Debate 19 - Action Points

1. Are we defining our terms precisely enough? I see two distinct levels of feedback:
   1. Did we do this in the most effective way and did it go well?
   2. Was it the right thing to be doing in the first place?
   This leads to the idea of two post-occupancy reviews: the first, early on, looking at Level 1 and the second, say three years later, being more reflective and including how the business is really doing in its new setting.

2. Other classifications are: Process, Product and Performance; and Foresight, Hindsight and Insight.

3. Soft Landings is primarily aimed at improving Product and Performance in the aftercare period. But it is not enough just to provide aftercare advice and to tackle the problems. We also prepared for success but “presumed failure”, and planned to avoid it – also addressing the upstream Processes, overcoming known pitfalls, setting and tracking performance targets from an early stage, and providing a series of safety nets.

4. Always good to have no-blame feedback sessions.

5. Soft Landings also includes a commitment to publicise results.

6. There is a fine line with Professional Indemnity. If you publicise that you had the wrong solution or concept, you may attract liability

7. The main deterrent is the fear of blame. Possible solutions are contractual obligations, partnerships, and no-blame reporting as in Civil Aviation.

8. Alliances can help to avoid the PI problem. Risks are shared.

9. Ultimately, it is all about businesses setting the right targets.

10. Collaboration is in short supply in the industry. This is where most mistakes are started.

11. There is still a lot of short-termism in the whole industry mindset.

12. The briefing dialogue is vital, but often a casualty in today’s speeded-up world.

13. Briefing process should never end. By the time the building is finished its use will have changed.

14. Why don’t we learn? There needs to be money in learning. Most developers sell on and are not looking at long-term value. We need to go beyond the building regulations-only culture.

15. The industry has got to adapt or die. The present obstacles will not always be there.

16. How do consultants get paid for extra activities? We should not get a proportion of the cost of the project, but of value added. The more we do, the more value we create. Silly to be penalised if we work hard to reduce cost / add value. We need new ways of measuring what we have achieved.

17. ‘Ownership’ of buildings: architects were often tied to a building (e.g. cathedrals) with an ongoing relationship. Now we come and go, but actually we should be winning clients, not projects.

18. Many of today’s customers don’t want to own their buildings. Stop selling products, sell service - the effectiveness of the product is guaranteed because the provider never leaves.

19. However, some clients (e.g. Cambridge University) will want to retain the equity in their buildings.

20. ‘Feedback in design is a hackneyed but useful concept’ (Tom Markus 1972). It is only quality control and all in the public interest. People say it is important but seldom do it. Tide has not yet turned. Of the twenty or so UK studies published over the last ten years, 19 were the Probe series!

21. It can be difficult to get from feedback to design guidance. Context varies and there are a lot of variables. Often the work is case study and not (immediately) statistically significant research.

22. True, but there is still a lot you can learn and apply in continuous improvement.

23. Major purpose of buildings – productivity, but it is not measured. DTI should fund a programme to allow us to measure it (self-assessed productivity is already in Soft Landings).

24. Clients do not know, in output terms, how much a building really costs them. This makes it difficult to set incentives.

25. Feedback works better in some sectors than others.

26. In some operations it is easier to define the output value. For example CABE/HEFCE Study on Education Buildings, being done at the University of the West of England (Colin Fudge).

27. How do we raise the game, with feedback no longer an option, but a normal part of the service?

28. There is no alternative. We have to get engaged.

29. Everyone benefits. Make it a condition of funding.

30. If the client puts it in the contract, it will happen; if not, it will remain a fringe activity.

31. Problems with both old and new terminology. Post Occupancy Evaluation is a poor name for the activity and creates a negative impression. But will clients know what Soft Landings means?

32. Clients need to appoint someone at briefing stage who has responsibility for performance at handover (This is already in Soft Landings). Often the client representative changes at this point.

33. RIBA (and other institutions) must put their names to it. EDGE ACTION

34. RIBA is about to put Stage M: Feedback back into the Plan of Work, though as an additional service, not part of the normal service. The document is not yet complete and is open to ideas. Edge should liaise with RIBA and see if concepts like Soft Landings can be incorporated. In the spirit of the Edge - anything we do on Stage M should be interdisciplinary. EDGE ACTION

35. If clients do not drive feedback, will the wagon roll? Who pays the piper

36. Sadly the Confederation of Construction Clients (CCC) initiated but was unable to sustain the PII on feedback. The new CCG needs to put feedback at the top of its agenda. EDGE ACTION

37. A legacy of the CCC is the Clients’ Charter, which obliges signatories to undertake feedback … and they will need to tools to do it. The Housing Corporation obliges housing associations to become Charter Clients. Others will follow.

38. Has anyone designed a low energy building that has achieved the energy targets set by the M&E?

39. Very occasionally, but not without follow-through into management, with so-called sea-trials. Hence Soft Landings includes three years of fine-tuning.

40. We need a ‘Come Clean Protocol’. How about a club whose members will submit design energy targets, report what was achieved 2 or 3 years later, and compare notes? Club membership might even become a client criterion in selecting consultants. EDGE ACTION? - but see below

41. This is in Soft Landings, but with commitments, so we may have the beginnings of such a Club.

42. Soft Landings could bring major improvements to PFIs. In theory this type of thing should be implicit in PFI delivery, in practice it isnt.>

43. PFI asks for outputs and not outcomes. For example, it may ask for a 700 bed hospital with 4-person wards, while one with 500 private rooms would outperform it [REF: Bryan Lawson study: 21% increase in patient throughput. The resultant savings were greater than capital cost of the building, so the new hospital was effectively free]. One can make the same sorts of business case for other sectors, but only if one knows how buildings perform in business terms – feedback again!

44. Clients business cases can be difficult to pin down: they often say the design looked fine at the time we asked for it, but our business requirements have changed. Would this be a problem during the 3- year Soft Landing period? [Response: We dont think so - the process and the metrics are designed to take account of alterations in building use].

45. Big flaw in PFI: you provide a building to meet my needs and I will merely occupy it. But the situation is not static: the clients needs will change, but will the building … economically?

46. Since business cases change so fast, what we need is buildings that provide robust platforms for a range of activities. There are a lot of useful things one can use feedback for to make buildings better and avoid common problems, improving benefits all round, often regardless of the specific business requirement.

47. We may influence the client front end of the supply chain, but further down the chain things stay the same. The processes we are exploring do not yet include the whole change.

48. Need to look at outturns. Cannot be easily and reliably measured on a per annum basis.

49. Has Soft Landings looked at the wider issues, e.g. the community aspects of a building? [No, but Soft Landings provides a framework onto which many items can be grafted by mutual agreement].

50. We have been talking about feedback on product, which often seems to mean spending money on new activities. Meanwhile, feedback on process offers real opportunities to save money, through progressive improvements in the efficiency of the construction process (viz: BP/Bovis Alliance on filling stations). Put the two together, and you have a self-financing package. EDGE ACTION?.