Two co-authors of the golden thread have outlined what they would like to see in future iterations of the golden thread guidance, recently published by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC). In this second part, Chris Lees, chief executive of Dataclan, offers his thoughts.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
I disagree with the formulation here: everyone needs to understand the fundamentals of good data management, and these will be sufficient for most people involved. Of course, many will need to understand the golden thread fundamentals, but this language exacerbates the very real current problem that there is so much that so many are expected to know that it becomes impossible for each person to know everything. We need to have better organisational and process designs, and improved data management maturity. That way people can be sufficiently focused to actually be pretty good at their part.
“The very real current problem that there is so much that so many are expected to know that it becomes impossible for each person to know everything.”
Chris Lees
Broadening the definition
Second, also on summary page 3, the guidance states: “Whilst requirements for the golden thread are only applicable to higher-risk buildings, the overall principles may be applied to all building work.”
Indeed, based on the Grenfell Inquiry second and final report, we may see the definition of higher-risk buildings refined to take appropriate account of the residents, as well as the structure itself. This could lead to much lower buildings becoming ‘higher risk’. In my opinion, good practice would be to have a golden thread for all buildings. It would be more detailed, the higher the risk rating. On lower-risk buildings of course, the golden thread need not necessarily meet all the legislative requirements for high-risk buildings, but I don’t think there is any excuse for poor data management of any data.
What about the occupational phase?
The occupation phase – despite being the longest phase, the phase when most catastrophic events occur, and the only phase that largely impacts actual residents – is reduced to a relatively small section in the golden thread guidance.
It is disappointing that the guidance remains very centred on the construction phase (up to Gateway 3) – in the summary sections, there are 14 columns for design, construction, and buildings work, but just five for occupation. I believe more engagement with the stakeholders in this phase would have led to a greater understanding of the challenges and opportunities in their work, and also the critical interaction of building safety with other important areas like sustainability and tenant satisfaction (neither of which even get a mention).
I think there is a real danger that this perpetuates the silo mentality that whatever organisations must do for building safety is something separate, which is neither true nor helpful. In my mind, much of the Building Safety Act, but the golden thread in particular, is about being competent in data management.
“In my mind, much of the Building Safety Act, but the golden thread in particular, is about being competent in data management.”
Chris Lees
Organisations that embrace internationally recognised basic standards for good data management (as set out by DAMA in the Data Management Body of Knowledge) will have all the foundations required to meet the requirements of the golden thread. But such organisations would also realise significant time and cost savings and be able to make better decisions across their business, including those relating to building safety.
I would therefore encourage the authors, regulators and government to provide more support for the operational phase stakeholders.
Furthermore, the authors, regulators and government need to recognise that future reliance on documents as source material is time limited. A reader of the guidance may understandably interpret the requirement for ‘electronic storage’ to mean ‘electronic documents’. Front and centre in this guidance are lists of documents that are required, and the guidance is explicit about there being no restrictions on the format.
The word data only appears three times in the body of the full guidance, and twice more as ‘data protection’, once in the glossary, and twice in Annex D. The word ‘information’ is used pervasively, but its relationship to data is not explained further than the glossary entry that “information and documents” means “meaningful data, with or without a medium to contain it” (which is itself pretty cryptic to the average reader!).
The lack of explanation of what data might be, and the overwhelming references to documents (111), means the heart of the golden thread – the managed data – could be seen as being achieved with little more than a scanner.
However, as stated above, this new guidance is an excellent attempt to bring the complexities of the Building Safety Act and related statutory guidance into much more user-friendly language. It will undoubtedly play a vital role in broadening the understanding of these requirements and has the potential to significantly improve an organisation’s ability and willingness to make the necessary changes.
The industry is in a better place thanks to these CLC efforts, and I would like to congratulate and thank the authors for their time and endeavour.
