion. 

The practical solution points towards greater design maturity. 

Before work starts, there can be value in considering, across the design team whether:

  • the design is sufficiently developed and coordinated to be built;
  • significant interfaces have been identified and appropriately resolved;
  • key products and systems are sufficiently understood;
  • the intended route to demonstrating compliance is clear;
  • significant assumptions have been identified and recorded; and
  • outstanding design decisions are visible, with responsibility and appropriate timescales understood 
Competence must match the commissioned work

A Chartered qualification provides important assurance of verified competence. Competence brings together an individual’s skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours. In relation to architectural technology, these are assessed against CIAT’s Chartered Architectural Technologists’ Professional Standards Competency Framework. However, competence must also be considered in other contexts. 

For instance, a professional who is competent and experienced in one area does not automatically mean that competence transfers to every type of work. For example, different building types can introduce different technical complexities, risks, regulatory requirements and levels of responsibility.  Equally, a familiar project may introduce an unfamiliar system or method of construction. The scope of work may change, or new regulatory responsibilities may apply. 

The practical question is: 

Am I competent for the work I am being asked to undertake on this project? 

That assessment should also continue throughout the appointment. 

If the work changes, reconsider whether the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours are still in place. Where specialist input is needed, identify it and bring it into the project. 

This does not mean every professional needs to know everything. Good professional practice includes knowing the limits of your competence and recognising when another more knowledgeable and experienced professional needs to be involved.  

It also means taking responsibility for developing your competence where you want to work in new or more complex areas. This may include relevant CPD and training, keeping up to date with regulatory and technical developments, learning from suitably experienced professionals, seeking mentoring or supervision, and gaining appropriate practical experience. Competence develops through the application of knowledge and experience in practice, so completing training or CPD alone should not be taken as evidence that someone is competent to undertake a particular role or task. 

This is supported by the Institute’s Code of Conduct (effective 1 January 2022) Clause A5 and B5: Offering and/or Providing Services Directly to a Client. Chartered Members or affiliates acting as principals of a practice shall: 

vi. decline to offer and/or provide a service to their client if they knowingly lack adequate resources or if appropriate, advise or recommend the necessity of assistance from a suitably qualified professional. 

Competent people still need to work together 

Individual competence does not, by itself, ensure project competence. 

The problem can often sit at the interfaces. Information moves between the Chartered Architectural Technologist, engineers, specialist designers, contractors, building control professionals, installers, clients and eventually those responsible for operating the building. 

It is at these points that assumptions can become dangerous. One person thinks another is checking something. A specialist changes a component without the wider design team understanding the implications. Information exists but does not reach the person who needs it. A potential solution is to make interfaces explicit. 

For each important element, you may consider the following: 

Who designs it? Who coordinates it? Who checks it? Who installs it? What information is required? Who needs to know if it changes? 

Clear appointments and scopes of service are the starting point and in writing, but responsibilities also need to work in practice. Responsibility matrices can help make this clear across the project team. For example, a RACI matrix identifies who is Responsible for carrying out a task, who is Accountable for it, who needs to be Consulted and who needs to be Informed. This can be particularly useful where responsibilities or information pass between different disciplines and organisations. Importantly, a responsibility matrix can support coordination, but does not replace or alter any statutory dutyholder responsibilities. 

Building control checks compliance. It does not design the building for you 

Industry experts continue to highlight uncertainty around what building control does and where professional responsibility sits. 

Building control has an important regulatory role, but designers should not work on the assumption that building control will identify every design problem and/or take responsibility for the design. Under the post-Grenfell regulatory regime and the Building Safety Act 2022, building control bodies and Registered Building Inspectors (RBIs) are strictly prohibited from providing design advice or proposing engineering solutions. 

The professional responsible for the design, in effect, the Principal Designer remains responsible for planning, managing and monitoring the design work. Submissions should set out the proposed solution together with sufficient information to enable it to be considered against the relevant requirements. 

Practically, members and affiliates should consider: 

  • whether the proposed design and compliance approach has been sufficiently developed before information is submitted to building control;
  • identifying unusual, complex or less conventional compliance approaches early within the design process;  
  • ensuring that the relevant designers and specialists have considered and coordinated the information needed to demonstrate compliance;
  • providing building control with sufficiently clear and coordinated information to enable it to assess the design against the relevant requirements;
  • responding clearly, and with appropriate supporting evidence, where further information or clarification is requested; and
  • maintaining appropriate records of significant compliance decisions, discussions and agreed actions.

 Building control has an important regulatory role, but it is not there to develop the design or provide design advice. Responsibility for the design, and for demonstrating how it complies with the relevant requirements, remains with the appropriate designers and dutyholders.  

The starting point should therefore not begin with: ‘Will you accept this?’ 

Instead, the design team should be in a position to explain: 

‘This is the proposed solution, these are the relevant requirements, and this is the evidence supporting how the design is considered to satisfy them.’ 

Control change, don't just record it 

Change is a normal part of design and construction, but its implications may extend beyond the element being changed. 

A contractor may, for example, propose an alternative product because it is more readily available or offers a cost saving. On the surface, the substitution may appear relatively minor. In practice, it could have implications for fire performance, structure, acoustics, moisture behaviour, energy and carbon performance, maintenance or other parts of the design. 

A useful question is: 

If we change this, what else changes?

The level of assessment will naturally depend on the significance of the change. For more substantial changes, this may involve understanding why the change is being proposed, who is responsible for assessing it and whether other disciplines, elements or regulatory requirements could be affected. 

Effective change control also depends on good communication between the relevant parties. Depending on the nature of the change, this may require (but is not limited to) coordination between the Principal Contractor, Principal Designer and client, as well as the designers, specialists and others whose work or responsibilities may be affected. 

It may also be necessary to revisit calculations, specifications or technical assessments, establish who needs to review or agree the change, and make sure that relevant project information continues to reflect the design as it develops. 

This becomes particularly important where products, components and systems have been designed to work together. What appears to be a simple substitution can sometimes have consequences well beyond the item being replaced. 

Good change control is therefore about more than keeping a record of what changed. It is about communicating the change, understanding its consequences and ensuring that the relevant people are involved.

Commissioning can expose problems that can be resolved earlier  

As previously mentioned, it is not unusual for commissioning on a live project to be delayed by design issues. This is a useful reminder that commissioning is more than an activity at the end of construction. It is one of the points where the design, installation and controls are tested together, and where assumptions made much earlier in the project meet the reality of the completed building. 

Where significant design issues only become apparent at this stage, resolving them can be costly, disruptive and difficult. 

Considering commissioning as the design develops can help identify some of these issues earlier. Depending on the project, this might include understanding what will need to be tested, the performance expected and how that performance will be demonstrated. It may also mean considering whether systems will be accessible for testing and adjustment, who will be responsible for commissioning and what information they will need. 

An equally important question is what happens if a system does not perform as intended. Thinking about that possibility before reaching completion can make it easier to understand how performance will be assessed and how any issues will be addressed. 

The same principle extends into maintenance. Access to equipment, the ability to inspect and adjust systems, and the practicalities of future repair or replacement are not simply operational concerns. They can be influenced by decisions made much earlier in the design process. 

Commissioning may happen towards the end of construction, but the ability to commission a building successfully is shaped much earlier. 

Handover should provide useful and relevant information, not simply information

Some of the most striking practical examples that highlight the importance of information sharing are from facilities management professionals. 

In more cases than not, buildings are being handed over with information that was technically present but of little practical use. One example can involve an asset list identifying numerous smoke detectors without providing useful location information, which then leaves facilities teams to locate them after handover. 

The goal should not be to demonstrate that information has been handed over. The goal should be to make sure the next person can use it. 

For relevant building systems, consider whether the information identifies:

  • what has actually been installed;
  • where it is located;
  • its design duty or intended performance;
  • how it should operate;
  • how it was commissioned;
  • what it is connected to or interacts with;
  • inspection and maintenance requirements;
  • access requirements; and
  • relevant limitations or assumptions.

Photographic records are valuable for concealed work or installations where later identification and access could otherwise be difficult, provided they are appropriately organised and linked to the project information. 

Recent industry work reinforces this principle. Draft guidance developed through a Construction Leadership Council Building Safety Group Task and Finish Group considers the occupied sector's expectations for accurate, trustworthy and complete building information at project completion. At the time of writing, the guidance is subject to industry consultation. Members may wish to be aware of this work as it develops. 

The ‘golden thread’ is useful beyond higher-risk buildings 

The golden thread has become a legal requirement with higher-risk buildings, but the underlying principle has much wider value. 

However, there is a repeated difficulty of operating, maintaining or altering buildings when nobody can establish what was installed, what has changed or why earlier decisions were made. 

Existing requirements already address the provision of certain information at completion, including fire safety information under Regulation 38 of the Building Regulations in England and requirements relating to building services and commissioning. But the wider professional lessons are not simply about meeting a particular regulation. 

It is about maintaining a usable record of the building. For members and affiliates, a good project record should distinguish between what was designed, what was changed, what was installed, what was tested, and what was ultimately handed over. 

That information becomes particularly valuable when the building is later maintained, refurbished or altered. 

Looking at the building as a whole 

Whole-building thinking is just as important when considering energy and carbon performance. 

Take what appears to be a relatively straightforward objective: reducing heating demand. Increasing insulation and airtightness may be an appropriate response, but those changes do not happen in isolation. They can influence ventilation, moisture behaviour, overheating and, ultimately, occupant comfort. The point is not to avoid fabric improvements, but to understand how one intervention may affect the wider building and end users. 

The same applies to low-carbon technologies. Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, for example, is more than an appliance substitution. Its successful performance may depend on the building's actual heat demand, system sizing, electrical capacity, heat emitters and controls, as well as commissioning, maintenance and how the system will be used by occupants. 

There may also be wider considerations around refrigerants, future replacement and the relationship between the new system and the existing building fabric and services. 

This is where a whole-building approach becomes particularly valuable. It allows individual measures to be considered not only for the benefit they are intended to deliver, but also for how they interact with the rest of the building. 

Specifying low-carbon technology is only one part of achieving the intended outcome. Its effectiveness depends on how successfully it is integrated with the building as a whole, including its design, installation, commissioning and operation. 

Thinking beyond capital cost 

Design decisions rarely turn on one consideration alone. Safety, performance, carbon, cost, durability and maintainability all have a part to play, and the balance between them can change over the life of a building. 

A solution that costs less today may carry higher operational, maintenance or replacement costs later. Equally, an option that appears favourable from an initial carbon perspective may look different when service life, replacement and eventual end of life are taken into account. 

Looking at significant options over a longer timeframe can therefore provide a fuller picture. Depending on the project, this might bring together capital cost and embodied carbon with operational performance, expected service life, maintenance, replacement cycles, technical and safety considerations, adaptability and end-of-life implications. 

It also helps if comparisons are based on consistent assumptions. Otherwise, two options can appear comparable while actually being assessed on quite different terms. 

One question can help bring that longer-term thinking into focus: 

Would the solution that makes sense today still make sense in 20, 30 or 60 years? 

The answer may be yes, but it is important to understand the basis for that conclusion. 

Designing for the person who inherits the building (end user) 

For the design and construction team, handover can feel like the end of the project. For the people who have to operate, maintain and eventually alter the building, it is the beginning. 

The information they inherit can make a significant difference. Knowing that a component or system exists is one thing. Knowing where it is, what it connects to, how it was intended to perform and how it should be maintained is much more useful. 

This brings the future user into the design conversation. Can equipment be accessed and maintained? Can components be replaced? Are the controls understandable? Are the intended operating parameters clear? And, several years later, could another professional understand not only what was installed, but the thinking behind important design decisions? 

Good handover information helps preserve that knowledge beyond the original project team. The real test may come years later, when somebody needs to maintain, replace or alter part of the building. They should not have to reconstruct its history from hundreds of drawings, files and disconnected records before they can understand what they are dealing with. 

Culture matters because somebody has to challenge the decision 

Processes alone cannot solve every problem. A significant part of current industry discussions concern culture, leadership and the confidence to challenge poor decisions. Professionals need sufficient competence to recognise when something may be wrong and enough authority and confidence to question it. Clients and organisational leaders also influence whether concerns are genuinely welcomed or simply seen as barriers to programme and cost. 

For individual practitioners, the principle should be: 

If something does not look right, understand why before accepting it. 

Ask the question. Record the concern. Obtain the necessary evidence. Bring in specialist expertise where needed. Professional judgement cannot be outsourced to a checklist. 

Learn before the same problem happens twice 

Where a problem or near miss occurs, there can also be value in looking beyond the immediate issue and considering what can be learnt from it. 

This might involve reflecting on the circumstances that contributed to the issue. For example, whether responsibilities were sufficiently clear, whether the right information was available at the right time, or whether a change had wider consequences that were not initially identified. 

It may also be useful to consider whether competence, coordination, checking or commissioning played a part, and whether similar circumstances could arise elsewhere on the project or on future work. 

Looking at issues in this wider context can help turn individual project experience into useful learning for both professionals and their organisations. 

What does best practice look like? 

Taken together, there is a clear theme. Good professional practice increasingly connects competence, information, decisions, actions and outcomes throughout the life of a project. For Chartered Architectural Technologists, this means considering how these elements come together at different stages of their work. 

Before work starts, this may include understanding the appointment, regulatory framework and respective responsibilities, considering the competence needed for the work, and identifying important matters that remain to be resolved. 

As the design develops, attention can be given to coordination between disciplines, significant assumptions and the information needed to support key compliance decisions. 

Where changes arise, it is important to consider their wider effect on the design and whether other information, assessments or disciplines may also be affected. A clear record of significant changes and the decisions surrounding them can provide an important project history. 

During construction, clarity around the status and source of information can also be valuable, particularly in distinguishing between matters that have been observed, reported by others, assumed or independently verified. 

Commissioning and completion provide an opportunity to understand whether systems are performing as intended and whether the final project information accurately reflects what has been built. 

At handover, the value of that information will ultimately depend on whether those responsible for the building can find, understand and use it. 

Beyond completion, appropriate accessible professional records, feedback and lessons learnt from projects can contribute to future best practice and wider organisational and industry learning. 

Many of these principles are reflected in established industry standards. Depending on the project and scope of work, relevant standards include BS 8536:2022 on designing, manufacturing and constructing for operability; BS 7000-4:2024 on managing design in construction; BS 8644-1:2022 on the digital management of fire safety information throughout the asset lifecycle; and BS 8587:2012 on facility information management. Members should consider which standards and guidance are relevant to their particular role, project and responsibilities. 

These are not necessarily new principles. What is changing is the greater emphasis on how they connect across the project lifecycle and how professional decisions, information and responsibilities are recorded and demonstrated.  

From compliance to confidence 

The regulatory changes of recent years have provided an important catalyst, but the wider direction of travel is not simply towards more regulation, forms or information. There is a growing focus on the quality of decisions, the information supporting them and the ability to understand how an outcome was reached. 

Compliance remains essential, alongside competence, professional judgement, coordinated design, reliable information and clear accountability. This is particularly relevant to architectural technology, which often sits at the point where design intent is translated into technical solutions and where materials, systems, performance, construction and use need to work together. 

As expectations continue to develop, the opportunity is to consider professional practice as a connected process rather than a series of individual regulatory requirements. Clear responsibilities, well-supported decisions, traceable changes and reliable information can all contribute to buildings that can be understood, operated, maintained and adapted effectively throughout their life. 

In that sense, the direction of travel is not simply about demonstrating compliance. It is about providing greater confidence in the decisions, information and professional practice that sit behind the completed building.