By
Christl McMillan, Communications Adviser, Building Industry Authority.
This paper is a pragmatic examination of the issues
facing the Building Industry Authority and its predecessors as they introduced
a performance-based building code to New Zealand.
Route
to reform
By 1980 the building industry in New Zealand had had enough. The current regulatory environment governing building work comprised 68 Acts of Parliament and 67 regulations administered by 19 government departments. On top of that were the building bylaws of more than 200 local authorities. This was in a country of around 3.5 million people.
A Building Industry Commission was appointed in 1986 to undertake a major review of the whole spectrum of building controls and to consider in detail a new national building code.
In the first 6 months the Commission concentrated on establishing a philosophy of control appropriate to New Zealand. Rather than calling for formal submissions the Commission believed that maximum interaction would be achieved by seeking input from various key organisations and through extensive consultation.
The Commission’s work culminated in the Building Act 1991, which became fully effective in January 1993. Under that Act were made the Building Regulations 1992. The First Schedule to the Regulations contains the National Building Code, commonly known as the New Zealand Building Code.
In July 1987 the first issue of the BIC News was published and sent to a mail list of approximately 180 addresses. This newsletter was to be the Commission’s primary tool for the dissemination of information.
In 1988 an Industry Liaison Group was established to represent all sectors of the industry: namely building contractors, sub contractors, designers, manufacturers, inspectors, local government engineers, user/owners, insurers, and researchers.
In January 1990 the Commission presented a report to Government, which described its proposed reforms and contained a draft Building Bill and national building code. During 1990, the Commission wrote the code’s supporting technical documents (the Approved Documents), and in September of that year the Bill was introduced to Parliament. The Building Act was enacted in December 1991, the Commission was replaced with an Authority (appointed by Government) in February 1992 and the Act was implemented in July 1992.
While the Commission (comprising 5 commissioners and its staff of 10) were producing a new legal and technical framework for building control the rudiments of an education programme were also being developed. In the BIC News of September 1990 the Commission outlined its intentions to provide a 2-part programme. The primary programme would be a 1-day seminar in 20 cities for decision-makers and senior managers in the industry to explain the philosophy, general principles, structure and administration of the new system. The more extensive secondary programme would be aimed at the whole industry over a 6 to 9 month period.
Industry input on the proposals was sought through the Industry Liaison Group, and in April 1991 the Commission issued a short paper on education. At the same time, the political climate was changing and all government bodies were instructed to reduce expenditure. The new Building Industry Authority (BIA), unable to trim its technical budget, had to offer up the funding earmarked for education.
The 1991 census of New Zealand showed that 84,650 people were employed in the construction industry. Of that total 32,000 were builders. (There is no registration of builders in New Zealand.)
With the Building Bill before Parliament during late 1990 and 1991 there was an urgency to inform and educate the industry. Budget constraints meant that the BIA could not implement nor fund an education programme so its strategy was to facilitate the information flow process and in particular target (1) managers and (2) educators and building officials. The education needs of operators could not be addressed.
The BIA contracted the planning, management and coordination of seminars to the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ). In support the BIA provided basic resource materials and its staff as presenters for the seminars around the country, and began to publish its newsletter more frequently.
For many in the industry, namely the builders, the new system brought little immediate change to their operations, but the designers, architects and engineers would need to understand the new Act and Code. Key professional and trade organisations swung into action and seminars were offered to members at many centres around the country during 1991 and 1992. One major materials supplier also became involved. BRANZ reported that when the new system was implemented the combined efforts of these industry sectors resulted in 90 presentations to more than 6000 people.
At the same time, various industry publications included articles and even whole supplements on the changes in store for the industry. The still fledgling BIA News had a slow but steady growth in its mail list, which reached 750 by November 1991. BIA News copyright was waived and other organisations were encouraged to reproduce articles in their own publications.
Local authorities also produced their own leaflets and handouts to explain the differences between the old and new system to their customers to coincide with the Act’s implementation in mid 1992. The BIA also published a series of information leaflets that were issued in bulk to local authorities.
During 1993 far fewer seminars were available, and in 1994 the BIA’s sole educational activity was a visit to each local authority. Towards the end of 1993 (well over a year after the Act and Code were operating) the BIA appointed a full time information officer. Then 18 months later, once it became self-funded following a law change, the BIA appointed a full time education officer.
A year into the education programme, and before the new legislation took effect, the BIA alerted the industry in a very public way that knowledge of the new controls was poor. A large notice in BIA News (March 1992) was headed “Corporate management failure in territorial authorities and private sector”. The BIA said it was “very concerned at the apparent failure of many large organisations to keep their staff informed … Following seminars recently held by different groups around the country, it is abundantly clear to BIA that the information is not being passed to those vitally affected by the building reforms. This is a sad reflection on internal communication policies.”
No doubt that was a fair accusation, but from a communications perspective there were probably other factors at play.
Today, exactly 9 years later, the level of understanding in certain sectors of the industry still appears to be poor judging from the queries received by the BIA. Many times I have overheard staff explaining the hierarchy of control documents to a phone caller, and many one-off written explanations are provided. Presentations to groups and more formal seminars frequently begin with an overview of the Code and its supporting documents. The back-to-basics approach is still required to move people from awareness to understanding.
What follows in this paper is my conjecture on the barriers to effective awareness raising and sound understanding of the new controls, in particular the performance code.
A crucial step in communications planning is the Situation Analysis, which may include formal research. A situation analysis of the building industry (for the purposes of a communications plan) undertaken prior to implementation of the reforms should have included an examination of the prevailing political, regulatory and business environments. It should also have profiled the different sectors and sub-sectors (the stakeholders) to gain a picture of their operational environments, their current behaviours, their expectations and needs in respect of the reforms ahead, and their preferred ways of receiving information.
The reform process was indeed initiated and progressed by the industry in a politically receptive climate, but it was the ‘big’ players who expressed the goodwill. What about the more than 80,000 other players?
Each of the stakeholders had clearly defined informational needs in operating within a radically different regulatory framework, with its new terms, new time-frames, and new specialists, plus a conceptual shift to performance as the design and construction benchmark.
Knowledge and understanding of the Act and Regulations could be divided into levels. Each stakeholder could be placed along a continuum of levels, and communication and education programmes planned and delivered to meet the needs identified for each level.
Local authorities were a major stakeholder as administrators of the Act and Regulations. Local authorities were operating in a time of massive change. The advent of the Building Act was accompanied by other new legislation, e.g. the Local Government Amendment Acts 1991 and 1992, the Resource Management Act 1991, Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, Fire Safety & Evacuation of Building Regulations 1992.
Restructuring was common. New systems and procedures were needed. Resources to support staff in the day-to-day delivery of a service to customers were scarce and varied hugely between the large (urban) and small (rural) authorities. Not only did the building control officials have to ‘come- up-to-speed’ with the new requirements, they would be the conduit of information to their customers. To complicate matters, many local authorities took advantage of the lead time and started organising their operations around the recommendations in the draft Bill, but the final Act was significantly different in some areas.
The actual constructors – the builders and subcontractors – were another stakeholder that could be segmented by business type and trade group. While the implementation of the new Act and Regulations did not necessarily affect the actual construction of a building there was much builders ought to know to continue to conduct their business professionally and provide a better service. For instance, understanding the new building consent application procedures meant a better relationship with the local authority and clients. Knowing that Approved Documents were the mechanism by which the commonly used Standards are identified as approved solutions that comply with the Building Code signalled competence, even if builders did not have a copy of the Code itself.
Even when a communications programme has been designed with the unique needs of each stakeholder group there are factors outside the communicator’s control that will affect the success of the programme.
When the performance Building Code was introduced in New Zealand the concept of performance as a guiding principle or mandatory measure was very new. (Since then, other legislation has been written using this approach.) The difference between prescription and performance requires clear and repetitive explanation to enable understanding. Comparing a tangible prescriptive requirement with an abstract performance criteria is logical but does not mean that everyone will understand. Exactness, gained by numerical measurement, is the basis of construction. A psychological resistance to a qualitative measure is possible and must be overcome in the same way that attitudinal resistance is a barrier.
A useful technique to explain performance is to use an analogy that people are familiar with. Once the concept is understood its use makes sense so it can be readily applied, much like learning to ride a bicycle. A favourite analogy of mine is food, but many others exist that may be more meaningful to a particular audience.
The Act and Regulations introduced new terms. Entire leaflets and magazine articles were dedicated to their definitions. Some of the new terms posed no problems. Use led to familiarity, at different rates according to stakeholder group.
A few terms, however, still cause confusion and misunderstanding today, which suggests that the quality of explanation is poor or that there is a semantic problem. Coining new terms takes care. There is still widespread misunderstanding of the following New Zealand terms:
Building Code – when the NZBC was introduced many building Standards had titles that began “Code of practice for …..”. People that do not understand the control hierarchy regard commonly used Standards as the legal document. For instance, an amended Standard is perceived as a change to the regulations. Local authority information sometimes adds to the confusion, e.g. the phrase “…to ensure the planned work meets the Building Code standards ….” in a current leaflet published by a council.
This very strong semantic association is evident in the common slip of the tongue when people are discussing “code of compliance certificates” instead of code compliance certificate (also known as CCC).
Approved Document – the BIA’s approved documents are believed by many to be the legal document (ie, the Regulations or Code). I believe both the title and the format of the documents has contributed to such perceptions. Also, there is no clarity about an approved document itself, i.e. is it the title of the document that contains verification methods and acceptable solutions or is each acceptable solution an approved document?
Acceptable Solution and Alternative Solution – care must be taken when using the common words ‘acceptable’, ‘solution’ and ‘alternative’ because they are now jargon. Although not a defined term, acceptable alternative solution is not uncommon, meaning an alternative solution that has been approved by a territorial authority.
Uncertainty about these terms means that misunderstanding of the document hierarchy is likely which in turn means that the benefits of a performance control system will not be fully realised.
Change affects people in different ways and the response to change is also important in communications planning. “Feel the fear” is a good guiding principle. Some obvious predictable concerns of people encountering new legislation would be: rate of learning and job performance, and risk of moving from ‘safe’ prescription to ‘shaky’ interpretation.
Many individuals with decades of conditioned behaviour in applying black and white answers were thrust into a seemingly permissive performance environment. The fear of getting it wrong, of looking foolish, the possible loss of power and control were all contributory factors to acceptance. Such factors are important in communications planning.
People’s ability or willingness to access new information is important to successful behavioural change. Poor access is a critical barrier that must be overcome. The tangible factors of availability and cost are important, plus perceptual access. When the user receives the information is it meaningful and user-friendly? Explanatory material needs to be produced for each stakeholder.
Assumptions cannot be made about delivery mechanisms. For example, New Zealand has one of the world’s highest PC and Internet use per head of population, yet a survey last year of BIA News readers found that 85% did not want to receive the newsletter via the Internet. For that reason, we continue to print and post almost 11,000 copies each month as well as posting it on our website.
In New Zealand, the Approved Documents were marketed and sold by a known and credible supplier (Standards New Zealand). Cost was and still is an issue, and will determine if single or multiple copies are purchased for the team of designers in a practice or if a sole-operator makes a choice about which, if any, of the documents to buy. Reasonably priced, and even subsidised, documents will mean more are sold thereby increasing the level of knowledge across the industry.
When industry is confronted with an ‘innovation’ (being a new idea, practice or object) there is a reaction. This is described as an “adoption process” (Windahl & Signitzer 1992) with five stages. The first two stages are knowledge and persuasion, followed by decision, implementation, and finally confirmation. Most communications efforts are limited to the first two stages.
A solid communications plan will aim to influence at each stage because the whole process of adoption is important. The characteristics of each stage will direct the communications tactics that will be most effective.
Very briefly, mass media via various channels brings about exposure to the innovation. The knowledge gained is dependent on the amount of information provided and the expertise of the audience. It ranges from what-knowledge to how-to knowledge to principles knowledge. The more expert the audience the more relevant it is to provide principles knowledge, i.e. the science of the innovation.
At the persuasion stage people form an opinion or attitude about the innovation. Stakeholder-related information, interpersonal channels, and peer persuasion is important.
The innovation will be adopted or rejected at the decision stage. Many factors can influence the decision, and here the communicator can assist using a variety of tools (free samples, incentives, role models). Creating pools of adopters to pass on information to others is a very useful strategy, particularly in our industry.
For the implementation stage to be successful all information about the innovation must be accessible, and all resources in place and tested.
At the confirmation stage, reinforcing information is sought by the users, e.g. to overcome the ‘fear’ as discussed above. Positive continued use is assured by further communication that is direct, timely, and relevant.
There was no comprehensive information programme based on current communications models to guide the development and implementation of the BIA’s resource materials in the initial years. The mass media approach was used to produce printed matter for use by all stakeholders, e.g.
Emphasis was on the knowledge stage, with some reinforcing information provided by the free one-to-one advisory service delivered in response to letters/faxes and phone calls.
Later, with the appointment of communications staff (an information officer and an education officer) a 3-year communications strategy was developed, and attention was given to the other stages of the adoption process. This resulted in the implementation of seminar series to address specific needs and also increased availability to resource materials, e.g.
Today, the BIA’s communications tools are being further enhanced and new resources focus on meeting the information and operational needs of specific stakeholders, e.g.
The web site is under constant review and some interactivity is now available, e.g. a calculator to estimate building costs, plus two list serves and online ordering of free literature.
Updates of the Approved Documents are being produced in a new format to aid clarity and help overcome misconceptions over their status as control documents.
Also, the cost of the documents has been considered, and the BIA removed its royalties last year. Access to the Approved Documents will be further improved later this year when a new publishing contract comes into effect. The BIA will give each local authority a set of approved documents for free public use.
Drawing on the New Zealand experience in the introduction of a performance code and its supporting legislation the following recommendations are made to assist other administrations achieve their communication goals:
1. Involve professional communicators and educators early. Their expertise is as important and valuable as technical expertise.
2. Conduct a needs analysis and develop an integrated communications strategy.
3. Provide sufficient budget for the complete implementation of the strategy.
4. Monitor implementation and adjust as necessary.
Within that strategy, do:
5. Develop sound partnerships with other agencies and organisations.
6. Provide support for day-to-day administrators of the code.
7. Develop relationships with educational institutions.
8. Be careful in the choice of language.
9. Use analogies and practical examples.
10. Trial all explanatory literature and technical documents with users and test format and content for understanding.
11. Consider the cost of technical documents.
12. Train all staff dealing with queries in plain language skills.
The shift to a performance building code in New Zealand has been successful in terms of meeting the major objectives of the reform. Widespread support for change and the industry’s ability to adapt over a short transition period meant that the overall business of construction continued with no more than the odd hiccup.
Nonetheless, there is still a big knowledge gap evident by the nature of inquiries directed to the BIA. A significant proportion of those queries come from individuals or sectors in the industry who “should know better”. The message for the BIA is clear. Even after 9 years, the learning curve has still not been completed. There is a need to look for new ways of raising awareness and increasing understanding. Also, that we must continue to move from the mass media approach to delivery of information that is targeted and reinforcing.
Change, voluntary or mandatory, does not happen overnight. It can, however, happen faster and more efficiently when supported by the implementation of a long-term communications and education programme.
Windahl,
S and Signitzer, B 1992: Using communication theory. Sage Publications.
Building
Industry Commission, 1990: Reform of building controls Vol 1, Report to
the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Building
Industry Commission News Nos 1 –12.
Building
Industry Authority News Nos. 13 to 110.
Building
Industry Commission paper Role of the Building Industry Authority in education
regarding the New Zealand Building Code, 5 April 1991.
New
Zealand Engineering, February 1992, Journal of the Institution of Professional
Engineers New Zealand, pp 7-8, 39.
Build
Magazine, October 1990, BRANZ, pp 7-8.
Build
Magazine, June/July 1992, BRANZ, pp 19-36.
Build
Magazine, August/September 1992, BRANZ, pp 38-40.
Thanks
to Boyd Dunlop, Manager Services, BIA, who administered the Commission when
it was established, for his recollections.