INDUSTRY COMMENT
Machine-readable and accountable: what digital building control asks of building services design
The proposed Single Construction Regulator is part of a major change in construction oversight proposed by the Government. Here, John Taylor, publications manager at BSRIA, looks at a quieter shift behind the headlines and what it means for building services engineers
E
very building services engineer knows the awkward call that arrives just as a project is set to start on site. Months after the design was completed, someone needs to check a design, who
reviewed it, and when the system was signed off, and the record turns out to be scattered across numerous email threads, superseded drawings and a spreadsheet that may not have been diligently updated.
While much of the attention on the Government’s reforms has, rightly, gone to the proposed Single Construction Regulator, following the response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, there is another shift that requires attention. The proposed regulator is, of course, important, as it will change who oversees construction and how. But behind that headline there’s a more subtle but important signal that relates directly to services design. It’s related to the information itself, and specifically whether what we produce can be read and checked by machines as well as people.
What digital building control will expect of services information
Recommendations in the Building Control Independent Panel report and the anticipated Digital Building Control Roadmap point towards a single national digital building control system. It would be built on national data standards and automated data capture, feeding real time, risk-based oversight. The implication for services design is significant. A submission will no longer only be opened, read and judged by a person. Increasingly, it is likely to be processed and validated through digital systems, which means the way that information is structured may determine how efficiently it can be assessed. For M&E teams that is a meaningful change. A calculation, a schedule or a coordinated model that a person can interpret but a system cannot parse becomes a problem in a digital validation process. No matter how sound the underlying engineering. Whether that information relates to a plant schedule, fire dampers, smoke control systems or commissioning records, it will need to be structured in a way that supports consistent interpretation and validation. Structuring information for both skilled professionals and machine interpretation stops being a nicety and becomes a fundamental part of producing a compliant design.
FAIR data, seen from the services design office
A useful way to describe good information here comes to us from the world of research. FAIR data is data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. Most engineers will recognise the concepts, even if the acronym is new. What matters is applying it to services information, where it has not always been the default.
Findable means a specification, calculation or model can be securely retrievable when it is needed, not buried in an inbox. Accessible means the right people can reach it across design, construction and the life of the building. Interoperable means it can move between disciplines and platforms without being rebuilt each time your model meets the architect’s or the structural engineer’s desk. Reusable is the one that bites hardest in services work. Too often, the design information is produced, used during construction, then effectively dropped off ‘as-is’ at handover, and the operations team inherits something it cannot use. FAIR describes a contrasting approach: a single thread of services information that keeps its value from concept through to occupation. Just as importantly, structured information makes it clear who created it, who reviewed it and when decisions were made, providing the accountability increasingly expected under the Building Safety Act and Golden Thread principles.
How BG6 already does this for building services
None of this means waiting around for or second-guessing legislation, because building services teams already have a framework built around these habits. For example, BSRIA’s BG6 sets out what information should be produced at each stage, by whom, and who else needs to be involved, whether supporting or reviewing. BG6 earns its keep by making responsibilities clear. It defines who is responsible for delivering, reviewing and supporting the wide range of building services activities, with those responsibilities agreed by all parties. Everyone knows their role, and what they need to review, so architectural, structural, MEP, and the wide range of services systems remain coordinated as the design develops. That clarity reduces
14 BUILDING SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OCTOBER 2026
the risk of clashes and rework that dog so many M&E packages. BG6 makes lines of responsibility explicit. Its schedules set out who is responsible for producing, reviewing and coordinating information, including contractor-designed portions and specialist inputs. Rather than information being pieced together at the end of a project, the aim is for it to develop alongside the design and construction process. In practice, this provides the basis for a live, structured and attributable record that can be FAIR by design.
Structured information as a lifetime asset
This direction is not BSRIA’s alone. The Construction Leadership Council makes a related case. Its 2024 Golden Thread guidance positions the framework not as a compliance chore but as sound information management that duty-holders should actively use. Its Information Management Initiative, jointly developed with nima, and its Construct AI programme both rest on the idea that structured, connected information is what it takes to unlock digital twins, AI-assisted work and the automated checks that building control is moving towards.
Put those together and the same conclusion holds for services teams. Well-structured information is not a chance by-product of building design. It takes application and skill to create an asset that carries value through construction, into operation and across regulatory oversight for the life of the building.
Getting your team ready
The Single Construction Regulator will shape how the industry is governed, and that matters. Design offices need to prepare now. You can make progress by simply starting on your next project. Settle spatial coordination early rather than carrying clashes forward. Use your BG6 schedules to name who owns and reviews each part of the services scope and keep that record live as contractor-designed portions and specialist inputs arrive. Assume your submissions will one day be read by a system not only by a skilled colleague, and structure them accordingly.
Do that, and the next call after handover becomes much shorter and sweeter.
Read the latest at:
www.bsee.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38
