English (Canada)
čeština (Česká republika)
magyar (Magyarország)
Deutsch (Deutschland)
eesti (Eesti)
español (España)
português (Portugal)
English
suomi (Suomi)
français (France)
italiano (Italia)
Nederlands (Nederland)
norsk, bokmål (Norge)
polski (Polska)
svenska (Sverige)
Türkçe (Türkiye)
Written by Hitesh Pattni (North) and Neil Kirwan (South) - Specification Managers in SFS Group Fastening Technology Ltd.
Contents:
Ask any consultant, construction management/professional or construction product manufacturer when they should be brought onto a project and, almost without exception, they will say: "as early as possible".
The reason for that answer is simple. Use expert advice and guidance to shape early design decisions, and crucial project goals can accounted for from the outset.
The third paper in this series looked at how we can make sure clients are active and engaged with their projects. In this paper, we're talking about specifiers and project teams engaging with outside expertise to help navigate the complexity of building envelope specification.
Early engagement means that once detailed design work starts later on, there is the confidence and reassurance of knowing a projects goals are already on the way to being met. The alternative is that substantial design changes have to be made to building forms or layouts that have been established, and maybe even approved in the planning process. Alternatively, project goals have to be watered down because the building as set out is not capable of meeting them fully.
Specifications become less robust, performance gaps become more likely, and clients risk becoming disengaged with their project (as discussed across the first three papers of this series).
For consultants to so keenly emphasise when they can be most effective suggests that early engagement doesn't happen. Or it doesn't happen often enough or thoroughly enough - especially for people and organisations who knew the significant positive difference they can make to building projects by getting involved sooner than they are usually asked to.
Costs contribute as an obvious barrier. Earlier engagement often equates to higher fees, which a client might be unwilling to pay regardless of the benefit later on.
And then there are other reasons that we can speculate on.
'Performance over compliance' is a sentiment that is increasingly being expressed within the construction industry. It recognises that building regulations are only a minimum standard, and that complying with them doesn't necessarily guarantee a building will perform as intended or be fit for the future.
The energy efficiency requirements of regulations will get tighter - in England, for example, we know that the Future Homes and Future Buildings Standards are coming in 2025. But one area of regulations isn't necessarily tied into others. By their their very nature, the structure of regulations and the ways in which they're updated doesn't promise a holistic approach to design and specification.
There's a perception that 'performance over compliance' is more expensive, such as through:
The Passivhaus standard is often regarded as introducing a cost premium to a project's build costs, which can be a barrier to clients, despite the proven benefits of lower running costs and a healthier indoor climate.
Building to a standard such as Passivhaus, or any other voluntary standard, is to ensure that it drives project decisions from start. And that can only happen if parties involved with decision making are engaged form the start.
Early engagement results in better collaboration. As different parties gain a better appreciation for what each other needs, and how they can support each other, it becomes easier to aim for performance, and to close performance gaps between 'as designed' and 'as built'.
To increase the likelihood that as-designed performance is realised on-site, the performance of components and systems needs to be understood in terms of the project's goals. It also needs to be proven through testing. A recurring theme of this issue is how to deal with the complexity of building envelope specifications.
Specifiers cannot know every last detail of every component they select. It's simply impossible. The people who know products and product performance best, are the people who make them - the construction product manufacturers.
If that performance can then be accounted for in the building design, at as early a stage as possible, clients and designers can be confident that the specification is appropriate to the desired outcome.
With that confidence, they can insist on the chosen system being retained throughout the project, rather then being subjected to the kind of cost engineering exercises we described in the third paper of this series.
Another barrier to early engagement that we didn't list above, is wariness on the part of the specifier. Can they and should they put all their trust in a single manufacturer?
What if there's a 'better' solution available that they risk missing out on by committing to another too soon? How do they know they'll get the ongoing support they need throughout the project?
At SFS, we work with project teams from the outset to establish project-specific solutions. Our calculation tools are designed to produce optimised building envelope specifications to meet energy efficiency, fire safety, and loadbearing targets.
With a complete suite of testing and certification, we can help to ensure that performance gaps are minimised and that design intent is realised in the finished building.
The final three papers in this series examine specific areas of building envelope performance in detail. Each one looks at current specification challenges in each area, and how early engagement with manufacturer expertise can benefit the end result.
The relationship between specifiers and product manufacturers should not be one-sided. It's also incumbent upon manufacturers to continue understanding the needs of the industry, so they can design solutions to help make robust specifications possible.
Early engagement helps manufacturers, giving them insight into the challenges faced by specifiers. It provides an opportunity to communicate ideas and innovations coming to the market.
By exciting design team professionals who thrive on 'joined up thinking', exciting new opportunities for collaboration are opened up.
Manufacturers can also work with each other to offer solutions. Collaborations and partnerships might generate greater willingness to embrace early engagement.
Specifiers can be reluctant to trust a single manufacturer, but might feel less like they're being 'sold to' if a group of manufacturers are united in a common cause. Nowhere is that better evidenced than with the ongoing innovations on construction platforms and designing for assembly and disassembly.
P-DfMA (a platform approach to designing for manufacture and assembly) has received Government funding to develop solutions for complete 'kits of parts', produced by different manufacturers but which work around a common structural solution.
In the years to come, central procurement will focus heavily on construction platforms, and the effect of that will trickle down through the construction industry. Combined with the right digital tools and product tracking, P-DfMA has the power to revolutionise construction and create a built environment that is much more circular and fit for a net zero world.
Just as no individual specifier can be an expert in all areas of the building envelope, so one document cannot cover all areas of building envelope specification in the necessary level of detail.
This paper is one of a series exploring different areas relating to building envelope specification, and looking at the performance criteria that must come together in order to meet the client's needs.
Ultimately, we want to show why and how prioritising early engagement on construction projects can lead to better building envelope specifications. Specifications that are robust, and which are the best for the individual project.
It's no exaggeration that specificers face a more complex and evolving landscape than ever before.
Throughout these documents, we'll show why the benefits of early specification, based on technical expertise provided by external parties, can far outweigh any potential drawbacks.
What are the benefits of early manufacturer engagement?
By involving manufacturers early the design intent, aesthetics and performance, can be understood and the specification developed to meet these within the project budgets and timescales.
What makes a good building envelope?
A building envelope consists of all the elements that separate the internal structure from external space. A good envelope meets the designed performance on the day of handover and for the life expectancy of the building.
Robust Building Envelope Specifications
Paper 4: Early engagement and how do we get more of it?
Contents:
- Why is early engagement important?
- What are the barriers to early engagement?
- How does early engagement help?
- Reducing performance gaps through manufacturer engagement
- Early engagement benefits manufacturers too
- SFS robust specification series
- About SFS construction UK
Why is early engagement important?
Ask any consultant, construction management/professional or construction product manufacturer when they should be brought onto a project and, almost without exception, they will say: "as early as possible".
The reason for that answer is simple. Use expert advice and guidance to shape early design decisions, and crucial project goals can accounted for from the outset.
The third paper in this series looked at how we can make sure clients are active and engaged with their projects. In this paper, we're talking about specifiers and project teams engaging with outside expertise to help navigate the complexity of building envelope specification.
Early engagement means that once detailed design work starts later on, there is the confidence and reassurance of knowing a projects goals are already on the way to being met. The alternative is that substantial design changes have to be made to building forms or layouts that have been established, and maybe even approved in the planning process. Alternatively, project goals have to be watered down because the building as set out is not capable of meeting them fully.
Specifications become less robust, performance gaps become more likely, and clients risk becoming disengaged with their project (as discussed across the first three papers of this series).
What are the barriers of early engagement?
For consultants to so keenly emphasise when they can be most effective suggests that early engagement doesn't happen. Or it doesn't happen often enough or thoroughly enough - especially for people and organisations who knew the significant positive difference they can make to building projects by getting involved sooner than they are usually asked to.
Costs contribute as an obvious barrier. Earlier engagement often equates to higher fees, which a client might be unwilling to pay regardless of the benefit later on.
And then there are other reasons that we can speculate on.
- Maybe the project brief doesn't communicate the client's expectations or needs as fully as possible, so the specifier is unsure what help to seek
- Specifiers simply might not be aware of what help is available to them, but would use it if and when they become aware
- The contract type could mean the design team will have no involvement in later specification decisions, so they are reluctant to do work they know will be changed by someone else
- Perhaps the architect is concerned that too much information in the early stages of the project will complicate, or in some way compromise, the initial architectural way.
How does early engagement help?
'Performance over compliance' is a sentiment that is increasingly being expressed within the construction industry. It recognises that building regulations are only a minimum standard, and that complying with them doesn't necessarily guarantee a building will perform as intended or be fit for the future.
The energy efficiency requirements of regulations will get tighter - in England, for example, we know that the Future Homes and Future Buildings Standards are coming in 2025. But one area of regulations isn't necessarily tied into others. By their their very nature, the structure of regulations and the ways in which they're updated doesn't promise a holistic approach to design and specification.
There's a perception that 'performance over compliance' is more expensive, such as through:
- Paying fees for assessment against voluntary standards
- Pursuing better quality control on site; or
- The cost of engaging consultants sooner (as already mentioned)
The Passivhaus standard is often regarded as introducing a cost premium to a project's build costs, which can be a barrier to clients, despite the proven benefits of lower running costs and a healthier indoor climate.
Building to a standard such as Passivhaus, or any other voluntary standard, is to ensure that it drives project decisions from start. And that can only happen if parties involved with decision making are engaged form the start.
Early engagement results in better collaboration. As different parties gain a better appreciation for what each other needs, and how they can support each other, it becomes easier to aim for performance, and to close performance gaps between 'as designed' and 'as built'.
Reducing performance gaps through manufacturer engagement
To increase the likelihood that as-designed performance is realised on-site, the performance of components and systems needs to be understood in terms of the project's goals. It also needs to be proven through testing. A recurring theme of this issue is how to deal with the complexity of building envelope specifications.
Specifiers cannot know every last detail of every component they select. It's simply impossible. The people who know products and product performance best, are the people who make them - the construction product manufacturers.
If that performance can then be accounted for in the building design, at as early a stage as possible, clients and designers can be confident that the specification is appropriate to the desired outcome.
With that confidence, they can insist on the chosen system being retained throughout the project, rather then being subjected to the kind of cost engineering exercises we described in the third paper of this series.
Another barrier to early engagement that we didn't list above, is wariness on the part of the specifier. Can they and should they put all their trust in a single manufacturer?
What if there's a 'better' solution available that they risk missing out on by committing to another too soon? How do they know they'll get the ongoing support they need throughout the project?
At SFS, we work with project teams from the outset to establish project-specific solutions. Our calculation tools are designed to produce optimised building envelope specifications to meet energy efficiency, fire safety, and loadbearing targets.
With a complete suite of testing and certification, we can help to ensure that performance gaps are minimised and that design intent is realised in the finished building.
The final three papers in this series examine specific areas of building envelope performance in detail. Each one looks at current specification challenges in each area, and how early engagement with manufacturer expertise can benefit the end result.
Early engagement benefits manufacturers too
The relationship between specifiers and product manufacturers should not be one-sided. It's also incumbent upon manufacturers to continue understanding the needs of the industry, so they can design solutions to help make robust specifications possible.
Early engagement helps manufacturers, giving them insight into the challenges faced by specifiers. It provides an opportunity to communicate ideas and innovations coming to the market.
By exciting design team professionals who thrive on 'joined up thinking', exciting new opportunities for collaboration are opened up.
Manufacturers can also work with each other to offer solutions. Collaborations and partnerships might generate greater willingness to embrace early engagement.
Specifiers can be reluctant to trust a single manufacturer, but might feel less like they're being 'sold to' if a group of manufacturers are united in a common cause. Nowhere is that better evidenced than with the ongoing innovations on construction platforms and designing for assembly and disassembly.
P-DfMA (a platform approach to designing for manufacture and assembly) has received Government funding to develop solutions for complete 'kits of parts', produced by different manufacturers but which work around a common structural solution.
In the years to come, central procurement will focus heavily on construction platforms, and the effect of that will trickle down through the construction industry. Combined with the right digital tools and product tracking, P-DfMA has the power to revolutionise construction and create a built environment that is much more circular and fit for a net zero world.
SFS robust specification series
Just as no individual specifier can be an expert in all areas of the building envelope, so one document cannot cover all areas of building envelope specification in the necessary level of detail.
This paper is one of a series exploring different areas relating to building envelope specification, and looking at the performance criteria that must come together in order to meet the client's needs.
- Defining robust specification
- The problem of performance gaps
- Getting clients active and engaged
- Early engagement: how do we get more of it?
- Thermal performance and sustainability
- Fire safety
- Corrosion, warranties and supply chain challenges
Ultimately, we want to show why and how prioritising early engagement on construction projects can lead to better building envelope specifications. Specifications that are robust, and which are the best for the individual project.
It's no exaggeration that specificers face a more complex and evolving landscape than ever before.
Throughout these documents, we'll show why the benefits of early specification, based on technical expertise provided by external parties, can far outweigh any potential drawbacks.
FAQ
What are the benefits of early manufacturer engagement?
By involving manufacturers early the design intent, aesthetics and performance, can be understood and the specification developed to meet these within the project budgets and timescales.
What makes a good building envelope?
A building envelope consists of all the elements that separate the internal structure from external space. A good envelope meets the designed performance on the day of handover and for the life expectancy of the building.
