Many thanks to James Luckey, editor of Concrete and Claire Ackerman, CEO of the Concrete Society for inviting me to write the article to help members of The Concrete Society understand what DPPs will mean for them.

The article covers:

• How will DPPs will assist construction and infrastructure
• How DPPs improve on Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)
• How identifiers might work with mass materials
• How DPPs will be introduced
• What manufacturers need to do now (and what they don’t need to do).

If you’d like me to write an article or speak at your conference about Digital Product Passports please get in touch.

Download the article

Digital Product Passports and Concrete

Size: 1.2 MB

Version: 1

Published: July 5, 2025

Download248 Downloads

The post Digital Product Passports and Concrete appeared first on Just Practising.

We republish this following the launch on Friday of the Netflix Documentary Grenfell Uncovered.

Whilst the guide was written almost exactly four years ago it makes an important point about how information was the missing element in the conversation at the time and why it is still so important.

You can download a copy of the plain language guide from which this extract is taken by visiting our publications page.

Avoiding Failure: Product Data Post Grenfell

The Grenfell tragedy shocked everyone and challenged us to think again about how our industry works.

Let’s begin with a story, told two ways.

A data journey, version one

1. A building control officer signed off a building based on reference to approved drawings. They didn’t know a product had changed and had no way of telling there had been an incorrect specification or substitution.
2. The installer worked according to approved drawings but installed a different product. They’d relied on the distributor to supply what was suitable.
3. The distributor supplied an alternative product. They checked for suitability against the contractor’s order and believed it a suitable substitution based on the product’s declared conformance.
4. The contractor tendered for the project and chose materials based on previous experience, conversations with the product’s sales team and distributor prices.
5. The salesperson offered their product alternatives based on design and performance requirements. As far as they were aware, all the products they offered were suitable.
6. The architect used the manufacturer’s website to choose a suitable product and obtained approval for the design based on test certificates and building regulations.
7. The manufacturer’s marketer obtained the test certificate and placed it on the manufacturer’s website. They weren’t to know that the test certificate was out of date, fraudulent or obtained by deception.

Everyone in this story acted with integrity to the best of their ability, but there was still a fire and people still died. So, what was missing?

A data journey, version two

1. The manufacturer’s marketer places secure links to the test records and declarations of performance (DoP) for their products on their website, held on a secure independent third‑party site. All product marketing material links to this source for evidence, while the website also supplies information on compatibility, obsolescence, suitable alternatives and other performance‑related data.
2. The architect chooses a suitable product and obtains approval, checking—and referencing—the independent source in their details.
3. The salesperson wants to change the specification because they have a cheaper alternative. The architect, manufacturer and building‑control officer approve and amend the design, which is recorded.
4. The contractor tenders for the project knowing competitors cannot substitute products without an approved design change, ensuring compatibility and preventing unsafe or inappropriate substitution.
5. The distributor checks the product meets the specification and can offer alternatives with transparent approval back through the chain.
6. The installer is confident the correct product has been supplied, verifies it against the secure record, installs it using the manufacturer’s up‑to‑date instructions and records the installation in the project log before cover‑up.
7. The building control officer signs off the building as before, but this time the product is correct and this can be verified.

All the actors in this second version behave competently and with integrity; the procedure is essentially the same, but the outcome is completely different. Why is that?

Since Grenfell, new legislation and government‑supported initiatives are emerging that seek to prevent similar failures in future. To avoid tragedies like Grenfell, manufacturers—like all other actors in the supply chain—need the following four characteristics: Integrity, Competence, Compliance, Information.

Integrity

The Construction Products Association (CPA) has drafted a Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI), which aims to ensure the integrity of marketing information. A consultation on the code was carried out in Spring 2021 and the CPA intends to launch the CCPI in Q3 of 2021^[i].

Manufacturers will be invited to sign up to the code and declare that all information they provide about a product will be accurate, accessible, up-to-date, clear and unambiguous. The CPA argues this will ensure that users can rely upon this information when making key decisions.

Story one shows that an unsafe building can still be produced even when all actors in the supply chain, including manufacturers, act with integrity.

While a code of conduct is to be welcomed as a declaration of integrity, it cannot of itself ensure safe buildings, and fraudulent misrepresentation cannot be prevented by adherence to such a code.

We published a response to the CCPI consultation, which is available on our website^[ii]. It shares our concerns that the code in its current draft form has confused the market and has the potential to cause harm.^[iii]

When you think about ensuring integrity in your business dealings, you also have to think about data integrity. Data integrity is the maintenance of, and the assurance of, data accuracy and consistency over its entire life-cyle. It is a critical aspect to the design, implementation, and usage of any system that stores, processes, or retrieves data^[iv].

Individual people can act with personal integrity in their work, but they won’t be able to be effective if they are not working with data that also has integrity.

The ideal place to encourage integrity and transparency is your trade association. We talk more about this in the section on how trade associations can help on page 35 of this guide.

Competence

Ensuring competence in construction professionals is a key initiative of the post-Hackitt reforms. A UK cross-industry competence steering group was established in 2018 by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) and has produced two reports: Raising the Bar in August 2019^[v], and Setting the Bar in October 2020^[vi].

The new Building Safety Regulator will include a national suite of competence standards, which are being developed by the British Standards Institution (BSI)^[vii] and arrangements for assessment and governance.

Story one shows that competence isn’t a silver bullet. Competence is irrelevant where there is a lack of integrity. Where there is no clear, guaranteed and unadulterated information to work with, it doesn’t matter how competent you are.

Nevertheless, manufacturers should monitor this emerging requirement for competency. How will it be met? How will it be enforced? Will it be effective? What competency is required to install your products?

Compliance

At the core of the Building Safety Bill is the Building Safety Regulator, who will oversee a rigorous new regulatory regime for the design, construction and occupation of higher-risk buildings^[viii].

The regulator will have three main functions:^[ix]

• To oversee the safety and standard of all buildings.
• To directly assure the safety of higher-risk buildings.
• To improve the competence of people responsible for managing and overseeing building work.

The regulator will have teeth, too. The Bill will create new civil penalties and criminal offenses for breaches, and the regime will have enforcement powers.

In January 2021 the UK Government announced^[x] that alongside the Building Safety Regulator, there will be a Regulator for Construction Products, housed within the Office for Product Safety and Standards. The Government also commissioned an independent review into the current testing regime in April 2021^[xi].

A robust regulatory system is a crucial part of the effective control of safety in buildings. However, it will only be effective if it also relies upon clear, accurate and unambiguous information and professionals’ abilities to implement its requirements.

Information

The importance of information is at the core of the post-Grenfell reforms. One example of this is the concept of the golden thread.

The Explanatory Notes to the Draft Building Safety Bill^[xii], published by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 20 July 2020, defined the golden thread of information as:

“Fire and structural safety building information held digitally to specific standards. These standards will include requirements around robust information management and keeping the information up to date. The golden thread will ensure that those responsible for the building have the required information to manage building safety during and throughout the lifecycle of the building.”

An updated version of the Building Safety Bill was published on 5^th July 2021^[xiii] and on 21 July 2021 the MHCLG Building Regulations Advisory Committee published a Golden Thread Report^[xiv] setting out the definition and principles of the Golden Thread and how digital standards will underpin it. Part 4 of the Golden Thread Definition states:

“4. The golden thread information should be stored as structured digital information. It will be stored, managed, maintained and retained in line with the golden thread principles…The government will specify digital standards which will provide guidance on how the principles can be met.”

The new golden thread – an accurate and up-to-date record of the building data – will be required to be digitally traceable. This means that information about products will have to be digitised and manufacturers will have a legal requirement to comply.

If manufacturers don’t digitise their product information, they won’t be regulatorily compliant. As digitised information becomes a requirement for the golden thread it will also become the standard in construction, including from the early stages of any development.

The key to an effective golden thread is data that’s structured, secure, verifiable and interoperable so that it can survive the process and be accessed with confidence.

How should product data be organised?

• Structured. Organised according to a predefined schema, data becomes machine readable and easy to analyse.
• Secure. Only available to those who are authorised to view it yet available in an emergency.
• Verified. Guaranteed to be accurate by being traced back to the source.
• Interoperable. Able to be transferred accurately between software platforms, such as those used by different actors in the supply chain.
• Dynamic. To be effective some data needs to be dynamic not static, that is regularly updated so that it remains live, accurate and relevant to its users.^[xv]

Structure your data

As the regulatory environment evolves over the coming years, manufacturers can prepare for compliance in a way that not only makes buildings safer, but that’s also more efficient for them to execute.

The integrity of their information is secured to the benefit of not only themselves, but also the whole supply chain. Structured data is at the core of this process. ^[xvi]

Published October 2021.

Footnotes:

[i] Homepage – Building Safely https://web.archive.org/web/20210730225843/https://buildingsafely.co.uk/

[ii] https://communities.theiet.org/blogs/948/7213

[iii] The Code for Construction Product Information (theiet.org) https://www.theiet.org/impact-society/government-policy-and-submissions/submissions-archive/the-code-for-construction-product-information-2021/

[iv] Data Integrity Definition (en.wikipedia.org) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrity

[v] Raising the Bar – Construction Industry Council – Construction and fire industries set out sweeping proposals (cic.org.uk) https://cic.org.uk/news/article.php?s=2019-08-16-construction-and-fire-industries-set-out-sweeping-proposals

[vi] Setting the Bar – Construction Industry Council – Built environment and fire industries set out blueprint (cic.org.uk) https://cic.org.uk/news/article.php?s=2020-10-05-built-environment-and-fire-industries-set-out-blueprint

[vii] Built Environment Competence Standards | BSI (bsigroup.com) https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/industries-and-sectors/construction-and-the-built-environment/built-environment-competence-standards/

[viii] It is worth noting that the scope of ‘higher-risk buildings’ may change. The current definition is set out in the factsheet “Buildings included in the new more stringent regulatory regime” published on 5^th July which confirms that the scope of the new regime could change in the future.
“Guidance: Buildings included in the new more stringent regulatory regime: factsheet” – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-safety-bill-factsheets/buildings-included-in-the-new-more-stringent-regulatory-regime-factsheet#will-the-scope-of-the-regime-change-in-the-future

[ix] Explained: The Draft Building Safety Bill – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/explained-the-draft-building-safety-bill

[x] New regulator established to ensure construction materials are safe – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regulator-established-to-ensure-construction-materials-are-safe

[xi] Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-the-construction-products-testing-regime

[xii] Draft Building Safety Bill PART 2.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/901869/Draft_Building_Safety_Bill_PART_2.pdf

[xiii] Building Safety Bill, 5 July 2021 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/building-safety-bill

[xiv] Building Regulations Advisory Committee: golden thread report – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-regulations-advisory-committee-golden-thread-report

[xv]  Dynamic Data – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_data

[xvi] An earlier, more detailed version of this article can be found on the blog: Avoiding Failure: Product Data Post Grenfell – IET Engineering Communities (theiet.org) https://communities.theiet.org/blogs/948/7099

The post Avoiding Failure: Product Data Post Grenfell appeared first on Just Practising.

We introduced the call with this article.

You can watch the video below:

Amongst other topics we talk about:

• Digitization in Construction
• Plain Language in Industry Communication
• Data Management & Automation
• Challenges in Industry-Wide Standardisation
• Use of AI and Technology in Design and Tender Review processes
• Collaborative Tools (like Miro) for Stakeholder Engagement
• Case Studies: NEOM, XD House Projects, Melbourne Hospital, etc.
• Standards and Compliance Issues
• Client Roles in Driving Better Data Practices

Notable Quotes:

“We need more plain language to show real value.”

“AI is not making the decision—people still need to own that.”

“Vendors say they have APIs, but that means nothing without openness.”

Check out the video description for a time stamped summary.

If you come on one of our calls you get access to the Miro board (and ongoing visual access to the completed board after the event).

The Plain Language Group (PLG) is an independent advocacy group dedicated to broadening and improving the understanding and use of digitisation in the construction industry.

Find out more about us here.

Subscribe to our mailing list here to be invited to our next call.

The post Be a mouse: move mountains – Video of our second interactive call of 2025 appeared first on Just Practising.

Pete explained the concept of a Black Elephant to describe Grenfell. The black elephant was eloquently articulated in Gill Kernick’s book, Catastrophe and Systemic Change.

Whilst a Black Swan event is a high impact event that could not have been predicted, an unknown unknown, Grenfell was a known unknown: we knew it would happen. Grenfell was a black elephant.

It is refreshing to see someone as senior as Andrew Bulmer post about the reality of where construction and the built environment is currently at with building safety.

The answer is, in a mess.

However, what is missing from Andrew’s post is an investigation into what the industry can do about it, beyond the vague concept of “culture change”.

Culture change is such a compelling concept to senior leaders because it wraps up blame, guilt and shame into a simple package that they can use to articulate the industry responsibility without producing any actionable metrics. Dame Judith Hackitt has been using it for eight years without effect – because it is ineffective. It doesn’t help; it simply pushes the problem around.

How do we fix it?

In order to move beyond the vague concept of culture change and learn how to change the building safety crisis we have to lose our obsession with blame and blame avoidance.

Gill Kernick, who is very experienced in dealing with the fallout of Black Swan events in other industries, talks about blame a lot in her book.

We must stop blaming the firefighters, the manufacturers, the designers, the asset operators, the architects. Can you feel yourself wanting to? Me too.

But it must stop now.

I believe that the answer instead of culture change and blame is to listen to the voices of people that are on the ground and know what the problems are. We need to listen to the uncomfortable truths from troublemakers, the ones who are often sidelined or ridiculed.

Some examples from Grenfell: Eddie Dafarn, Gill Kernick and Emma Dent Coad.

Some examples from the Post Office Scandal: Alan Bates, Richard Roll and James Arbuthnot.

No one has the full picture of the problem, but they all have a part of it.

We need to hear what they have to say, and act on it.

We need to look for the people who are helping and learn from them.

This is why I invited Neil Yeomans CEnvH MCIEH and Matt Hodges-Long to have a public conversation with me at Digital Construction Week this year. To me they are two valuable examples of helpers/troublemakers looking at the challenges faces by building owners and operators. They know what is wrong and how to fix it and they are not often given the ear of ministers and the media.

I used the black elephant as an illustration of the problem and asked them what we should actually be doing to fix the mess we are in.

What Neil and Matt had to say: The Problem

During our conversation we looked at three examples of problems:

BIM and handover

• The software chasm between BIM in construction and asset management in housing.
• The nature of the asset owner operator community and their experience and understanding of the buildings they are looking after.
• A lack of common standards and the inadequacy of COBie to cover all the information asset owners need.
• The difference between ‘as built’ and ‘as occupied’ when so many changes happen in the occupation phase.

The EWS1 Scandal

• How introducing a certification scheme without a central registry, proper governance or version control was an obvious magnet for fraud.
• How we still don’t know the size of the problem, but a refusal to accept the mistake means that thousands of homeowners have become stranded and unable to buy or sell their property, and they have no idea whether it is safe or not.

Implementing the Golden Thread

• How the regulator is implementing the golden thread regime without creating a ‘single source of truth’. People providing information cannot link to it, they have to upload a copy, answer questions on a spreadsheet, and then do it again for the fire service.
• How this is creating costly duplication of work and preventing the efficient management of information right across the sector.
• Rather than demonstrating safety and efficiency we are simple compounding error and increasing risk.

What should happen now?

I asked Neil and Matt what one thing they would urge industry, regulator and government to do.

• Neil said that the key is to adopt the UK Housing Data Standards and soft landings.
• Matt said that they key is to value the data you are governing.
• I urged industry to learn the basics of information management and become more transparent in your communications.

We have spent eight years thrashing about and not fixing the problem. Indeed it looks like we are making it worse.

Let’s take some actionable steps. Lets start listening to the ‘troublemakers’.

The post Fixing the Black Elephant in the room appeared first on Just Practising.

Join us on our next call at lunchtime on Friday 13^th June.

On our last call we focused on the challenges of working in an industry that appears to be unwilling or unable to modernise. This time we will work on what we can do about these challenges as individuals and small groups.

Our last call received some great feedback, so why not join us this time? We are going to be thinking positively – constructively – about the problems.

Be constructive: Our guests

Both our speakers on this session show what an individual using an agile approach can do to make positive change. What can we learn and apply to our own work?

We’re delighted to welcome Anas Ayoub, founder of XD House a digital construction firm launched in 2022 to bridge the gap between design and construction through digital transformation. With offices in London and Dubai, XD House works across architecture, engineering, and construction, blending BIM, automation, and information management to simplify complex workflows and drive smarter delivery.

Anas will be in conversation with the Plain Language Group’s Paul Surin, who as you  may know has worked in manufacturing, in IT, and now works client side. Paul will be sharing an example of how he has used innovative approach to manage the massive amount of unstructured data and documentation that contractors submit in their tenders.

Constructive mindset

Su used to work for a client whose attitude to his job was:

Act first; ask forgiveness later.

This must have been rather frustrating for his boss, but he had P&L control of his part of the business, and his attitude was, ‘they pay me to make decisions, not to ask permission’.  It was very refreshing.

In some ways this is quite an attractive aspect of the businesslike world of construction. Can we build it? Yes we can!

In our Industry Voices report we described some ways in which we could change our thinking processes when it came to implementing systemic change. This included encouraging agile behaviour.

We also stressed that one of the advantages of SME businesses is they can be agile. And as an industry with 99% SMEs we should be making the most of this.

No matter who you are working in our industry, you can benefit from taking a positive attitude to your role as a problem solver. The most useful thing we have is our brains, so let’s put them to work.

Identify the obstacles and work round them

Looking at our challenges can make one despair. But don’t be downhearted! Instead of seeing the wall and being an elephant, be a mouse. Be agile.

Applying an ‘act first’ approach to the problems we meet means we recognize these problems as obstacles and then work out how we can remove them from the equation.

What is the actual barrier? How can you get round it instead of bashing up against it repeatedly? What small things can you do to change it?

We need to keep our actions small and manageable. Don’t write a huge report. Don’t take months to develop a new framework. Just get leadership buy in to an agile and inclusive process. Work out what the problem is and how you can get round it quickly, with the resources you have, then assess and adjust. If it is successful you can share it, and others can learn from your success.

You don’t know everything, but what do you know?

You can’t do everything, but what can you do?

Join our call to hear examples and explore ideas

Join our call on Friday 30^th May at 1-2pm to hear examples from Paul and Anas, and then for the second half of the session, use that inspiration to explore with us how to be part of the solution.

As usual the session will be very interactive, so be prepared to take part!

Want to get more articles like this? Sign up to receive our emails here.

The post Be a mouse: move mountains appeared first on Just Practising.

Quite shocked at this – particularly given that the four other people in their part 1 list are all men who work for large software companies or consultancies (and my name doesn’t have a large well known company after it… I guess that’s another win there).

Do you recognise them? No peeking!

In the spirit of learning from everything, I decided to look at what they actually said about me and it’s pretty accurate:

1. helping drive digital adoption among SME construction product manufacturers, and representing them to the other stakeholders.
2. a great mediator, enabling collaboration across sectors and supply chains
3. a champion for more ethical behaviour in construction.

I’ll take that. It’s great to know that your message is getting through.

If you want someone like me helping your organisation, you know how to get in touch

If you’ve read this far, thank you!

And as a bonus for your weekend enjoyment, please accept this bit of Wynton Marsalis and pals playing some fabulous Sidney Bechet classics:

You can follow Digital Construction Plus on LinkedIn here.

The post Digital Construction Power Player appeared first on Just Practising.

We asked participants to answer a series of open questions about where they are now with industry modernisation and where their colleagues are, three years on from when we hosted the original round table session as described in our 2023 report, Industry Voices: Why Won’t The Built Environment Modernise? .

We’ve published the video of our first call:

Topics discussed include:

• Systemic industry issues
• Problems with data quality and reluctance to share information
• The digital divide and other communication gaps
• Fragmentation of the industry and
• A lack of coordinated leadership or a top-down strategy that the industry understands and can get behind.

All couched in the personal experiences of the participants. That’s just a flavour, take a look at the full discussion here.

Don’t forget to subscribe to the channel to keep in touch with our video content.

Would you like to be invited to take part in our next call? Subscribe to our mailing list to be the first to receive an invitation. We’ll be in touch as soon as we have a date secured.

The post The construction industry is not modernising – Video of our first interactive call of 2025 appeared first on Just Practising.

Join us on Teams at lunchtime on Friday 2^nd May.

Have you ever caught yourself feeling like you’ve been dreaming, and then you wake up?

On the one hand is the dream: a vision of a built environment utopia. A perfectly constructed, digitised, net zero built environment where everything works, is safe and is used to its full potential.

On the other hand, when we wake up, we have the way construction works today.

• Construction and the built environment are major contributions to carbon emissions, and yet implementing sustainable practices remains a niche activity.
• Construction remains one of the most hazardous of industries and concern about unsafe buildings is causing jitters in the mortgage and insurance markets.
• Whilst digitised construction product information remains essential to the modernised construction and asset management, construction product manufacturers do not generally supply structured data to the supply chain.

We discussed some of these issues at our round table event, “Industry Voices: Why won’t our industry modernise?” in March 2022.

Many people who want the utopia don’t know how to get there or perhaps think they might know one or two of the bottlenecks but not how to unlock them.

And many people who live the reality, don’t think that we ever will; they’ve seen it all before.

Which one are you?

We have been trying to modernise for generations

Government, industry and society have been talking about modernising the construction industry and the built environment since the 1930s. See our sample list of reports on construction industry inefficiencies dating back to 1934 here.

If you work in our industry, as a consultant, manufacturer, contractor, designer, or even as a client or asset owner, you will recognise the clamour to modernise – the Farmer Review ‘Modernise or Die’ (2016) being a good example.

And you will recognise the initiatives that intend to make it possible: for example,

• Modern Methods of Construction (since the 1998 Egan Report),
• the BIM Mandate 2011,
• Net Zero targets (since 2019),
• the Information Management Initiative 2024,
• the Code for Construction Product Information (2021),
• the Building Safety Act 2022,
• Digital Product Passports (proposed in 2022), and
• the Construction Product Reform Green Paper (2025),

to name just a few. That’s a lot of new stuff.

Yet right now, you probably are not dreaming of a utopian future, more likely, trying to deal with the day to day.

And yet, we are not modernising

At our Industry Voices Round Table, one of the delegates (representing specialist subcontractors and manufacturers) said,

“Short-term outlook is a key barrier. As the CEO of a trade association with many SME members, the daily/weekly challenge to them is about getting paid, rocketing costs and labour shortages”.

Our research of C-Suites in construction product manufacturers in 2023 confirmed that they too were focused on short term concerns, with regulation, sustainability and digitisation low down the list of priorities:

Has anything changed?

We suspect that three years on from Industry Voices, and four years on from when we published our plain language guide to digitisation, things have changed very little.

And yet there have been plenty of initiatives.

And the pressures are still there to deliver safe, efficient buildings.

Is there another way?

How do we get to an efficient, modern construction industry, producing an efficient, modern built environment?

How do we stop focusing on the firefighting and start taking simple steps to move from here to there?

How do we turn the utopian vision into the day to day?

We think we can.  But we won’t do it by listening to the clamour of visionaries.

• We will do it by listening to the practitioners. The people on the coal face.
• We will do it by talking to each other, rather than at each other.
• We will do it by sharing and learning across our silos, rather than hiding in the mystery of buzzwords and incomprehensible jargon.

That’s why we want you to join our call on 2^nd May.

Facilitating conversations since 2018

The Plain Language Group began at a seminar held at the IET on 17^th January 2018.

Six months on from Grenfell, we invited construction product manufacturers, consultants, contractors and clients to share their challenges with product data. We also invited data companies to listen to the practitioners and see what happened.

On that day we learned the value of listening to the people at the coal face, and seven years on we still know that value. So let’s do it again and look at the deep-rooted blockers facing our sector. We know there is still so much more to do.

What challenges do you face?

If you’re working in construction, construction product manufacturing or asset management and you would like to join the conversation, we are having our first call on Friday 2^nd May from 1-2pm on Teams.

• We’ll be inviting you to share your thoughts about what your challenges are that prevent modernisation.
• We’ll be starting the discussion about how we might overcome those challenges and what is stopping us.
• We’ll be doing some myth busting and asking and answering some questions.
• We’ll certainly be saying the unsayable!

And we’ll be asking you what you think we should be having productive conversations about, so that the journey begins with effective, achievable steps.

The session will be very interactive, so be prepared to take part!

Want to get more articles like this? Sign up to receive our emails here.

The post A Reality Check: the construction industry is not modernising appeared first on Just Practising.

Let’s start with a definition.

What is a Digital Product Passport?

A Digital Product Passport (DPP) is a structured digital record that provides key information about a product. It enables stakeholders across the product’s lifecycle, including manufacturers, consumers, regulators and recyclers, to access data related to its key attributes, including those related to sustainability, safety and compliance.

The Digital Product Passport is a core feature of the new Construction Product Regulation which was published on 18^th December 2024. Amongst other elements, the DPP will include a Declaration of Performance and Conformity (DoPC; a digital equivalent to the Declaration of Performance), other information about the product, a unique identifier and a data carrier to connect that identification (and the information) to the product itself.

If you sell construction products into the EU and they are currently covered by the old Construction Product Regulations, it is likely that the DDP system will apply to these products.

How will digital product passports assist the construction industry?

The European Union has adopted Digital Product Passports as a means by which it can foster a more open and responsible marketplace for products, by integrating open data principles and enhancing transparency across product value chains.

Information about construction products is required by a whole range of actors in the construction supply chain, not just by your customers, but by their customers, by regulators and enforcement bodies, by the designers, builder and users of the buildings they go into, and by the people who will maintain, repair, repurpose and recycle them.

Since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017 it has been clear that knowing what is in your building is essential to building safety, but how it gets there safely in the first place depends upon reliable information. You can read more about this problem in our 2018 report “A Fresh Way Forward for Product Data: State of the Nation”

DPPs will help manufacturers market their products:

1. By facilitating (and evidencing) compliance with regulations,
2. by improving product data management throughout a product’s lifecycle and
3. by supporting sustainability goals and providing a means to achieve them.

This will mean that:

• Manufacturers’ sales and marketing teams will know they are providing key information that is always accurate and linked back to source.
• designers can check that the products they specify comply with the necessary performance requirements.
• distributors and contractors can ensure that the correct products have been supplied to site.
• installers can be sure they installed the product that has been specified.
• building control officers can sign off works having verified that the products and systems meet with the regulatory requirements.
• building owners can know what is in their buildings.

So why are people talking about DPPs now?

The main reason why people are talking more about Digital Product Passports in the construction sector now, is that the new European Construction Products Regulation (CPR): (EU) 2024/3110 was published on 18th December.

This new regulation (which repeals the old CPR, which was adopted by the UK) lays down harmonized rules for the marketing of construction products across the EU and refers specifically to DPPs as a key element of its implementation.

However, there is a lot more about DPPs in the new European Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR): (EU) 2024/1781 which was published in July 2024. This regulation sets out sustainability requirements for a wide range of products in the EU, with the aim of encouraging companies to bring more sustainable products to market.

The reason for this split in information is that ESPR relates to all products (not just construction) and CPR relates specifically to construction products. But they both come from the same basic principles, they are based on the same framework.

By devising a set of overarching principles for DPPs, the EU is creating the underlying framework whereby different sectors can create their own specific requirements, yet the same best practice approach of transparency and data integrity can be applied to all sectors. Other sectors (such as apparel, consumer electronics, textiles) will also be using the same underlying framework.

The information requirements of a DPP are set out in Chapter III of the ESPR, articles 9-15. The CPR further expands on the requirements for a ‘construction digital product passport system’ (commonly abbreviated to CPR-DPP) in Chapter X, Articles 75 and 76 of the CPR.

What will make DPPs successful when other initiatives have failed?

We think Digital Product Passports have the potential to change the way information about construction products is shared, for these reasons:

1. Digital from the Bottom Up: DPPs will have a digital first structure and governance system, unlike the product data sheets initiative. Digital first means connection back to source, giving confidence in accuracy. It will be able to scale – essential for an increasingly complex construction value chain.
2. Based on Open Standards: The process of introducing DPPs into construction will create the naming and identification element of construction products that we outlined as an essential requirement in our 2018 report but has yet to be implemented.
3. Realistic Hosting and Sharing: DPPs will have a standardised framework for storing, accessing and sharing product data. An EU funded study known as CIRPASS2 is currently exploring how this system could be optimised, with a particular focus on how it will be feasible for SMEs to use.
4. Customer Demand: By introducing DPPs the EU is responding to the market by aligning to growing consumer, regulatory and industry demands for sustainability, circular economy goals and transparent product data.
5. Designed to be Future Proof: as part of a larger framework for products across industry, the DPP system addresses the need for product information beyond the specific niche of construction products.

The CPR has been developed in consultation with all members states of the EU and aims to address the regulatory needs of all EU members’ national construction codes, to enable a single market for construction products. As such it addresses the needs of 27 countries’ construction codes, and we can learn from the expertise of all these countries. This makes sense in the construction industry where many of its products are produced, marketed and sold in the EU as well as the UK.

How DPPs will be introduced into construction?

The introduction of digital product passports will not happen overnight. The new regulations introduced by the EU foresee a process of evolution whereby the information about products is gradually digitised and shared digitally.

At the end of this process, Digital Product Passports will be:

1. based on open standards
2. structured and machine-readable
3. searchable
4. developed with an interoperable format
5. transferrable through an open, interoperable data exchange network, without proprietary (ie vendor) lock-in.

The Spanish construction products association, UNE, is engaged in a project looking at how its members can gradually introduce the steps to a digital product passport by initially producing digital Declarations of Performance and Conformity (the new name for Declarations of Performance introduced in the new European Construction Products Regulation (CPR).

When will Digital Product Passports in Construction become mandatory?

The obligation to deliver a Digital Product Passport for a construction product that you want to sell in the EU is some years off, and the actual date will depend on the construction product, but we are looking at least 2.5 years ahead.

The new CPR will only apply to products covered by harmonised performance technical specifications and European Assessment Documents that are adopted under the new regulatory framework. Once a product’s relevant harmonised technical specification is transferred to the new CPR, then the new CPR will apply. Until then, the old CPR will apply. [Source: Oscar Nieto, European Commission ]

I’m a Manufacturer: what do we need to do now?

1. Do not buy a solution

It should be clear from the above article that the Digital Product Passport is not something that you can buy off the shelf from a software provider. Software providers do not know what is in a DPP yet; that has not yet been determined. In order to prepare for digital product passports you need to structure the data in your systems, but you may not need to use a third party provider to do this.

2. You already have the information

The information you will need to provide is currently already in your systems, but it may be in several places.

3. Read our free guide to digitisation

If you’d like to know more about how to digitise your product information as a manufacturer, read our Plain Language Guide to digitisation. Download the guide from the IET website here or see other PLG publications here.

What happens next?

Europe is advancing initiatives for Digital Product Passports, with CEN/CLC working on establishing standards and the European Commission addressing key aspects like delegated acts, data management and legal constraints.

This coordinated effort also involves collaboration with the international community. Stakeholders are encouraged to participate through their national bodies to help shape these evolving practices.

We’ll be writing about this work in future posts.

Keep Up to Date and in Touch

The Plain Language Group is an independent group working to encourage digitisation in construction products. We will be writing on this blog about how to get started with Digital Product Passports, what they consist of and what to do next in the coming weeks.  If you’d like an email notification when we publish new content please sign up here.

Read more about the Plain Language Group here.

If you are looking for independent consultancy advice on digitisation for construction products, please get in touch.

The post What are Digital Product Passports in Construction? appeared first on Just Practising.

Many of the problems that the construction industry and the built environment sector is facing have their root in the processes we use for organising and managing data.

1. Organising and analysing data to provide context makes it information.
2. Information management is the process of collecting, storing and using information in a secure and efficient way.
3. When the information management processes we are using fail, they create a crisis in confidence.
4. One of the main purposes of good information management is to ensure confidence in information.

Let’s explore that a little further:

Create Confidence in Information

Our objectives:

• We want to have confidence in the information we receive, and
• We want the people who receive our information to have confidence in it.

For this to happen, the information needs to be

• Accurate
• Secure, and
• Up to date.

This means thinking about how information is

• Stored
• Shared, and
• Updated.

What information am I talking about? In the built environment I am talking about all formats of information from structured data in databases or spreadsheets, to certificates and reports, pdfs and drawings.

Much of the talk about the problems we are facing since the Grenfell Tragedy (and some might argue, since well before that) is about many other topics such as skills and competence, or contractual and procurement methods, for example.

But without correct information, properly handled, changing these will not be effective because people will not have confidence in the information about them.

There are several examples of how information management is not working in our sector, which I will be exploring in the coming weeks. But first, let’s look at the principles.

Nine Basic Principles of information management

Here are some basic principles of how to manage information properly:

How to Store Information

1. A single source of truth – somewhere there should be a place where the original information is stored, linked to other related information.

2. Security – that source of information should be only available to those who are entitled to access it and protected from corruption or loss.

3. Credibility – the credibility of the information should be evidenced.

4. Accountability – someone should be responsible for maintaining the information source and ensuring proper governance.

How to Share Information

5. Traceability – by providing an identification process, information that is shared can be linked back to the original source of truth. Cite your sources!

6. Qualification – The information should state to what and/or whom it applies.

7. Accessibility – the information should be available to all who have a legitimate interest in it.

How to Update Information

8. Version Control – When information is updated, a record of previous versions should be made and shared.

9. Longevity – The information should continue to be accessible over time, including to previous versions.

When you look at a piece of information, ask yourself whether these principles apply. It will help you determine whether the process of management and sharing of the information is acceptable and whether you can have confidence in it.

I’m not a data scientist, so I’m looking at this from the perspective of someone in the construction industry who has spent many years thinking about practical communications and information management, particularly for construction product manufacturers and housing associations.

Do you think I’ve missed a principle out? Do you disagree with my analysis? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Many thanks to the many people who have helped me sort out my thoughts in this area, most recently Matt Hodges-Long.

Looking for examples

I’ve been increasingly coming across difficult situations which could be a lot simpler if we understood these basics of information management. So in the coming articles I’ll be exploring some examples including:

• HSE guidance
• EWS1 Forms
• Construction Product Information

I’m sure there are many other ways we manage information poorly at present. If you would like me to look at a particular situation through this lens, please let me know.

If you found this article interesting and would like to read the next one, please subscribe to my newsletter “Thoughts on Construction” to be notified.

I provide consultancy services to organisations in our sector who want to address problems such as this.  If you like the quality of the thought this article represents and would like assistance with managing your own information or setting out your own message, please get in touch for a chat.

You can now also book a half hour Teams/Zoom/Phone call with me on Calendly here.

This post was originally published on LinkedIn. Check out the discussion there too!

Image credit: Hard Disk Drive by Christiaan Colen, Creative Commons (attribution/share alike) https://www.flickr.com/photos/christiaancolen/34814100374/

The post What information management really means: Nine principles appeared first on Just Practising.