The sector must do more to prevent cost-driven spec breaking, says Dr Stephen Hamil, innovation director at NBS
In today’s construction industry, there is a growing focus on safety and sustainability. They influence all manner of design choices and it requires knowledge and expertise to ensure that materials and products are chosen correctly for the job at hand.
The matter is shaping government policy – updates to the Building Safety Act are helping to create a “compliance over cost” culture, where safer construction is at the heart of building processes.
Low and zero-carbon construction is also becoming more commonplace. Compliance with the Future Homes Standard will be mandatory by 2025 and the sector will see an increased focus on energy-saving targets for UK homes in the years to come.
However, key to achieving these goals is the accuracy and precision of specifications – both in the design and the construction phase of a build. The issue is that, currently, the sector suffers from widespread “specification breaking”.
That is, deviations from original plans where building materials and products are either swapped or substituted.
Evidence of this has been shown in NBS’ Product Information Report, a study on how architects and engineers are using building product information. Nearly half had seen it happen (46%) and over a third (35%) reported it as a regular occurrence.
Why is specification breaking so pervasive?
These are no doubt worrying statistics – which begs the question: why is specification breaking so pervasive? Overwhelmingly, the main cause lies with cost and the tight profit margins in which construction companies operate.
From the research, 68% said that product substitutions were made due to cheaper alternatives being available. While cost implications will always be crucial to any business, this approach is both short-sighted and potentially unsafe.
Most notably, a sector that regularly substitutes or swaps products and materials is one that fails to recognise the expertise and integrity of specifiers.
Years of training, expertise and research on products can influence a specification design choice – and, in turn, the potential safety and sustainability credentials of a project.
Opting to change this based on purely cost-based decisions, rather than industry knowledge, has the potential to undermine a building’s safety and sustainability goals.
On the surface, differences between products and materials may appear negligible.
However, they must be understood in a holistic sense. How they interact with specific systems can vary greatly and could alter how they perform. Choosing to operate in this way also raises other concerns.
For example, could a product substitution challenge compatibility with other products? Could it affect the consistency of building accuracy when, for example, it’s considered across multiple developments? Crucially, should problems arise, who is responsible and who is liable? As well as the obvious safety concerns, it also opens a Pandora’s box around legal ramifications, yet the practice is all too common.
Who is responsible for breaking specifications?
However, responsibility for extensive specification breaking doesn’t solely lie with contractors and those on site. Building designers also have a role to play, particularly around verification and ensuring that chosen products have made it into the final build.
Further research from the NBS’ Product Information Report shows this to be the case – less than a quarter of specifiers perform due diligence and ensure that final builds match original design plans once erected.
While contractually the designer may not be appointed to perform this service, they arguably should be as it is best practice. After all, specification is a crucial part of the design process and an architect should be sure that the final build as is as specified.
What’s clear is that without further collaboration between the two parties, product substitution will continue to be an all-too-common practice.
For both building design practices and individuals, this could present problems further down the line, should the building be found unfit for purpose.
Specification breaking also severs the chain
We must also recognise that specification breaking also works against the industry’s goal of achieving the Golden Thread, a cornerstone of the recently introduced Building Safety Act.
Through the use of specification tools and information platforms, digital timelines are created, showing clearly any revisions to the specification.
It is expected that soon to be released secondary legislation as part of the Building Safety Act will mean that project teams will have a legal obligation to verify and record any changes to the specification by submitting these to the Building Safety Regulator.
Looking at this with a wider view, these types of changes are much less traceable and could present question marks over the true safety and sustainability of a structure.
Often, products are chosen due to “tried and tested” third-party performance credentials – both in terms of safety and sustainability.
If products are changed or altered, a structure could feature materials that contain unsubstantiated claims. Again, this could compromise a building’s overall performance in a myriad of ways.
From an eco-perspective, changes to plans may also result in higher carbon emissions than originally intended.
With figures from GlobalABC (Global Alliance for Building & Construction) stating that the sector is responsible for around 40% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, it’s imperative that buildings stay as close to original specifications as possible.
With such a strong case as to why the industry should crack down on spec-breaking, both building design practices and contractors should be making a concerted effort to reduce it where possible.
Not only do the safety and security of buildings and their occupants count on it but also societies aim to leave a better planet for future generations.
Dr Stephen Hamil
Innovation director
NBS
Tel: +44 (0)345 456 9594
info@theNBS.com
www.thenbs.com
Twitter
Linkedin
Facebook
Some well made points here.
I am however wary of the term ‘specification breaking’ being used in a catch all way and what seems to me the conflation of substitution of one proprietary product with another with use of a subsitute product with a lower performance. It is the latter that is specification breaking not the former. The use of alternative products is to be encouraged as a means of providing clients with value for money and encouraging innovation. It is easy for specifiers to become ‘captured’ by familiar products and close their eyes to equivalent or better products.
What specifiers need to become better at is thinking about the functional requirements of products and expressing those as specifications, rather than taking what some would see as the easy route and using manufacturer product names as a shorthand way of specifying requirements.