Competence cannot work if it is overruled

The construction industry frequently calls for greater competence. That is necessary, but appointing competent people achieves little if they are prevented from exercising competent judgement.

A recent CROSS-UK report describes concerns raised by a dutyholder working on a higher-risk building. The reported issues included poor-quality structural elements, work proceeding against professional advice, questionable assurance records and obstacles to raising a Mandatory Occurrence Report. CROSS presents the account as an anonymous report rather than an adjudicated finding, but the wider lesson is clear: technical failure can be enabled by organisational culture.

Most projects experience pressure. Programmes tighten, costs rise and decisions become inconvenient. In that environment, professional challenge can be mischaracterised as delay, inflexibility or a failure to be commercial. The temptation is to soften the advice, accept incomplete evidence or allow a concern to be closed administratively before it has been resolved technically.

That is precisely when competence matters most.

A competent professional is not appointed merely to supply credentials or endorse decisions already made. Their role includes recognising the limits of the available evidence, explaining the consequences of uncertainty and refusing to confirm compliance where the necessary basis is absent. This may be uncomfortable, but discomfort is not evidence that the advice is disproportionate.

Clients and senior project leaders have an equally important role. They establish whether concerns will be examined or suppressed. A healthy project does not treat every objection as correct, but it provides a defined route for testing it. The evidence is reviewed, responsibilities are clear, contrary opinions are documented and unresolved safety concerns can be escalated without interference.

Documentation alone cannot create that culture. A construction control plan, competence matrix or reporting procedure has value only if actual decisions follow it. Records that describe an ideal process while work proceeds differently may create an appearance of control without the substance.

This is particularly important under the building safety regime, where dutyholders have specific responsibilities and serious safety occurrences may require formal reporting. However, the principle is not confined to higher-risk buildings. A fire door accepted despite known defects, an unverified cavity barrier concealed to preserve progress, or a fire strategy changed without appropriate review can carry consequences in any building.

CROSS Report 1529 emphasises that clients must enable dutyholders to discharge their responsibilities and that commercial pressure must not override safety judgement (https://www.cross-safety.org/uk/safety-information/cross-safety-report/questions-about-quality-construction-hrb-1529).

Competence is partly about what a person knows. Professional integrity is demonstrated by what they do when that knowledge becomes inconvenient. The real test of a project’s safety culture is not whether it appoints competent people, but whether it listens when they say no.

Pyrology Insight provides commentary on contemporary fire safety topics. It is intended to stimulate professional discussion and should not be relied upon as project-specific advice.