It was a clarion call for a new philosophy centred on accountability and a risk-based approach to decision making. At a time when structural engineers and professions across the built environment are being challenged to manage more complexity and delivery efficiencies to tight deadlines then reducing errors, minimising risk and improving safety are critical for us all.
Seeking to learn from other sectors, Emily opened the conference with valuable insights about safety failures from her career serving in the British Army as a pilot. She spoke openly about how risk can increase when systemic organisational failures are not addressed, from poor leadership to lack of accountability - issues that manifest in both the private and public sectors, including the built environment.
Emily highlighted how structures will outlast many generations, with delayed consequences that can arise years after the original design has been built. The lack of immediate risk feedback can make the role of the structural engineer incredibly challenging and places greater emphasis on the need to get things right.
Paul Morrell’s keynote address Skill and Care in the Service of Building Safety was inspirational. He spoke compellingly about his response to the Green Paper Testing for a Safer Future: An Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime, highlighting how fragmentation in the industry has critical consequences.
Paul emphasised how duty of care is essential: having a sense of responsibility, and an understanding of the roles we carry out. He also confirmed how the Building Safety Act is very clear about dutyholders’ responsibilities and the need to be competent, compliant and collaborative. He stated how safety is about having a duty of care for all buildings, and not just higher-risk buildings. The aim is for safe design for all.
On construction product testing, Morrell explained the need for testing standards that are safety focussed, and informed by science. He explained that standards are not red tape and should never been seen as such. He also asserted that a testing regime needs to be based on competence, capacity and comprehensibility.
Artificial intelligence was also raised as part of Morrell’s keynote, and the need for the testing regime to be data based, potentially using AI to screen it for safety issues.
Morrell concluded with thoughts about policymakers and building safety. It’s been widely asserted in the media that the rotation of ministers leads to a lack of continuity. Regarding construction products, Morrell said the government needs to be clear about the duties of all actors involved in the design, construction and operation of buildings, including product manufacturers. IStructE wholeheartedly agrees with these views.
Morrell reminded attendees that as professionals, skill and care is all about competence, effective risk management and understanding safety critical elements.
We were privileged to have Kate Grange KC, a barrister at 39 Essex Chambers who took part in the Grenfell Inquiry, speak powerfully about Grenfell, framing her session around the fundamental question about the tragedy: “How was it possible in 21st century London for a building to be turned into a death trap?”
As many of us know from reading the inquiry, it found that failings ran across many professions, from architects, to fire engineers to the principal contractor. Also, sub- contactors, the client and building control.
Kate highlighted other findings – such as a lack of understanding about contractual obligations, with these not crystallised in contract documents until too late. Time and again, the inquiry found a lack of responsibility across teams. Safety issues would arise in emails, and nothing would happen. Closing down problems is clearly part of ensuring safety, with a clear document trail of actions taken.
Like Paul Morrell, Kate also spoke about competence. Some of the Inquiry cross examinations revealed a lack of understanding and competence around numerous compliance issues. A key recommendation is to prioritise safety over speed, with a greater emphasis on understanding the regulatory regime and its purpose. Her session was especially resonant given the Netflix documentary Grenfell Uncovered.
Charlotte Wildman, Design Manager at Willmott Dixon, focussed on the Building Safety Act and how it has changed culture at the firm.
The five new duty holder roles of client, designer, contractor, principal design, and principal contractor are all interlinked, with Charlotte speaking about the impacts of the BSA on the designer and the Main Contractor.
Charlotte shared how the firm has instigated a shift in project culture, bringing in extra processes to ensure close working between designer and contractor.
This is impressive as it aims to capture issues early on, and helps teams across the project understand key design decisions and where changes have been made across the lifetime of the project, both in preconstruction and delivery. The buildability and sequence of works is clear so that all understand, facilitated through supply chain engagement.
Charlotte shared an example of how Willmott Dixon managed a non-compliant project, proactively advising the Customer’s sub-contractor with a clear evidence-based approach as to the steps needed to rectify the challenges in the design. The example showed how control management and processes can de-risk a project across its whole life cycle.
Arup Director David Cormie talked about the fragmentation of the construction supply-chain and how the lack of a directing mind leads to the circumstances in which error can arise. He argued that, while many fingers have been pointed at design/build procurement, performance-based design and cascade of design responsibility through the supply-chain, competence and professional responsibility is at the core of the issue and that it is the abdication of responsibility as structural engineers that has resulted in the inability to effectively manage risk. He argued for an end to what he termed ‘eyes-wide shut design’ and for thoughtful, conscious decision-making that is mirrored in professional responsibility. Keith Jones of Ramboll echoed these comments, and gave practical insights into how errors can be managed in the design process.
Constant themes from the conference were the need for regulatory clarity and enforcement, for more collaboration across the industry; for sound processes and for better communication and for no short cuts, especially when innovating. The key theme however was to be clear about what our duties are.
In the closing Q&A, I emphasised this ethical theme, noting that safety responsibilities are broad and go beyond statutory compliance. We need a holistic view of the impact of our actions that aligns with the UN Sustainable Goals. We need to carefully consider the ripple effects of our actions on all stakeholders, such as supply chains. Ultimately, the purpose is to mitigate harm.
As structural engineers, we can learn from past mistakes, from other sectors such as aviation, and we can train people for competence to deliver a safe and resilient future.
These are huge issues and challenging conversations. But the Institution is committed to having these very necessary debates and dialogues so that structural safety is paramount and risks reduced. We thank everyone who spoke and attended at this important event.