The NSW Construction Reform Strategy

 Compliance and quality in new residential buildings

 

The National Construction Code (NCC) is a performance-based regulatory system that provides the standards buildings must comply with, supported by reference documents from Australian Standards, the Australian Building Code Board (ABCB), and other protocols and standards. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) sits within the NCC and is given effect by state and territory legislation. These regulations cover building work, products, and registration or licensing requirements for practitioners, and their objectives are the proper construction of buildings and the health and safety of the people using those buildings. Although construction is extensively regulated through the NCC under both state and federal legislation, during a boom in apartment building after 2014 the number of defects in these new buildings became a major issue. 

 

Figure 1. NSW apartment building

Source: ABS 870102. 

 

After a series of building failures highlighted widespread lack of compliance with the NCC, Bronwyn Weir and Peter Shergold were asked to investigate. Their report in 2018 Building Confidence: Improving the Effectiveness of Compliance and Enforcement Systems for the Building and Construction Industry across Australia found: 

• Compliance failures included non-compliant cladding, water ingress, structurally unsound roof construction and poorly constructed fire resisting elements; 
• Practitioners may lack competence and do not understand the NCC; 
• Design documentation was generally poor and resulted in inadequate information; 
• Licensing bodies, regulators and local governments were inadequately funded or lacked skills and resources; and 
• Supervision has generally been by private building surveyors who are not independent from builders and/or designers. 

 

The report made 24 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was for registration of building practitioners involved in the design, construction and maintenance of buildings, and 10 was for building surveyors. Recommendation 3 was for practitioners to undertake compulsory Continuing Professional Development on the NCC. The key recommendations 6 and 7 were for effective regulatory powers and proactive regulation, with mandatory inspections (recommendations 18 and 19), and recommendation 21 for compulsory product certification. Recommendation 8 was for a design review relating to fire fighting, and 17 was for an independent third-party review of the designs before work commences. Other recommendations were 12, for a building information database that provides a centralised source of building design and construction documentation, and 20 for a building manual for commercial buildings to be available on completion. 

 

These recommendations addressed the serious problems of building defects and non-compliant materials that were the primary motivation for the Building Confidence report. The report concluded ‘The compliance and enforcement systems have not been adequate to prevent these problems from emerging and they need to change as a matter of priority. There is no panacea or ‘silver bullet’ to resolve these problems. Our 24 recommendations … will address weaknesses in a … pragmatic, risk-based approach’ (p. 4). 

 

The scale of the problems of building defects in new apartment buildings built after 2015 required a new regulatory approach, and the Construct NSW reform strategy was the result.

 

The NSW Reform Strategy 

 

The New South Wales Government responded to the Building Confidence report with the Construct NSW strategy, which had six elements: regulation, key player ratings, education, contracts, digital tools, and data and research. In 2019 the Berejiklian Government established the Office of the Building Commissioner (OBC) to implement the reform strategy and appointed industry veteran David Chandler as Building Commissioner. In 2020 two significant pieces of legislation to regulate new construction work were introduced. With these Acts the Building Commissioner could audit building plans, monitor and scrutinise suspected wrongdoing, and take disciplinary actions such as suspending or cancelling registrations, refusing to issue occupation certificates, and ordering rectification of non-compliant building work.

 

The Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (RAB Act) allowed the OBC and Department of Customer Service to investigate building work and require rectification of defects for up to six years after the occupation certificate was granted. The Department can delay issue of an occupation certificate until identified issues are addressed, and these orders are public while they remain in force. The definition of a ‘serious defect’ in the Act is a failure to comply with the BCA, Australian Standards or approved plans. The RAB Act gives the Building Commissioner powers to enter construction sites and issue orders for the rectification of serious defects before occupation certificates can be given.

 

The most significant power requires developers to sign enforceable undertakings that the developer refrain from certain conduct which contravenes the Act or take action to prevent or remedy a contravention of the Act. A Building Work Rectification Order requires developers or principal contractors to remediate serious defects prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, and a Stop Work Order is issued if the Building Commissioner is satisfied that work being done could result in significant harm or loss to the public or occupiers of the building.

 

The second piece of legislation was the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (DBP Act), which had three requirements:

1. New registration requirements for designers, engineers, specialists and builders to show they are adequately qualified;
2. To require designers to lodge building designs before construction starts, and builders lodge ‘as-built’ plans upon completion. Builders must also declare that the completed building complies with the lodged designs and the BCA. The requirements on practitioners to register, lodge plans and make declarations came into force in July 2021; and
3. A statutory duty of care for practitioners, so owners can sue if a person who carries out construction work fails to exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by defects. The duty of care has been in force since June 2020 and applies retrospectively, where economic loss has become apparent in the 10 years prior to 2020.

 

The DBP Act imposed a retrospective statutory duty of care to avoid economic loss caused by defects or construction work. It applies to professionals who perform construction work including builders, designers, product manufacturers and suppliers. In July 2021 the second stage of the Act introduced compulsory insurance, declarations to be given by designers and builders to ensure compliance with the BCA, and a registration regime for engineers. 

 

Also, in July 2020 the Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 and the Building and Development Certifiers Regulation 2020 came into effect, with stronger conflict of interest provisions and penalties for breaches by certifiers. The Act and Regulation include similar provisions to those in the DBP Act for building and design practitioners to be registered, for suspension or cancellation of registration, and having adequate and current insurance. The NSW Department of Fair Trading provides a certifier practise standard, a condition of licence for all certifiers working on multi-storey Class 2 buildings [1].

 

Another initiative was micro-credential TAFE courses being offered to practitioners. There are now three dozen of these courses available, ranging from asbestos to waterproofing, with courses specifically on the NSW legislation and its operation, the NCC, and fire and rescue requirements.

 

Further Developments 

 

Since the legislation in 2020 there have been two other NSW Government policies introduced, two court cases, a Strata Hub and a Defects Library created. A new agency was formed when the Building Commission NSW commenced on 1 December 2023, bringing together the Office of the Building Commissioner and NSW Fair Trading building functions into a single specialised organisation focused on quality and compliance of residential buildings employing over 400 people.

 

In November 2022 the NSW Government started Project Intervene, a program to resolve serious defects in the common property of buildings that are up to ten years old. The Department of Fair Trading negotiates a legally binding undertaking with the developer for the benefit of the owners corporation. A building is not eligible for Project Intervene if the developer or the builder are no longer trading. Under Project Intervene, there was no cost to the owners corporation as the developer pays for the remediation works and all associated costs. Other defects might be remediated at the same time but are agreed to separately by the developer. An owners corporation could register for the program up to 30 June 2023, and 152 buildings registered involving 14,523 apartments.

 

Project Remediate was a 2022-2024 program to help remove combustible cladding on an estimated 225 buildings, of which over 135 are in process. It is a voluntary (opt-in) program that only fixes flammable cladding and offers a 10-year interest-free loan to fund remediation work [2]. Government support is provided to owners corporations through quality assurance and program management services, with a $10,00 to $15,000 payment to help cover strata management costs for participating in the program. 

 

In 2023 the NSW Court of Appeal in Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments confirmed an earlier Supreme Court decision that building practitioners owe a statutory duty of care under the DBP Act for all building work, not just residential building work or work on a Class 2 Building. The decision also confirmed owners can hold project managers, superintendents, directors and shadow directors personally responsible for building defects. 

 

The decision in Roberts extended the RAB Act’s definition of a serious defect to all buildings and the duty of care of individuals was confirmed. However, when designing a project, a number of designers and consultants will be involved, some of whom may work for one firm. How the duty of care is allocated between individuals that sign certificates and professional services firms that are contracted for work on a project was not clarified. The uncertainty around this issue was a factor in the significant increase in Professional Indemnity insurance premiums. 

 

In 2024 an Owners Corporation of a residential strata building brought proceedings against Pafburn (head contractor) and Madarina Pty Ltd (developer) for alleged negligence leading to defective construction work and breaching the statutory duty in the DBP Act. The High Court of Australia in Pafburn Pty Limited v The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 considered whether a developer or head contractor can reduce their liability when faced with claims and found head contractors cannot delegate works to avoid liability. 

 

The NSW Strata Hub was another initiative, establishing a register of strata schemes with information on the number of lots, the occupation certificate, strata scheme management information (committee secretary, strata manager, building manager, the annual general meeting) and the scheme’s energy and water performance rating where available. 

 

The Building Commission has created an online Building Defects Library that lists the most common building defects for Certifiers, Councils and other relevant industry members to help drafting of formal communication to rectify defects.

 

Developer and Contractor Ratings

 

Another element in the NSW reform strategy was the introduction of a ratings system for developers and contractors. This is called iCIRT (independent construction industry rating tool) and uses data on creditworthiness, insurance history, regulatory breaches and legal claims, to assign a rating available to government, industry and the public. Developed by Equifax, a credit rating firm, iCIRT ratings are based on a relative risk ranking. Businesses are assessed relative to others that share the same role (i.e. builders are compared with builders) and size (i.e. small firms with small firms) and a Development Risk Index compares a business to the industry average. These ratings are based on six criteria:

1. Character: the business, its directors and key persons, the holding company, related parties, shareholders and owners;
2. Capability: the tenure and trading history of the business and officeholders experience, licences and qualifications, the track record on previous projects and insurance and claims history;
3. Conduct: includes the commercial history, court judgments and litigation, industrial disputes, tribunal decisions, payments to employees and subcontractors, and any regulatory intervention;
4. Capacity:  the project pipeline and capacity to meet commitments, business solvency and ongoing sustainability;
5. Capital: capitalisation and funding sources, access to funding and borrowing capacity; and
6. Counterparties: the exposure of the business to related parties in the supply chain and capacity to withstand disruptions.

 

Equifax and iCIRT provide a star-rating outcome from zero stars (unrated) to five stars (more trustworthy) and there are three levels of assessment. Gold Ratings are a detailed assessment where the business and/or build team have fully participated and provided all requested disclosures for a comprehensive review, including key person consents for expanded background checks. Silver Ratings are a standard review where the business and/or build team have provided a number of required disclosures, with key person consents to basic background checks. Bronze Ratings are a brief review using all available public and proprietary data that does not require consent or the participation of the rated business or build team, with no key person checks. 

 

Despite ICIRT’s role in improving accountability and trustworthiness in NSW construction getting a rating is voluntary, as is making it publicly available once acquired. By February 2024 there were 163 builders and developers, plus a few architects and others, listed on the ‘Register of Trustworthy Constructors’. About a dozen had been withdrawn or not renewed and several were waiting for updates. 

 

In a LinkedIn post on Feb 6^th David Chandler said ‘The number of iCIRT rated builders and developers continues to grow. Recent statistics indicate that over 35% of builders and developers with turnover greater than $5.0m pa are now rated. These statistics further indicate that over 50% of developers and builders by volume are iCIRT rated in NSW.’

 

Decennial Liability Insurance

 

Decennial liability insurance (DLI) is an insurance product that enables owners corporations to have a serious defect fixed up to ten years after an apartment building is first occupied. With DLI the work is done without litigation to establish fault, removing a major barrier for owners corporations. In November 2022 the Building and Other Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill made DLI an option for developers of multi-storey apartment developments in NSW, so a developer with DLI will not be required to provide a building bond. NSW is the only Australian jurisdiction where DLI is offered, although it is available in over thirty countries.

 

DLI provides residential apartment owners with comprehensive consumer protection for building defects caused by substandard design and building work. It ensures that building owners can remediate those defects because the costs are covered by the insurance policy if a builder or developer is unable or unwilling to fix the defects, including if the developer becomes insolvent. There is currently one provider of DLI, Resilience Insurance.

 

DLI increases involvement of insurers in the design and construction of projects as they take a more active role in monitoring projects through technical inspections, site investigations or due diligence. Regular, independent technical inspections are the basis of DLI, and premiums for highly rated developers and builders should be lower than those with a lower rating and/or a history of buildings with defects. 

 

A fundamental problem had been a lack of supervision to ensure and maintain the quality of work on residential building projects. For contractors, responsibility for compliance with relevant codes and practices requires supervision from the issue of the construction certificate to hand over to the client. For developers, supervision is required to prevent an order under the RAB Act that will damage their reputation and affect consumer confidence in their product. With the ratings tools now available, the cost of independent design reviews and adequate supervision of work may be offset by reduced financing and insurance costs. 

 

Report on Progress in 2023

 

In 2023 a Review of the Implementation of Building Confidence recommendations was published by the Australian Construction Industry Forum, with details on the progress made on each recommendation across the states. Based on that report Bronwyn Weir gave an update on progress on the Building Confidencerecommendations in a webinar presented to the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors and the Australian Construction Industry Forum, reported by Andrew Heaton on Sourceable. According to Weir progress varied across jurisdictions. NSW was leading with increased compliance and enforcement and a proactive audit program. 

All states had or were working toward a compulsory code of conduct for building surveyors, and there had been improvements in accountability for performance solutions and performance-based design. The ABCB had developed model guidance so states and territories could implement recommendations in a nationally consistent way. On other recommendations implementation had been mixed. For example:

• Several states had broad schemes for mandatory registration of design and building practitioners, but none were as comprehensive as the National Registration Framework developed by the ABCB (recommendations 1 and 2 of the report).
• Only Tasmania required building practitioners to undergo compulsory continuing professional development on the NCC (recommendation 3).
• No state had instituted any substantive reforms to support career pathways for building surveyors and certifiers (recommendation 4).
• NSW and Victoria have increased regulatory compliance and enforcement action (recommendations 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11), Queensland and Western Australia have ‘light touch’ regulation.
• NSW had strengthened the role of fire authorities in building approval processes, however no state had instituted a code of conduct for fire safety engineers (recommendation 8).
• NSW had and some other states were working toward centralised digital lodgement of building approval documents (recommendation 12), but Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria are not. The ACT and Northern Territory were already doing this. 
• No jurisdiction required a comprehensive building manual be handed over to owners on building completion (recommendation 20).
• There had been insufficient action on regulation of building product compliance. Only Queensland had a supply chain accountability law.

 

Table 1A. Summary of progress in 2023

Table 1B. Summary of progress in 2023

Source. Table provided to Sourceable by Weir Legal and Consulting

 

Surveys on Building Defects

 

The NSW Building Commission has done two surveys on defects in apartment buildings. The 2021 survey on defects in strata buildings over three stories that were completed in the previous 6 years found:

• 39% of strata apartment buildings surveyed had a serious building defect in the common property.
• Of the buildings with a serious defect, most were related to waterproofing (63%), followed by fire safety systems (38%), structure (27%), enclosure (26%) and key services (17%).
• The time taken to resolve defects varied greatly across the sample, with around 38% of buildings taking over 12 months and 25% taking less than 6 months. 
• Only 15% of the buildings with serious defects were reported to NSW Fair Trading;
• The average cost of remediation was over $300,000 (including rectification work, legal expenses, and other professional services. Owners corporations were not able to recover these costs, which were covered by special levies (34%) or an increased annual budget (29%).

 

The second survey in 2023 found 53% of strata buildings in New South Wales had serious defects, the increase from 39% in 2021 suggesting increased engagement from strata communities [3]. The survey found that defects in newer buildings trending down since 2020, driven by a decrease in buildings with waterproofing serious defects, and consumers were more confident in reporting defects to the regulator. The most common defects were: Waterproofing (42%); Fire safety systems (24%); Building enclosures (19%); Structural issues (15%); and Key services, such as lifts and plumbing (14%).

 

 

Figure 1. NSW Defects survey

 

Source

 

In his Foreword to the 2023 survey Building Commissioner David Chandler [4] said: 

Since the commencement of the NSW Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 developers and builders associated with the construction of apartment buildings with serious defects are increasingly held accountable to fix them. As of 1 November 2023, 465 RAB-Act-related audits have been conducted involving more than 29,000 apartments. Development financiers are now paying attention to how they can lower these risks.

 

We are also seeing the positive impacts of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020. Since the DBP Act commenced in July 2021, 94 DBP Act audits have been conducted, involving over 10,000 apartments. Across NSW, apartments are now commencing with a much higher resolution of design before construction starts on site. This shift of approach is being reported by builders as leading to less rework, less waste and improved construction times. On-site we are observing far greater awareness of what compliant construction work looks like.

 

Conclusion

 

The scale of the problems of building defects in new apartment buildings built after 2015 required a new regulatory approach, and the Construct NSW reform strategy was the result. Following the recommendations of the 2018 Building Confidence report on non-compliance with the BCA, building failures and defects, the NSW Office of the Building Commissioner was established in 2019 and David Chandler appointed Commissioner. In 2020 the Design and Building Practitioner Act and the Residential Apartment Building Act came into effect. The goal of the NSW reform strategy was to restore confidence in newly built apartment buildings. 

 

The issues addressed by the regulatory reforms in NSW were accountability for the quality of work done, and access to data and transparency about a building’s quality or lack of it. Under the 2020 legislation there are two key requirements:

1. Designers must design properties in compliance with the BCA; and 
2. Construction workers must build properties according to those designs and must build in compliance with the BCA.

To implement the strategy and enforce the legislation the OBC could inspect plans, visit sites, and stop work to prevent defects, and in David Chandler had a highly energetic and effective Building Commissioner. In 2023 the Building Commission NSW bought together the OBC and NSW Fair Trading building functions into a single agency employing over 400 people, focused on compliance of residential buildings.

 

Firms and their employees affected by the DBP Act have had to incorporate its requirement for registration into their business plans to operate in NSW. For many this is not onerous, but for some it is challenging. Similarly, getting an iCIRT rating is difficult for firms with a poor track record, but is an opportunity for good firms to establish themselves as trusted and trustworthy, and for their relationships with suppliers, consumers, insurers and financiers to benefit from being highly rated.

 

The iCIRT ratings scheme for constructors and developers identifies a ‘trustworthy building’ that is fit for purpose, resilient and measurably less risky for the owners, financiers and insurers. With the introduction of the iCIRT ratings scheme and Decennial Liability Insurance, NSW became a leader in increasing the accountability of developers and contractors. Although there are some similarities with insurance-based systems for regulating construction such as the Miller Act in the U.S. and the French system, the scope of the RAB and DBP Acts is wider and those other systems do not include the same inspection powers. 

 

The NSW Government’s Construct NSW strategy was a response to repeated failures in design, construction and certification of buildings. The objective of the NSW strategy was to restore public confidence in new buildings after high profile building failures and widespread defects, with the associated financial burden and misery for owners of affected apartments. This was a multi-pronged strategy based on a Building Commission with new powers for increased inspection of designs and building work, data driven audits of companies and projects, registration and education of practitioners, a ratings scheme for companies, and introduction of ten year defect insurance. This comprehensive strategy has placed NSW firmly at the forefront of construction industry reform in Australia. 

                                                                        *

 

 

[1] Class 2 buildings are multi-storey, multi-unit apartment buildings or mixed-use buildings with shops and apartments. 

 

[2] The problem of flammable cladding in Australia was covered in a previous post, on both the extent of the problem and the differences between the states in their response. 

 

[3] The time and cost of remedial work on defects has increased under the DBP Act because some work that previously was done after agreement between an Owners Corporation and contractor now requires a Development Application. 

 

[4] David Chandler’s term as Building Commissioner finished in mid-2024, and in October James Sherrard became the new Commissioner. While the Berejiklian Government gets the credit for establishing the Office of the Building Commissioner and passing the enabling legislation, Chandler was responsible for the success of the reform strategy. 

BIM Mandates and Construction Industry Policy

BIM as Industrial Strategy 

 

Construction of the built environment is subject to many government regulations, legislation and policies. On the demand side interest rates, taxes, public infrastructure spending, urban development and housing policies are all important, but are also external to the built environment sector itself and they determined by a wide range of factors beyond the sector. There are the effects of planning and environmental regulations, and restrictions limiting the supply of new housing or infrastructure, an issue that has featured in recent debates and spills over into other issues around affordability of housing and the cost of major projects. All costs the complex institutional and policy environment entail are crystalised at the moment a contract is signed for a new building or construction project, as part of a total cost that typically includes finance and land, or access to it. The remaining share of the project cost is design and delivery, so that is what built environment industries can affect. On the supply side the issues are about efficiency, productivity and production costs.

 

A brief, general discussion on BIM and industry policy follows, before discussing the importance of BIM mandates. The pervious post was on the experience of the UK after 2011 in promoting use of BIM. That is an example of an industry policy that has worked, after the UK government launched a new broad-based industrial strategy to improve competitiveness with a BIM mandate for public construction included. 

 

 

Promoting Building Information Modelling

 

BIM had its origins in 1960s 2D drawing programs that developed into architectural drawing software. Two companies dominate the market, Autodesk was founded in 1982 and Bentley Systems in 1984. The first version of ArchiCAD’s file exchange solution was released in 1997, which allowed multiple designers to work on a collaborative platform. At this point enthusiasts began believing in BIM as a universal panacea for the problems and issues endemic to construction. Twenty-five years later they are still waiting, despite the fact that BIM is no longer a new technology but an application widely used in construction, one that is now offered as a cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) to manage and maintain project digital twins.

 

Countries took different approaches to promoting BIM. Broadly, Scandinavian and western European countries, Singapore and the UK followed a government-driven approach, but Australia and the United States (US) a more industry-driven approach. However, the US General Services Administration (GSA) established the first public sector program in 2003, the National 3D-4D-BIM Program, on best practices for design and construction teams. The GSA was also the first client to require mandatory use of BIM in 2007, for program verification. The first government BIM roadmap was from Singapore, for 2010-2015, by the Building and Construction Authority, with a second in 2016 that included BIM for facility and asset management and the BIM for DfMA Essential Guide for integrating BIM and DfMA.[i]

 

The UK Government Construction Strategy 2011–2015 mandated fully collaborative 3D BIM for all public projects by 2016. Importantly, the UK also began publishing BIM standards to provide guidance for industry on how to produce, exchange and use information in BIM. In 2015 standards BS 8541-5 and 6 on offsite construction and modular buildings were released. The Construction Strategy was extended to 2016–2020, with a single shared building model to be held in a centralized repository for operation of assets over their life cycle[ii]. By 2020 most western and northern European countries had plans to mandate BIM in some way, although the level of use varied greatly between countries, with BIM adoption in the UK, Denmark, Germany and France similar to the US, Canada and Singapore, but Southern European use much lower. 

 

In the US many land use and building codes are local,  and a range of different approaches has been followed. The US also has standards and guides from both government and industry. The GSA 2009 Guides were on 3D imaging and 4D schedule management, extended to life-cycle management in 2011. The American Institute of Architects published six series of guidelines after 2007 for the use of BIM in the design and operations of projects for architects. The National BIM Standard was published in 2009, updated in 2012, and is in its third version. The US followed an industry-driven approach and, compared to Singapore and the UK with their BIM mandates, the government was less involved.

 

In Australia, the Commonwealth Government released a national BIM initiative in 2012 and recommended requiring full 3D collaborative BIM for all Australian government projects by 2016. However, with no mandates or targets for use nothing actually happened. As in the US, policies and uptake varies across the states. In 2018 the Queensland government started mandating BIM, to be expanded to all built assets by 2023[iii]. Other states are following.

 

Industry Policy and Industrial Strategy

 

 These is little practical difference between a country’s industry policy and national industrial strategy. They are both typically framed around competitiveness and productivity, focus on innovation and R&D, and follow pathways and roadmaps through scenarios and scoping studies. Some industries like agriculture, steel and automobiles are regarded as strategic and have always been surrounded by rules and regulations and subject to government intervention. Governments’ have science and technology policies that influence industrial structure and macroeconomic policies that affect economic development. For many countries the emphasis in industry policy has shifted to industry 4.0 technologies and AI, as governments and industry respond to these technologies.   

 

Government policies targeting supply side issues are not as high profile as others, they don’t get regular updates like monthly unemployment or quarterly GDP statistics and capture attention like announcements of interest rate changes. Because productivity has become the measure used for industry performance, despite the statistical questions that raises, it has often been the target for government policy. However, many policy measures affect productivity in the long run, such as education, training, infrastructure, innovation and R&D, tax and capital expenditure subsidies, and pilot or demonstration projects. When the intention of such policies is to influence a country’s economic structure and performance they are described as industrial strategy or industry policy.  

 

Industry policy was out of favour for a couple of decades before the financial crisis in 2007-08, especially in countries like the US, UK and Australia, although the European Union and many Asian countries followed well developed national strategic plans. In the West this was partly ideological, a view that it is about government intervention and picking winners, and partly because some issues traditionally addressed by industry policy like tariffs and market access moved into negotiations around trade policy, at both the global level with the WTO rounds and in the increasing number of bilateral trade agreements. Traditionally manufacturing was the focus for industry policy, but after 2007 the approach became more about coordinating a wide range of policies to achieve objectives across the economy and society. The rollout of protective equipment and vaccines during the Covid pandemic in 2020-21 both tested and accelerated this new approach.

 

Following the financial crisis governments looking for sources of economic growth and employment creation began focusing on specific sectors in manufacturing and services where they saw opportunity in global value chains. Industries like pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, semiconductors, aerospace, IT, AI, cars and steel have featured in the industry policies of many countries since then. Any policy intervention intended to strengthen the economy is an industry policy, and governments establish priorities and target industries. Countries protect or favour industries with legislation for many reasons but some of them are strategic and long term, like innovation programs with their associated challenges, roadmaps and milestones, and many of these programs currently involve digitisation in some form. 

 

While it is a fact that governments can have major impacts through regulation, tax, and R&D these policies are spread across departments, there are significant institutional constraints on government buying power. What history generally does show is that it is hard to get industry strategy right, implementation is difficult and outcomes are uncertain in dynamically evolving economies. There is also the problem that results take time to happen and thus take longer than the electoral cycle to develop, and there is often little benefit to the government of the day even if a policy is working well. Although inquiries in the UK, US and Australia into construction industry performance recommended leveraging purchases of materials, machinery and equipment and buildings and structures to push industry reform this was not widely used, despite being common practice in Asian countries like Singapore and Japan. 

 

Infrastructure is often found within a country’s national strategy for science and technology, required for building out the networks underpinning modern society and the economy. There is unrelenting pressure from public sector clients for the lowest possible cost of work, given the circumstances of the industry, and in many countries the public sector is the largest single client for construction work. Housing is another area with complex overlapping issues that affects the cost of delivery. The cost of major projects and lack of productivity growth in construction has been an issue for governments and major clients for decades, since productivity statistics first became available in the 1960s.

 

BIM Mandates and Industry Policy 

 

Building information modelling (BIM) has been promoted as the solution to the problems of poor documentation, fragmentation and lack of collaboration in building and construction for many years. It has not, however, been disruptive as we understand the idea, at least not so far. BIM has its origins in 1960s drawing programs, and Autodesk was founded in 1982, so this is not a new technology. Therefore, BIM does not qualify as transformative, rather it is the required enabler of further developments, a necessary foundation for the transition to the construction technological system in the digital age. BIM is more like digital plumbing underpinning digital construction than an elevator to higher performance.

 

BIM is plumbing because the digitized construction data it generates gets shared across the different built environment industries. At a basic level this is just sharing files and managing documentation. However, BIM can run on platforms, it allows access to cloud manufacturing, it is being combined with virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) systems for a holographic 3D virtual project that contains every detail of a building, and that information can be shared through a project management platform with all project participants. At this point the expectation is that VR will be used more on the design side by architects, planners and engineers, while AR will have a larger footprint on construction sites, although some construction firms have started looking at using VR in areas like safety and training. BIM is obviously central to these technologies. Other uses include drones matching site work to BIM plans for buildings and excavators measuring earthworks. Some clients are demanding as-built digital twins to manage their buildings with. 

 

Two reasons why BIM is not more widely used are inertia of industry culture and the incremental process followed by clients in requiring BIM. These are both discussed in the context of the UK below, which provides a good example of the policy approach now being followed by many governments. These policies broadly follow roadmaps with stages for BIM adoption, using both level of use and size of project as targets, that are intended to allow time for industry to adjust. A small number of countries have implemented national BIM mandates:[iv]

2004 Singapore for public construction projects 

2007 Finland for all public projects over 1 million euros 

2007 US General Service Administration and the Army Corps of Engineers required use 

2010 South Korea public construction over KRW 500 million from 2016

2011 UK for public building

2018 Spain for public construction

2019 Abu Dhabi for all major projects 

2020 Germany for Federal infrastructure projects

 

Many countries have published roadmaps, standards and guidelines since 2015 without so far following up with a mandate, for example Austria, Australia, France, Switzerland and Japan are at this stage. In every case the underlying assumption is that BIM will become business as usual over the decade of the 2020s, but at the beginning of the decade countries that were early movers like Singapore, Finland and the UK have the highest use of BIM.There are also state and city level mandates in the US and Australia. Wisconsin required BIM for projects over $5 million in 2010, and Queensland for public projects in 2018. By 2021 most major projects for both public private clients worldwide are done with BIM.

 

BIM mandates are important because the use of BIM unlocks the potential of digital construction, and affects the organisation of suppliers of materials, products and services for construction of the built environment as well. The deeply embedded nature of the culture and processes of this production system, and the large number of small firms involved, slows technological diffusion and limits voluntary uptake of new technologies like BIM. Therefore, government mandates in particular and client’s mandating BIM in general are needed. The experience of the UK is a good example.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The UK construction strategy applied to all firms involved in projects, and thus included designers, consultants and suppliers as well as contractors and subcontractors, and targeted technology adoption not the separate industries of residential building, non-residential building and engineering construction and the distinctive characteristics of each of those industries. The differences in the subcultures of these separate industries accounts for the differing rates of uptake found across firms in the UK since the launch of the strategy. Also, national and local governments, universities, regulators and industry bodies were all given significant but loosely specified roles in these policies to support industry engagement. 

 

Achieving industry policy goals requires a great deal of coordination, determination and long-term commitment,[v]qualities not always associated with government policy. Over the decade after the UK government launched the new Industry Strategy in 2011 and the Construction Industry Strategy in 2015 there was investment in capability, new standards were developed, and BIM requirements increased usage. This new conception and practice of industry policy was about collaboration between the public and private sectors,[vi] rather than imposing unrealistic outcomes on the industry. Industry policies do not have to be original or innovative to be useful and effective, as the success of the UK after 2011 in promoting use of BIM shows. 

 

---

[i] See Jiang et al. Government efforts and roadmaps for building information modelling implementation, 2021. BCA, BIM Essential Guide for DfMA. 2016.

[ii] UK Cabinet Office. Government Construction Strategy 2016-2020.

[iii] Queensland Government, Digital Enablement for Queensland Infrastructure, 2018.

[iv] Lee and Borrmann, BIM policy and management, 2020. Links to the relevant documents for each country can be found in the article. 

[v] Aiginger and Rodrik, Rebirth of Industrial Policy and an Agenda for the Twenty-first Century, 2020.

[vi] Chang and Andreoni, Industrial Policy in the 21st Century, 2020.