John Taylor, Publications Manager at BSRIA, explores what the move toward machine-readable information could mean for how buildings are designed, approved, and managed
The Government’s latest building control reforms have understandably put the proposed Single Construction Regulator in the spotlight. But another, potentially more significant, shift is taking place in the background.
Much of the industry discussion around the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report has centred on the creation of a Single Construction Regulator. It’s easy to understand why. Changing who oversees construction, and how, will have major implications for the sector.
But look beyond the headline reform and another theme repeatedly emerges: information.
The Government is signalling a move towards machine-readable information, greater interoperability and digital building control. Alongside growing adoption of FAIR data principles – ensuring information is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable – this points towards a future where building information will increasingly need to be understood not only by people, but by digital systems too.
For architects, engineers and building services designers, this is arguably the bigger story. It has significant implications for how information and responsibility are created and managed throughout a project.
Moving towards machine-readable control
As ever, the precise language used by government offers an important indication of where things might be heading. Recommendations in the Building Control Independent Panel report, and implications drawn from the anticipated Digital Building Control Roadmap, point to the eventual creation of a single national digital building control system. Such a system would be built on national data standards and automated data capture, all feeding into real-time, risk-based oversight.
This is a meaningful change. For decades, we’ve produced deliverables for human readers. A registered building inspector opens a drawing, examines a report and forms a judgement. Now, the likely direction of travel is towards information that a person can read, but a system can also process, then eventually query and corroborate.
If automated and AI-assisted validation is where building control is heading, and the consultation response suggests it is, then the formatting and structure of what we submit stops being a minor admin question. It determines whether a submission can be assessed at all. A document that a human can read and interpret but a system cannot analyse is a problem waiting to happen. Structured, attributable information makes digital checking possible in the first place.
Why FAIR data belongs in this conversation
The research community offers a useful acronym for what good information looks like. FAIR data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. Those four words describe the qualities the consultation response is reaching for, even where it doesn’t name them.
Findable means information can be located when someone needs it, not buried in an inbox or an obsolete folder. Accessible means the right people can reach it throughout a building’s life. Interoperable means information can move between systems and disciplines without being rebuilt each time. Reusable is a principle worth underlining. We have the technology: a building’s information should no longer have to be recreated from scratch at every stage, with teams starting over and hoping nothing important gets lost in the gap. It should carry forward, structured and attributable, from design into construction, onwards through to handover and occupation.
That last point is where many projects still come unstuck. Information is produced, used once, then abandoned at handover. FAIR principles describe a single thread of information that holds its value across the whole lifecycle.
Evidence that the industry is already moving
None of this is theoretical, and it doesn’t require waiting for legislation to catch up. Parts of the industry have been building frameworks around structured, accountable information for several years.
Let’s take a closer look at one sample design framework for building services, BSRIA’s BG6. In broad terms, BG6 keeps a live record of what information should be produced, by whom and who else needs to be involved (whether supporting or reviewing). It can be used to assign distinct responsibilities for gateway submissions, maintaining the Golden Thread, and identifying contractor-designed portions as a project develops. The as-built model and the information deliverables defined at the later stages become the backbone of the safety case, the fire and emergency file and the digital handover package. All of these must be kept up to date as construction proceeds.
When you interpret that model against the FAIR principles, the overlap is hard to miss. It provides a workable framework that records what information exists, who is accountable for it and when it is due. It describes information that is FAIR by design. The direction the government’s consultation response is indicating is one the industry has already started to build.
Information as a strategic asset, not a compliance chore
The Construction Leadership Council has been making a related argument, reinforcing the same idea from a different angle. Its guidance, published in 2024, frames the Golden Thread not as a new burden but as good information management practice that responsible parties should already be employing. It is information for duty-holders to actively use.
If we look more closely at the CLC’s digital, data and knowledge work, the ambition becomes clear. The CLC’s Information Management Initiative (a joint initiative with nima) and the Construct AI programme are both built on the idea that structured, connected information unlocks emerging construction technologies, from digital twins to AI. To achieve the CLC’s ambition, we must get the structure right first.
When we put the government’s likely direction of travel, the FAIR principles and the CLC’s work side by side, we reach the same conclusion: information is becoming a strategic asset in its own right. Not a by-product of construction work, but an intrinsic part of it with its own value.
What design practices should do now
While the single construction regulator will shape how the industry is governed, the quieter but more profound reform of machine-readable information is the change our industry should really prepare for. A few principles follow from it.
First, treat the structure of your information as an early-stage design decision, not a footnote to be handled at handover. Be clear, on every project, about who is responsible for safeguarding and reviewing specific information. Keep that record live rather than reconstructing it later. Assume that what you submit will one day be read by an advanced AI system as well as by a skilled industry professional. Produce that information accordingly. Start treating the Golden Thread as a framework you work within as you progress, not something to be hastily and retrospectively assembled to pass through a regulatory Gateway.
None of these measures needs to wait until the roadmap is finished. You can start with the next information schedule, ensuring every entry has a name and a date, and keeping the record live as the project moves on.
The post The signal and the noise: Why machine-readable buildings are closer than we think appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
