Unpacking professionalism in housing sector

Research impact

The lack of confidence and trust in the building industry and in building products is jeopardising one of Australia’s most critical industries. This research project directly confronts this challenge, by advancing theoretically sound and feasible means for professions to contribute to rebuilding trust in the construction industry. Improved professional standards, a more rigorous building integrity system, and the means by which to measure impacts of change will assist professions, trades and regulators, individually and collectively, in delivering the public good of reliable buildings. The outcomes will help the Australian industry create buildings that are well designed, constructed, and maintained as well as appreciated by their occupants. This will benefit local employment, investment and business opportunities, as well as bringing the social and cultural benefits associated with consumer and community confidence.

Read our Industry Report. The report summarises key findings from the three-year study and was done in close consultation with the Professional Standards Council. The report was presented to industry stakeholders at two comprehensive workshops: in New South Wales in June 2024 and in Queensland in August 2024. A list of organisations that participated in the workshop can be found here. Feedback from workshop participants has been incorporated into this final version.

Research team

Torrens University Australia

• Professor Kerry London (Chief Investigator)
• Associate Professor Zelinna Pablo (Chief Investigator)
• Dr Barbara Bok (Research Assistant)

Griffith University

• Professor Charles Samford (Chief Investigator)
• Professor Rodney Stewart (Chief Investigator)
• Associate Professor Sacha Reid (Chief Investigator)
• Associate Professor Cheryl Desha (Chief Investigator)
• Professor Paul Burton (Chief Investigator)
• Dr Hugh Breakey (Senior Research Fellow)
• Dr Katja Cooper (Research Fellow & Project Manager)

University of New South Wales

• Prof Michael Ostwald (Chief Investigator)
• Associate Professor Hazel Easthope (Chief Investigator)
• Dr Charlie Gillon (Research Assistant)

Curtin University

• Professor John Phillimore (Chief Investigator)
• Professor Keith Hampson (Chief Investigator)
• Elizabeth Bazen (Research Assistant)

The Administering Organisation was Griffith University.

Research question

What role can professions and professional standards play in rebuilding trust and confidence in the building industry?

Research aims

1. What are the goals and values of professionals and trades within the building industry, and do their existing regulation, monitoring and ethics codes support the achievement of those goals and values?
2. Do the above elements contribute to an effective building integrity system by complementing each other, reinforcing each other when they are doing the right thing, and checking them when they are not?
3. How can standards be raised in the building industry through improvements to individual professions, their interactions and their relation to the overall building integrity system?

Research approach

The project investigated professionals working within the construction of residential developments of 4+ storeys— where the most spectacular problems have emerged and the point at which home warranty insurance diverges. The project examined the building integrity systems in Queensland, NSW, WA and Victoria. While both the industry (built environment) and the occupations (professions) are new applications, this project will draw upon methodologies developed by IEGL and its predecessors over three decades. The project’s central methodology was based on the approach focussed on Integrity Systems. This methodology will examine in detail the components and existing relationships that constitute the current building integrity system (however weak). It does this by asking how well the various professional associations, regulatory bodies, other relevant institutions, legislation, regulations and codes, as well as the values under which they operate, work together supportively and cooperatively to achieve maximum mutual support and coordination. An integrity system’s effectiveness depends on the interaction between its elements. A key part of the research design was to interview those at each ‘end’ of these interactions—asking what they need from others and what others need from them. This helps to highlight potential gaps, risks and system weakness. Finally, system mapping develops a model of the entire building integrity system, to highlight the system’s strengths and weaknesses.

A key research outcome was the Influence Diagrams and how within and across professions various factors influence the residential housing professional integrity systems. There were four research phases:

Research phase 1: Individual professions

Phase 1 activities were designed to answer Research Aim I’s research question and involved:

• Desk research on professions: Desk research was conducted in the four States (Queensland, NSW, WA and Victoria), the Commonwealth and comparative jurisdictions, examining relevant primary and academic literatures for ethical standard setting, legal regulation, codes and value statements, culture, remuneration and economic incentives for the relevant occupations (including professions, quasi-professions and trades).
• Field research: Field Research was a major part of the Project’s first year. Phase 1 Field Research involved the CIs performing in total more than 10 interviews in their respective home states. There were also small groups discussions with senior members of relevant occupations, professions and professional firms across the four states. The small group discussions were profession-specific (and usually state-specific), and brought together senior professionals, firms and regulators to compare and consolidate findings.
• Workshop 1: The workshops were larger, cross-disciplinary events that drew together engaged academics and reflective practitioners to explore specific topics. Background papers were prepared using data and results from Phase 1 Desktop and Field Research.
  
  

Research phase 2: Professions in organisations: Interactions & comparisons

Phase 2 activities were designed to answer Research Aim 2’s research question and involved:

• Desk research on organisations: Desk research, similar in scope and theme to that in Phase 1 were performed, but in this case applied to organisations and institutions that employ professionals—either in-house, through contract or various procurement mechanisms.
• Field research on organisations: Field research, similar in scope (10-12 interviews per CI) and theme to that in Phase 1 were performed, interviewing senior members of construction companies, regulators and watchdogs. (Note that there was no hard distinction between Phase 1 and 2, and in cases where efficiencies and synergies can arise in consolidating Phase 1 and 2 fieldwork, such opportunities will be utilised.)
• Workshop 2: Background and conceptual papers on professions in organisations were created from the desk and field research.
  
  

Research phase 3: Professions in the building integrity system

Phase 3 activities were designed to answer Research Aim 3’s research question and involved:

• Mapping the building integrity system: The process used results from the desk and field research to describe professional codes and associations, regulation and regulatory bodies, industry bodies and their interactions.
• Research Workshop 4: Explored the ways the various system elements interrelate, and drew on perspectives about existing conditions and ideas for reform.
  
  

Research phase 4: Reform recommendations and measurement

Phase 4 activities were designed to answer Research Aim 4’s research question and Phase 4 delivered the critical practical reform recommendations which are the project’s ultimate outputs. The primary emphasis in integrity systems research is to more effectively utilise existing institutions (including regulators and watchdogs), especially by building links between them to help them to be mutually supportive. However, sometimes the research will suggest that new bodies, generally of the kind found in other jurisdictions, would improve system integrity. Our Recommendations did in fact highlight new ‘entities’. Phase 4 Activities involved:

• Workshop 3: Background papers on recommendations for reform were prepared. Workshop 3 will focused on honing individual reform proposals for professions, institutions and the larger regulatory and legislative context.
• Workshop 4: Validated again the findings with Queensland stakeholders and explored whether potential reforms might be contradictory or mutually reinforcing. To assist this assessment the workshop explored Influence Diagrams and resulting Bayessian Network structure developed by TUA team.
  
  

Academic publications

Forthcoming.

List of participating organisations Sydney workshop 21 June 2024	List of participating organisations Queensland workshop 13 August 2024
Australian Institute of Building Surveyors	Australian Institute of Architects
Engineers Australia	Australian Property Institute
Mazars	Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors’ Association
NSW Fair Trading	Natural Hazards Research Australia
Strata Community Association	Australian Institute of Landscape Architects
Weir Legal and Consulting	Engineers Australia
Chartered Institute of Building	National Association of Women in Construction
Australian Property Institute	Australian Institute of Building
Local Government NSW	Master Builders Association
NSW Architects Registration Board	Department of Energy and Climate
Australian Institute of Architects	Professional Standards Authority
Victorian Building Authority	Professional Standards Council
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors	Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works
	Queensland Building and Construction Commission