For the past few days I have been running a poll, which is still live, on DGB which is asking readers if they trust the industry bodies, groups, organisations and institutions. As the headline of this post suggests, the results are not good at all.
Poll
Confidence crisis?
At the time of writing this post the percentage of people who answered “yes” stood at a miserable 15%. Those who voted “no” hovered just under the half way mark at 49% with the remainder still not quite sure whether they trust them or not. There is no amount of spin or turn polish that can make these figures look good. There is a confidence crisis.
Some of the comments left on here and on social media give an indication as to some of the extreme scepticism many who work in the industry have of our biggest groups and institutions. I get the feeling that many believe a lot of the bodies are there for the money, whilst proving little tangible benefit to them or the wider industry.
As with most things, the negative commentary always gets more air time than the positive stuff. I refuse to believe that every group, body, organisation and institution is rotten and untrustworthy. However, there are a number of things which the aforementioned do not do very well, which I believe is the reason why so many of us have very little faith in them.
Poor communication
When you look at the big boys, the ones like FENSA, the GGF, the BFRC and so on, their communication is poor. That’s the only way to describe it.
You might see some sporadic tweets, then that dies down. A few press releases get sent around the various publications but they go largely unread. There is nothing sustained. There is very little engagement with the industry in general on the modern mediums. Yet communication is so basic and vital. How are you supposed to keep the industry you serve up to date regularly if there is no communication?
I’ll give you an example. Do we remember when FENSA threatened to freeze the accounts of companies who failed to comply to the new MTC regulations? If so, you may also remember that due to such a large section of the industry not bothering to pull it’s finger out, FENSA had to create an emergency secondary route of compliance, otherwise it would have had to cut off a massive portion of the industry from themselves, which obviously wasn’t going to happen. However, what you may not know is that FENSA are actually carrying out their threats to freeze companies from FENSA until they get their house in order. I was reliably informed of this fact a few days ago.
So whilst they go about actually carrying out their threats of action, we have all been thinking that they have been typically inactive, letting everyone get away with it. Which in fact is not the case. But because they have failed to communicate this fact to the industry in any meaningful way, this bit of good news which could have changed a few minds about the organisation has slipped away unnoticed.
Ideas started, with little show of progress
Another good recent example of problems would be the recently formed Glazing Supply Chain Group. This is a body of bodies created with the aim to:
- To represent the supply chain in the glazing industry and act as the collective “voice of the industry” to Government (local, national and European) and related organisations post and pre-election 2015.
- To promote the benefits of energy efficient glass and glazing and highlight the environmental advantages to key Government departments.
- To increase awareness of the Group in the construction industry and in the political arenas.
- To increase the size of the Group and involve (unite) more trade bodies who share the Group’s core messages and who will endorse the Group’s activities for the good/benefit of the industry.
- To maintain a non-commercial, independent, clear and progressive messages on behalf of the Glazing Supply Chain.
It was formed in April 2015, yet the launch has been the only thing I have seen from them. Their website has very little information or up to date news items. And I wonder if there was really the need to create another body, especially one consisting of other bodies.
This is a prime example of a good idea not being built upon, promoted and expanded. For a body that was created to help build a bigger voice, the industry has heard very little.
How to improve
For me, there are only a few ways the industry’s bodies and institutions can improve things, and the main way is communication. I don’t think anyone can argue that the levels of communication from the bodies that are supposed to be working for us have been generally poor.
If bodies like FENSA, the GGF and the rest started to regularly talk to the industry, across all mediums, got their messages across better, kept us all informed of things like the freezing of non-compliant accounts etc, then perhaps we’d see the better the good stuff they do, and cut back on the criticisms.
Communication is the key you reckon DGB , well for a start GGF and BFRC are very happy to try and sell their services on your blog, but ask them a tricky question and they run and hide , that is a pathetic way of promoting themselves and obvious for all to see. I am not at all surprised at the lack of faith in the institutions, for me the BFRC particularly. The GGF is full of very clever and dedicated individuals who spend a lot of their valuable time at meetings and technical committees that advance the industry no… Read more »
The BFRC scheme is based on an independent EU funded research project that was undertaken in 2003 (SAVE Contract – 4.1031/Z00-030/2000 – Establishment of European Window Energy Rating System – we could send you a copy if you like). That research project set out the solar gain (218.6) and heat loss (68.5) constants pertinent to the UK climate that have been a vital component in the rating of windows ever since. This year’s ECO WER project – again totally independent and again funded by the EU – places even more emphasis on solar gain as an element of window performance… Read more »
Thank you for the response BFRC , it doesn’t actually say anything , but at least its nice to know you will engage. If you will allow me the indulgence of taking a lot of what you say with a pinch of salt , actually , all of it really , as I believe there are a couple of fundamentals that you base all this on , that are not correct. Thanks for the offer of the SAVE document , I already have the final project report, I trust this is the document to which you refer , however, it… Read more »
Sorry to pester BFRC, but while you are busy not answering the previous 2 simple questions, can you point me to the EU register that shows the SAVE report that you state is funded by them. I only ask as I can’t find that reference on their CORDIS site which lists all EU funded papers.It has quite a good search function , but maybe I haven’t quite mastered it or it is having a bad day.
Many thanks
Hi BFRC Just for transparency ;) I have a couple of links below where yourselves and GGF have been a touch slow in responding , I dont want to call you out on it just yet, as you may still be trying to get to grips with what you are selling to the industry. But may I quote you from your comment above “BFRC does not shy away from answering ‘tricky questions’. It is our policy to answer any reasonable questions raised by the industry and homeowners, wherever they pose them, as quickly and as accurately as possible “ Are… Read more »
We would like to send you three research and source documents that reinforce our position and the independence of the basis of the BFRC scheme. The first of these – Deriving A and B factors for the UK climate based on standard EWERS methodology – was written by Dr Robin Kent in September 2003. This outlines the A (solar gain) and B (heat loss) constants on which the BFRC calculations are based. The ECO WER proposal we referenced in our post of 8/10, which was completely independent of the SAVE 2 project, has come up with constants that are very similar… Read more »
Many thanks for your response BFRC , unfortunately it doesn’t actually answer 2 of the simple questions I asked, does this mean you are in fact shying away from them? I though, will of course address your points in order and comment on the documents you refer 1 QUOTE “The first of these – Deriving A and B factors for the UK climate based on standard EWERS methodology – was written by Dr Robin Kent in September 2003. This outlines the A (solar gain) and B (heat loss) constants on which the BFRC calculations are based.” Thank you for the offer… Read more »
No response this week then , I am sorry my questions are quite so difficult to answer BFRC.
I will pop back and remind you that you don’t shy away from awkward questions next week then shall I ?
(That last sentence is rhetorical , I am not really expecting a reply to it to be honest , sorry for any confusion caused)
I realise I have been baiting you somewhat BFRC , but I think we are about at the end of my search for answers. I only now have 1 question and I will explain why . I have always believed that there was something very very wrong with the formula in your scheme and I have been asking for the evidence of the solar gain used for 6 years with no answer. From my first technical queery in 2009 when ‘phycisist and BFRC technical advisor’ Maurice Levitt told me that the BFRC did not have to justify it , I… Read more »
When asked on Twitter if he had read this blog page , the Vice President of the GGF stated
@AndrewGlover1: @ka11ern hi Kevin. Sorry, I don’t read blogs. To busy running the industry :-)
I guess that is a ‘no comment’ then :-(
We are emailing you the relevant pages of the EU contract for the SAVE programme which outlines the EU funding that was provided.
Thank you BFRC
One point I would note is that the project document number layout on the Final report are slightly different to the layout on this document , It may help in the search if I am looking for the correct document reference!
many thanks
Unfortunately the contract for project under the EU SAVE II program doesn’t quite answer the question, partly because the document not being signed makes it no more than a proposal at best. One of the terms of the contract is that the project data is sent to the CORDIS database, this would include the final account to report the EU financial contribution, however the CORDIS database have no record of this project at all, was the project actually commenced? If you could show the final account statement to show the actual monies paid by the EU rather than the proposals… Read more »
I have, since the last comment, recieved a copy of the final account from the BFRC, many thanks for that. This document raises a few questions that I have asked for clarification on and await responses. I will though make some observations, firstly, that although the BFRC claim that the project is EU funded it was not entirely funded by the EU , in fact only 49% was approved funding by the EU , and that the total budget was a staggering 635,752 Euros. WOW , Now to put that in context , the stated purpose that prompted the EU… Read more »