IP - NO - Complete
===

Speaker: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Industrialized podcast, where we speak to those leading the charge towards the future of construction. Coming up in this week's episode, host Darren Richards, director of Cogent Consulting, talks to Nigel Osteen, principal at Osteen Consultants, about bridging the gap between architecture and manufacturing principles.

They look at the lessons learned from ten years of DfMA guidelines, the future of circular building materials, and why client leadership is the absolute key to unlocking affordable, high-quality construction at scale. Let's find out more as we hand over to Darren

Speaker 2: Welcome to the Industrialized podcast, where today I'm joined by Nigel Austin from Hawkins Brown Architects.

Hi, Nigel.

Speaker 3: Hi, Darren.

Speaker 2: Tell us a little bit about yourself, Nigel, and what you do at Hawkins Brown.

Speaker 3: Um, well, that's a question I wasn't ready to, uh, answer straight off the bat, but anyway, um, uh, so I've got, um-- I've had an interest in, in offsite for, for [00:01:00] many years now, and some of the things I've done through Hawkins\Brown have been generating, uh, programs, largely in the housing sector, to help improve productivity.

So did a pe-- big piece of work for, um, uh, one of the large housing associations, um, well, sh- probably going back nearly ten years ago now, um, to develop, uh, fundamentally a pattern book for them. And we followed on from that with developing a, um, what we called a DfMA toolkit, which was effectively to contain the assets that we'd developed for them so that they could be implemented by project teams.

Uh, since then, we've produced a pattern book for, um, for BFirst, Barking & Dagenham's housing arm, which was for sort of mid-rise, um, developments, and I think that thinking is still very relevant today. And we've also done work for the Irish government, um, developing standardized housing for them, which is, uh, was recently completed and is just in the process of being [00:02:00] rolled out.

So interesting times, and be, uh, we're looking forward to seeing how that, how that progresses.

Speaker 4: Good.

Speaker 2: So we're gonna talk today about mainstreaming DFA-- DfMA in, uh, construction and, uh, kind of look at some trigger points or, you know, points at which the industry has maybe, um, tried to elevate, um, design, manufacture and assembly.

And, um, uh, ten years ago, almost, uh, to the, to the month, the DfMA, uh, overlay was, um, produced, uh, with the RIBA, which I know you were pretty heavily, uh, been pretty heavily involved in over the time. Um, tell us a little bit about, um, what the objective of the original overlay was and whether you think in ten years it's had much of an impact.

It clearly has in your thinking, but I think you were already a convert anyway. But in the wider architectural fraternity, a decade on, uh, has it fundamentally affected behaviors and thinking around design?

Speaker 3: Hmm. [00:03:00] Well, needless to say, ten years is a long time. Um, and in fact, there was a second edition to the overlay produced five years ago.

Um, and on that basis, I think we're due for another edition. And in fact, this is something that, uh, I'm just starting to work on, so watch this space, as they say. Um, but that aside, MMC is not new, of course, and we can trace industrialized design back to, well, back to the Crystal Palace in mid, uh, mid-nineteenth century.

Uh, my first experience with industrialized construction was working for BAA, who operated many of the UK airports at the time, including Heathrow and Gatwick, where I delivered, uh, a number of projects. And it was at that time, under the chairmanship of John Egan, who had become-- who had come to BAA from car manufacturer Jaguar.

He established, other than encouraging us to focus on, on manufacturing processes, he, he established a series of framework agreements for contractors, suppliers, and [00:04:00] consultants, and, and my practice was one of those. And we were architects for three of the so-called demonstration projects, and we were trialing things like partnering the supply chain.

So looking back, it was, it was quite an exciting time and a premonition to some extent of where we are today, focusing not so much on specific off-site systems or categories, but on the whole environment of the construction industry. Um, unfortunately, that fell away following the credit crunch in two thousand and eight, but the industry still had advocates of lean thinking and, uh, and the benefits of standardization.

So the RIBA produced the first DFMA overlay, as you say, in, in twenty sixteen, and that was all about promoting the role architects can play in offsite, in that we are typically the first profession, first designers to be appointed on a project. And, uh, and as such, we're in a, you know, in a prime space to implement the DFMA process.

Then with the [00:05:00] second edition, we brought in the concept of the platform approach, recognizing that DFMA works best in a program of buildings rather than a series of one-off projects. And it also came out about two years after the government published the seven MMC categories. So naturally, um, that was a focus.

And we introduced the term MMC advisor, essentially the integrator role that we're, we're talking about today. So going back to your question, um, has DFMA become mainstream? I guess the answer is no, but we're definitely moving in the right direction, um, while at the same time shifting the conversation towards a more general approach grounded in collaboration and, and standardization.

Speaker 2: And those early days, um, your period, you know, back in the, in late, late '90s, I mean, obviously just hearing you, uh, recount those stories, were quite influential on you at the time? [00:06:00]

Speaker 3: Yeah. Very much so. And I think some-- you don't necessarily recognize those things at the time, but I, I look back, and it's had a fundamental effect on the way that I work as an architect.

And I think it's a way that we need to transition as a profession in many respects. Um, you know, I think we do talk about the slight resistance of the architectural profession to standardization in general, the demand to reinvent the wheel every time. Uh, of course, it's not about how the buildings look, it's about, uh, well, going back to the car analogy, it's about the, the chassis that we're standardizing, not the bodywork.

And I think, uh, we need to learn that lesson, and without that, we're not going to improve productivity, which is pretty much mission critical,

Speaker 2: I think. Yes. And I, and I, and I don't think architects should, should shoulder all of that responsibility. I mean, the, the one question I suppose I would raise is, you know, has the wider construction industry fully understood the DFMA philosophy?

You know, it's not a simple technological [00:07:00] solution that we're talking about here. It's an ethos, isn't it? It's a culture. And, uh, you know, it's great if we can get the architectural f-fraternity to really embrace and understand it, but the whole wider construction arena's got to embrace it too, isn't it?

Speaker 3: Yeah, it is. Um, but, you know, in as much as, you know, the part I play is, is as an architect, I, I guess I'm sort of focusing on, on the part that I can play and that my profession can play. And, you know, if, if the industry is still struggling about moving, you know, beyond the component thinking, thinking more about systems, I think it's fundamentally down to mindset really.

Um, so certainly architect education focuses on broadly on problem-solving and, and communication, and- Although it's very much a component of the degree and post-grad courses, it's generally less focused on, on technical issues, certainly in my experience. So inasmuch as architects can play a role in this, uh, sort of broad endeavor, if we're going to turn the tanker around, I think we need to start with [00:08:00] education, actually.

Um, we need architects and other designers to understand the importance of improving productivity and perhaps of introducing, uh, manufacturing principles into the curriculum, which would no doubt be a very controversial move. But I think it's a conversation that, that we need to start to have, though.

Speaker 2: Yeah. So manufacturing principles, whether knowingly or unknowingly, I think are sliding into building design anyway, you know, regardless of whether we stand and kind of bang the drum loudly about it. I think, uh, almost through stealth, people are understanding the benefits of standardization, invisible standardization to your analogy of the, the chassis, not the bodywork type thing.

You know, it doesn't have to, uh, become cookie cutter style design, you know. And I think people are, um, appreciating that standardizing certain footprints or typologies, you know, has a benefit on productivity and production costs and construction costs.

Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I challenge people to identify [00:09:00] certainly some of the buildings that Hawkins\Brown have produced that are fundamentally using MMC, uh, from buildings that have been built traditionally.

Um, you genuinely can't see a difference. And the standardization is, is not having a cookie cutter design, emphatically not, in fact. And, um, but it is about a whole range of things to do with process and collaboration and all sorts of other issues. Yeah.

Speaker 2: So sticking with the theme o-o-of the Overlay and just thinking about, you know, this twenty sixteen seems like a long time ago, but, you know, ten years has gone in the blink of an eye.

What lessons have we learned over the last decade around MMC adoption off-site manufacturing, um, that you think are gonna shape the next iteration of the Overlay? I mean, that's something I know that you're very keen to do, and you're talking to the RIBA about that next iteration. But what have we learned in the last ten years that's gonna fundamentally impact that?[00:10:00]

Speaker 3: Um, well, I think the conversation has moved on from MMC categories, um, important as they were and, and really still are in giving us a vocabulary. Um, more recently, we've had PAS eight seven zero zero, which for the first time sets out standards across the board for MMC in new build residential projects.

Um, so it's an important stepping stone to be speaking the same language. But I think the main change from ten years ago is the greater focus on platforms and programs, uh, which allow us to continuously improve and, and drive greater efficiencies. Um, and of course, this is the built environment, so we need to do this whilst we're creating great places to, to live and work.

And I think this is where architects can play-- uh, have to play a key role. Um, but we mustn't be afraid of, of standardization. Um, bear in mind, some of the [00:11:00] best-loved streets in the UK are terraces. Um, a sort of mass customization, if you like, where each dwelling isn't necessarily exactly the same, but has subtle variations.

Um, the main assumption from the first overlay is that architects can, can sort of make or break the opportunity for incorporating off-site solutions through the DFMA process, and I think that holds true today. So I'm not sure that any of it is outdated as such, but of course, the world is a very different place ten years on, and digital technology, for one thing, was less sophisticated then.

We had no AI ten years ago, and now we're very much on the edge of a, a revolution in that area. So I think the next iteration of the overlay at least has to address that.

Speaker 2: Yes. And e-e-- effectively, I think what you're saying is, uh, fundamentally, the overlay doesn't need to be rewritten. There were [00:12:00] elements of it that still hold true today.

It just needs modernizing, uh, and a bit of refinement, a bit of polishing to bring into, you know, in the modern world where the, the digital, uh, tools that we now have that we didn't have five years ago, ten years ago. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 3: Sure.

Speaker 2: And, and you, you referenced platform, the, the second iteration, which was the PDFMA, Platform Designed for Manufacturing Assembly.

Um, i-is that, is that-- was that the missing piece that's gonna allow us, uh, to scale industrialized construction? Do you think that people need to understand more about what platform design really means?

Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I think there is some, a degree of misunderstanding. Um, but certainly DfMA has, has that potential.

Um, the big challenge, I think, is in implementing it, which is a significant change management process. But look, now we've adopted the term industrialized construction, and people are starting to embrace the thinking behind it. I think there's a good chance [00:13:00] construction is gonna move in that direction. Um, some sectors probably easier than others.

So buildings like data centers, certain industrial buildings, infrastructure, well, things like prisons are relatively easy. It much harder in something like private residential, for example. And certainly the residential sector is-- it, it's, it's my focus, and I think it's a focus that our-- us as a country really need to, to keep in mind.

But in that-- in terms of that, what we really need is affordable housing, which is gonna be delivered by local authorities. And I think that's where the most traction for this sort of platform type thinking is going to be going forward. If, uh, if local authorities can aggregate buying power, they can genuinely adopt a, a platform approach.

Um, it's gonna require strong leadership. Uh, it's gonna need commitment from the top, uh, from central government really, um, [00:14:00] and certainly from the combined authorities. But there are green shoots, so, you know, let's see what happens over the next year or so. Um, I think you could argue that this is mission critical really, certainly to meeting the housing crisis, but, but really I think for the construction industry in general

Speaker 2: Yes.

I mean, I think, you know, the broader economic conditions are challenging, to say the least, and construction seems to suffer, uh, or it feels like it at times more than other sectors. Um, so I think what, what we could do is see this kinda crisis, this, this difficult challenge that we have at the moment as a, as a maybe an opportunity to recalibrate and come out of this, you know, as a much stronger, uh, industry, you know, with the use of industrialized construction methods and digital tools and maybe configuration tools.

You know, there's a whole raft of things that aren't available yet. So one of the things that I think, um, the next overlay might address, which I wasn't [00:15:00] sure it really touched upon last time, um, is this thing around interoperability, maybe, uh, a, a slightly different approach to open standards. Um, there are things like OSCOP, you know, open source kit of parts, you know, that's kind of developed as an initiative.

Um, and maybe looking at product ecosystems a little bit more, uh, which is very much a manufacturing-led, uh, ethos. But, um, tho-those, you know, could be, uh, new, more modern approaches that you could drop into the overlay, uh, and I guess you're gonna assemble a group of people to influence the next iteration, yeah?

Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I certainly the, the, the next iteration, as previous ones, will be a collaborative affair. We need to make sure we have all the right people around the table to do that. And yes, we sort of introduced platforms in the, in the, the edition five years ago. Thinking has moved on a lot. As I say, we are now-- I don't think we really used the term industrialized construction at that point.

It's very much becoming, uh, the sort of, uh, the, the word that we use or the terminology we use now. [00:16:00] Um, and yeah, it, it's about-- So it is about that. It's about, um, you know, standardized interfaces and so on, and platforms certainly need that, uh, to be well considered. Um, and in many respects, I think that's where perhaps the focus should be.

Um, but I think it's not just the hardware, if you like, the sort of components. I think it's the software. So it's things like procurement and more of a focus on long-term value than, than short-term cost. These are really hard things to achieve, but, you know, this is the direction that we need to move in. Um, and look, if our industry can shift in that direction, we're gonna be able to make significant improvements.

Um, I think we know what has to be done, um, but more difficult is how we do it. And that is the sort of issue that I'd like to get out of, you know, the sort of roundtable discussions that we'll [00:17:00] no doubt have to bring together what should be, uh, the contents of the, of the next edition of the overlay.

Speaker 2: And the, um, evolution of the next, uh, overlay, that, that will be a, a series of industry engagement sessions, but I'm guessing that you'll set up a working group, um, perhaps re-invite some of the people that were involved in previous iterations, uh, and then try and obviously reach consensus on how far to push it i-in its next publication, I guess.

Yeah?

Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I, I, I think, you know, we've-- I think we've all got some idea from our day-to-day experience over, say, the last five years and the sort of conversations that we're having, uh, with each other at the moment about what we want. But it's really important that although this is an RIBA publication, it will be put together by a much broader group of people than just architects.

We definitely don't have the answer on our own. We need to work with the whole, the whole industry. So very much with clients, but we need to work with [00:18:00] contractors and s- and suppliers, the other consultants that we work with. And that's the only way that we're going to make this, um, relevant to everyone as well because, you know, if it's not relevant, then people won't, uh, won't pay attention to it.

So we've got to carefully craft, uh, the contents that, that there's something there for everyone. Um- But that it's, you know, sufficiently concise that people would actually read it in the first place. This is a fine balance, you know. Uh, there's so much, uh, that people have to look at these days. We've got to make sure that this is something that they find to be essential reading, and, uh, uh, putting, putting the structure of it together in the right way is going to be pretty key to that.

Speaker 2: Yes. And maybe, um, not wishing to pre, um, pre judge or, you know, preempt, you know, may-maybe it needs to become more of a tool rather than a document. You know, more of a, an interactive type, uh, platform than just a publication, you

Speaker 3: know. Yeah. I mean, we're architects, we like drawings. We, we, you know, we [00:19:00] fundamentally get more, and I think this is probably true of everyone, we get more out of diagrams than, than we do out of lots of sort of slightly verbose text.

So, um, so certainly we-- I think we need to do that. Um, I think it needs to set out a clear process, so I think there is room for that. But nonetheless, it's understanding the sort of philosophy and it's making sure it gets to the right people. Um, so, you know, it, it's, uh, you know, for architects, I think you could argue that that's for the next generation to some extent, um, as well as the current generation, and we need to make sure that it feels relevant to them and addresses them in a way that they understand.

Speaker 2: Yes. And I think, you know, the wider system in construction, you know, procurement, the planning system, you know, they're all evolving at some pace in parallel. You know, so it's very difficult, isn't it? To try and create, you know, this universal overlay, this kind of guidance document, document, you know, that, that keeps up with pace at other are-- in other areas.

And, you know, I think o-one of [00:20:00] the challenges around reform at whatever level, um, i-is that not everything is moving along at the same pace. And, and I think, um, I speak from, you know, the Industrialized Construction Advisory Board perspective, you know, that we will support and, you know, provide resource and help where we can with the overlay development.

But I think one of the big challenges is not about producing the overlay itself necessarily, it's about the advocacy, isn't it? It's about how do you communicate, um, to the right audience to embrace it and use it.

Speaker 3: Yeah, no, to-totally. I mean, my experience of all of these things, it's the same with producing, um, those pieces of work I talked about earlier for helping housing associations and, and, you know, other clients to develop new systems.

Actually That's the relatively easy part of it. So developing the overlay and the content that goes with it, that's sort of the easy bit. I think, you know, we need to do some careful thinking to make sure that we put across the right issues. The really tough bit is actually changing hearts and minds.

It's a big advocacy [00:21:00] piece, and we're all gonna have to-- once we've done this, we're all gonna be getting out there, talking at conferences and promoting it, making sure as many people as possible read it, understand it, hopefully agree with it. If they don't agree with it, have a discussion about it so that we can, you know, find the best way between us of doing things and ultimately put it in practice.

And, you know, we're not writing this for any other reason than that we want to change the way that the industry is working. And if we can play a small part in that, then, then so much the better.

Speaker 2: Yeah. And there are, there are other drivers you can argue, you know, as to why it's needed beyond, you know, just the purity of talk about industrialized construction.

You know, there, there are elements within it, the, the Building Safety Act, uh, which didn't exist at the last iteration. You know, the, the whole challenge of golden thread, information flow, digital integration need to be reflected within the DFMA ethos, don't they? You know, so when you think about it, the world's moved on a lot in the last five years, and, um, not-- it's not all bad.

Um, I think a lot of [00:22:00] those, particularly the Building Safety Act, uh, will produce a much more visible, uh, and disciplined approach to design.

Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, it's definitely moving us in the right direction. I mean, frankly, much needed. We can't have a situation like that happening again. Um, and it's important that we've, that we've taken strong measures to, to improve things.

But, I mean, the Building Safety Act, people-- we tend to focus on things like the golden thread and so on. In fact, you know, the reality is the golden thread is only for HRBs, which are a proportion of one sector, the residential sector. So, uh, yes, the Building Safety Act has been important, and it will play a part, um, in safety of all buildings.

Um, but Certain element, elements of it are really only addressing, uh, in a sort of a regulatory way. They're only addressing those buildings above, uh, six, you know, the sort of seven stories and above. And that's an [00:23:00] important part of it, but it's not the whole industry. So I don't think we can sit back and assume that that sort of thinking is going to, going to change everything.

Uh, it's not to say that we can't incorporate ideas like the golden thread into all of our thinking, and I think there's a lot of good practice that that's pointing towards and, um, certainly my practice does look to incorporate that sort of thinking into everything we do, not just into HRBs. Um, so yeah, I think the Building Safety Act will make a difference, um, but it's really only just one part of it, and when we're looking at, you know, the sort of broader industrialized construction, standardization, and so on, uh, we need to think, you know, very globally about that.

Speaker 2: Yes, and, you know, really look to optimize that kind of digital, the golden thread. But the digital thread really, you know, we're talking about, um, digital twins, BIM-enabled manufacturing, AI, the impact of AI, smart manufacturing, smart assets even, you know, Internet of Things. All these [00:24:00] things now have got to be factored in, haven't they, to the, the whole philosophy of designing a building, and at some point, each of them touch upon design for manufacture.

It's just to what extent, isn't it? You know, when you're considering it in the, in the overlay. So- One of the frustrations I have, and you're probably more frustrated than I am because you're involved in developing previous iterations of, of, of the overlay was, was, um, around, you know, how much more do we talk about DFMA and how do we measure when we're assessing the opportunity for design for manufacture, uh, and assembly?

How do we measure the success, you know, whether a project is a good example of DFMA or a bad example of DFMA? And I was kinda looking back at what metrics we've got, things like pre-manufactured value. Not quite sure people truly understand that, but, you know, it's well defined. You know, does building faster, uh, is that a measure of a successful DFMA?

Is productivity success, uh, [00:25:00] measure for DFMA? I don't know. But one of the questions for me is, you know, do we, do we need to find a way of measuring it to prove that it's being adopted?

Speaker 3: Mm. Well, yeah, PMV sort of had its day, but it was sort of brief moments, and I'm not sure in the end it particularly helped us.

Um, I-- Look, how do we measure it? I, I, I'm not sure that we should be measuring DFMA. I think we should be setting outcomes that we want to achieve from a building project and measuring how we're improving those. So in a sense, I think the measures are perhaps unchanged. Um, if we are be- achieving better sustainability targets, better, um, uh, you know, we are better predicting programs and cost outcomes, not necessarily reducing costs, but having better cost predictability, then I think these are the sort of things that we should be looking and setting measures for.

And I mean, I tend to say, certainly, you know, our approach here at Hawkins\Brown [00:26:00] is not necessarily to be, uh, evangelical, evangelical over MMC, but it's to say, when the time is right, we will implement it, but we've gotta make sure that we're in a position to do that in the first place. So, um, yeah, you know, so things like PMV, well, it was sort of quite interesting, and it sort of, in a sense, it helped to promote the MMC categories.

It came out at the same time as that, didn't it? Yeah. And, uh, and I think it was used as a sort of advocacy tool. And indeed, it was used by the likes of Homes England to, you know, to try and measure, uh, how house builders were conforming to their sort of requirements. But Um, but really I think we need to just remember why we're doing these things.

Why are we building buildings? We're doing them to create a safe and secure and productive environment, a place where we-- which is joyful for us to be in. And I think these are the sort of metrics that we measure. The way that we get there, hopefully, it, it's more, it's carrot rather than stick. We're doing it because it works and 'cause it gets [00:27:00] us those better outcomes, because it will maintain that quality of environment, but improve productivity overall.

That's why we do it. So I think they're the sort of measures that we should be following.

Speaker 2: Yes, and I think you alluded to it ear- you know, earlier, the sustainability, you know, we should be able to measure lower embodied carbon through a DFMA process or lower whole life carbon, perhaps operational performance improvements.

Um, a key area, I think, uh, in the future is can you use DFMA to somehow measure the adaptability of a building? You know, uh, its change of use in the future maybe, or even circularity. You know, does design for deconstruction come into the whole philosophy around design for manufacturing assembly? You know, really important things to look at when you think about an asset lasting a hundred years plus.

Yeah. So I think it'll be interesting to see where your working group goes and how much of that gets factored into it 'cause, y-you know, there are obviously things that are now being discussed, um, you know, by [00:28:00] clients, you know, asset owners as well.

Speaker 3: Uh, look, I think circular economy, you've picked on a really important area there, and, you know, we now have, uh, materials banks and, you know, they started off on the continent.

We're starting to have them over here. I think that's really positive. So, you know, that's emphatically not MMC, but it is a, a way of thinking. It's component-based. It's, um... And I think all of this comes under the same sort of umbrella of, uh, of, of, you know, of improving both productivity, quality by which, which I would include the built environment, uh, you know, or the environment generally and sustainability, and we move all these things forward.

I mean, using pre-loved materials is actually a, a sort of subset of, of DFMA because you are designing the building, thinking about the materials you're going to use. So the first thing you do is you go to the, to the, uh, materials bank and you say, "Right, what are the kits or parts I've got to use here?" And you design the building around that.

It's almost MMC max in a sense. You [00:29:00] know, DFMA max. I mean, it's, um... And it's something that we clearly are going to need to embrace, um, and certainly something that we try and support at, at Hawkins\Brown. I mean, the, the other part of that is that we, you know, we-- there's an argument that we should be trying not to build new buildings at the moment, that we should be retrofitting, uh, existing ones, um, to, to maintain a good, you know, the sort of reduce embodied carbon.

Um, so again, we're not necessarily looking at MMC. We're looking at a sort of more comprehensive view of this, which is about how can we get the best outcomes, um, in all of these, these sort of criteria that, that we need to measure.

Speaker 2: And g- I looked at the, uh, overlay before we started this conversation. I was looking at it a few days ago.

Mm-hmm. I see there's an area in there which is quite interesting, um, and it, it was about recognizing the early DFMA changes, um, not only how the buildings are made, but also how the teams collaborate and how decisions are made. [00:30:00] So moving away from the kind of tech bit, which is, uh, where we kind of focus, you know, a lot of the conversation so far.

Are we now in need of a new generation of integrators, platform integrators, digitally fluent project leaders, um, to make it happen at the next stage? Are we, we starting to redefine the labels that we've given certain job titles, certain roles?

Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, there's definitely a need for that role, which doesn't really exist at the moment.

I mean, there are certainly people that perform that sort of role, but I don't think it's become clearly established. When-- in the, in the second edition five years ago, we introduced the term MMC advisor and, and that was, um, you know, we're probably now using the term integrator rather more than that. And also because, you know, MMC advisor was around the MMC categories, and it was a role of someone who understood, um, at the early stages what the appropriate technologies might be, and you'd understand [00:31:00] possibly things around site constraints and logistics and so on.

And then probably further down the line, and it may be that it's a different, uh, individual, it's understanding the market and, uh, you know, for example, which factories were appropriate, which, which fabricators and so on for the, for the particular project we're doing. Um, so yeah, it is, it is a really important role.

Um, we-- there are people that sort of perform that role, but I think we need to make it more of a focus, more of a, a profession, if you like. Um, in principle, architects are quite well-placed to do this. I mean, our training is quite broad, as I touched on, and, you know, we learn issues around problem-solving and things like that.

And, and I think that's, um, you know, these are key, um, uh, you know, components of being, of playing this, this sort of role. But also it's not necessarily one individual through the whole project. So it might change from a sort of concept [00:32:00] design stage. It might change to someone else when you come to delivery stage, uh, or to tender stage and so on.

But yeah, absolutely. I think, uh, I think it's an area that we could focus on and perhaps talking about, again, about, you know, the next iteration of the DFMA overlay. I think that's something that we could build on and, uh, and encourage the industry to, to move in that direction. So yeah, I think that's, uh, I think it's pretty key.

Speaker 2: Yeah. That's quite an exciting shift, actually. So in this third edition, uh, we're sitting here writing it today, and I'm sure we've, in this conversation, had some, you know, influence on thinking. Um, what would be the single most important new chapter? If we're going to add a new chapter, we've, we've, we've already talked about platform DFMA.

We've touched on AI as an enabler, maybe an automated design thing. We talked a little bit about circular, touched on net zero. You mentioned, uh, retrofit- Mm-hmm ...which is obviously quite a challenging market. But, um, if you were looking at it and saying, "Well, we've got to have a new chapter on [00:33:00] X," whatever that is, what would it be?

Speaker 3: Uh, the $64,000 question. I think, um, it's, I think it's about mindset really. I, I don't think it's, uh, introducing something new like platforms or AI. I mean, I think those have to very much be built into this. Clearly, it's got to, it's got to engage with those topics. I think fundamentally we want to reinforce the need for a change in mindset and, um, across the board.

So, you know, architects certainly, but all of the consultants, uh, contractors, uh, manufacturers, everyone, and not least of which clients. Um, I think if anything, we might be addressing this principally to clients actually, and saying, "We want to help you on your journey. We are your professional advisors. We think this is the best way to move forward.

We've-- we're recognizing the critical need to improve productivity [00:34:00] and maintain or improve quality and sustainability and so on. We think this is the right way to do it." The only people ultimately who can really make this happen are clients. Without their direction, with our assistance, it's not gonna happen.

So yeah, I think if I was to say what should the focus be,

Speaker 2: yeah,

Speaker 3: it might be that we're addressing clients. Um, but in fact, I think it's not just that. I don't think we're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think there's a lot of good stuff in both the previous editions, and I don't think any of it is necessarily wrong now.

The landscape has changed, as we've said, in all sorts of ways inevitably. Um, but I think we-- So I think there's, uh, the other thing we need to do is really just to reinforce some of those old messages. You know, we talked about this. It's not mainstream yet. Until it is, we've gotta keep going at those, and we've gotta be advocates for this, and we've gotta persuade our colleagues that this is the way to do it.

And until most people are doing that, if not everyone, we've still got more work to do. [00:35:00]

Speaker 2: Agree. And I think we'll wrap it up there. I'm excited to see the next edition when that comes out. Keep banging the drum, doing some great, great work. But thank you for your time, Nigel. Appreciate it.

Speaker 3: Not at all. Thank

Speaker 4: you.

Thanks for listening to this edition of the Industrialized Podcast. This podcast was produced by Radar Media. The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Radar Media. For more information, head to www.industrializedconstruction.co.uk.