BIMINAM HAZOPS WORKSTREAM MEETING, 13-05-2026
The meeting focused on integrating HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Studies), asset management, BIM workflows, Gateway 3 compliance, and safety management systems into practical building operations and facilities management processes. The discussion strongly connected the Building Safety Act, BIM information management, and operational risk management.
Main Objective of the Session
George Stevenson introduced the session by explaining that many social landlords and high-risk building (HRB) operators are implementing safety management systems to comply with the Building Safety Regulator requirements. These systems require:
- safety cases,
- hazard management,
- and structured operational controls.
Ian Upton was invited to explain how HAZOP methodologies from nuclear, defence, and industrial sectors can align with:
- BIM,
- RIBA stages,
- Gateway 3,
- and asset management workflows.
Key Themes Discussed
- HAZOP Alignment with BIM & RIBA
Ian explained that HAZOP processes align closely with the seven RIBA stages and can provide a structured way to manage:
- hazard identification,
- risk assessment,
- mitigation planning,
- implementation,
- and ongoing review.
HAZOP Lifecycle Mapping
The process discussed included:
- Project definition
- Hazard identification
- Risk assessment
- Recommendations
- Action planning
- Implementation
- Review & reporting
The group agreed that hazard identification should begin very early — ideally during concept design and RIBA Stage 1.
- Gateway 3 & Evidence Pillars
Ian described three major “evidence pillars” required for Gateway 3 and building safety compliance:
Fire & Life Safety Evidence
Includes:
- fire strategies,
- smoke control verification,
- evacuation strategies,
- compartmentation evidence,
- and as-built drawings.
Safety Case Evidence
Includes:
- HAZOP outputs,
- safety management systems,
- golden thread data,
- competency records,
- and risk control measures.
As-Built Compliance Information
Includes:
- verified BIM models,
- asset registers,
- certifications,
- warranties,
- commissioning records,
- and O&M documentation.
Ian stressed that:
“The data is the evidence.”
Poor-quality or unverifiable data undermines Gateway compliance and operational safety.
- Bow Tie Methodology
A large section focused on “bow tie” risk analysis methodologies.
The bow tie approach was described as:
- identifying hazards/events,
- analysing barriers,
- evaluating mitigations,
- and understanding behavioural risks.
Examples discussed:
- blocked evacuation routes,
- electrical overloads,
- battery charging risks,
- disabled occupants trapped in lifts,
- roof leakage hazards,
- unsafe storage,
- and behavioural responses during emergencies.
Ian emphasized:
- Bow ties are not just about equipment.
- Human behaviour is a critical component of risk management.
- Major Discussion – Design Change & Management of Change (MOC)
One of the most important debates involved:
- late-stage design changes,
- multiple designers,
- and how safety information becomes fragmented.
Participants referenced the Grenfell disaster as an example where:
- material substitutions,
- fragmented responsibility,
- and unmanaged design changes contributed to failures.
Ian repeatedly stressed the importance of:
Management of Change (MOC)
Key principles included:
- clearly defined responsibilities,
- controlled change workflows,
- stakeholder sign-off,
- and continuous risk reviews.
The group agreed that:
- most projects still operate in silos,
- information handover is weak,
- and BIM models are rarely updated properly after construction or operational changes.
- BIM, FM & “Golden Thread” Challenges
A significant conversation focused on the gap between:
- designed models,
- installed assets,
- and operational reality.
George highlighted that:
- BIM models often do not reflect what is actually installed.
- Post-construction changes rarely update digital models properly.
- O&M manuals and drawings may be updated separately, but not integrated back into BIM workflows.
This led to wider concerns around:
- poor asset data,
- incomplete golden thread records,
- and lack of operational validation.
- Continuous Auditing & Live Safety Systems
A major conclusion from the session was that:
Safety management must be a continuous process.
Ian criticised organisations that:
- create safety documents,
- “put them on a shelf,”
- and never revisit them.
The group discussed:
- live audits,
- periodic reviews,
- risk reassessments,
- operational inspections,
- and digital validation workflows.
Examples included:
- overloaded sockets,
- obstructed escape routes,
- e-bike battery charging,
- unauthorised chemicals,
- and missed assets during surveys.
- CDM Regulations & Industry Accountability
Adam from Currie & Brown argued strongly that:
- many of these obligations already exist under CDM regulations,
- but are poorly enforced in practice.
Key observations:
- FM teams should be involved from RIBA Stage 1.
- Generic risk registers add little value.
- Effective CDM implementation can significantly improve asset information quality.
There was agreement that:
- stronger auditing,
- clearer accountability,
- and better enforcement
are still needed across the industry.
Final Outcome
The meeting concluded that:
- HAZOP methodologies could provide a practical framework for BIM-enabled safety management,
- continuous auditing and management-of-change processes are essential,
- and the industry still lacks reliable workflows connecting:
- BIM,
- asset management,
- safety systems,
- and operational facilities management.
Participants agreed to continue the workstream with future sessions focused on:
- practical scenarios,
- regulator-defined hazards,
- and validation/auditing workflows for the “golden thread” of information.