The construction industry should effectively utilise non-compliance reports if it wants to improve approach to quality control, writes Tony Smith.
The Building Safety Act has significantly altered the landscape for quality control compliance. Its obligations represent a clear shift away from previous practices, and rightly so, given the paramount importance it places on safety.
Yet the construction industry still needs comprehensive reform of its approach to quality control, especially in its use of non-conformance reports (NCRs). With greater scrutiny from the Act, contractors too often fail to engage meaningfully with problems encountered on site.
A typical situation where an NCR would arise is where reinforced concrete is poured, only for the as-built survey to show that one edge is out of positional tolerance. An NCR guides the project team to assess the impact on finished works, and then tracks the implementation of a remedial strategy.
Some site teams, averse to using NCRs, may opt for their own remedial works, such as cutting out and recasting the affected section of concrete. If this is done without following the NCR process, and avoiding the required involvement of the structural engineer and architect, further issues are likely to arise.
Cultural progression in construction
Every effort can be made to reach a hypothetical 0.0% margin of error, but the standard cannot be flawless every time. What matters is ensuring that, when problems arise, they are dealt with quickly and constructively – and this requires a cultural change.
We have seen in health and safety that appropriate responses can be undertaken. The same diligence must be extended to NCRs to ensure lasting change, and a shift away from the ‘anti-mistake’ mindset is step one.
From that cultural change must follow proactive accountability and greater care. Substantial effort goes into build programmes, but when aberrations arise, failure to manage the risks can cause a domino effect. By deviating from agreed plans after an NCR issue, remedial costs can spiral, more issues will arise and uncertainty will spread.
Mistakes, once identified, must be actioned quickly, and NCRs are invaluable to this effect. Judicious decision-making must occur at each stage, with identifying why it went wrong the key question, rather than what went wrong.
Industry improvement also depends on collaborative learning and information sharing. Too often, problems raised by one NCR are siloed and never revisited. Out of sight, out of mind is not sustainable: conducting root cause analyses, kept on file for future reference, can help ensure mistakes aren’t repeated.
The next step forward
With this in mind, Sir Robert McAlpine is working to improve outcomes with peer reviews across our ‘Quality Build Sure Community’. The initiative aims to increase performance across every element of the technical cycle: competence; learning; culture; compliance; and process.
There is more industry data than ever, but peer reviews go beyond surface metrics to monitor the quality of assurance processes. Quality must preside over quantity: 10 excellent inspections will achieve far more than 100 poor ones.
Reviews are conducted every six months, similar to internal auditing, but by peers rather than formal auditors, with the aim of guiding culture in the right direction. Good and bad practice can be addressed, and this personal approach builds engagement with project teams, explaining the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ to execute processes effectively.
The Building Safety Act has raised the bar for quality control, but lasting progress depends on how effectively we use tools like NCRs. By embracing a culture that treats mistakes as opportunities for improvement, fostering shared learning, and applying proactive peer review, NCRs become not just a record of past issues, but a driver of safer, more efficient construction practices.
Tony Smith is head of technical compliance at Sir Robert McAlpine.
