Grenfell Tower Fire = A look into the aspects of “minimum requerementa” “risk” and “modern technology” (BIM)

The Grenfell Tower fire resulted in the loss of 72 people. A series of events led to the tragedy that our construction industry must scrutinise beyond the public inquiry, which is still underway. The tower had recently undergone a £8.700.000 ‘revamp’ with the addition of a new cladding system, which seems to have allowed the fire to spread with catastrophic consequences. Disaster Risk Management framework was, and still is nonexistent in respect to Grenfell Tower and possible many other tall Tennant’s buildings. The de-centralisation and privatisation of key aspects of control and supervision of safety in buildings has been implemented by the neo-liberal policy of both Labour and Conservative governments in the past 30/40 years. Therefore this tragic event must be viewed as “the before and after” of a chapter in the serious study of the public interest/ versus profitable enterprise. A series of questions have been raised regarding the choice of materials, the detailing, the certification, the policies and regulations within the industry. The complex nature of the construction process and the crossover between the disciplines makes it difficult to allocate direct professional liability. This essay attempt to start the process of finding answers to the challenging aspects of Ethics in Construction. We start by exploring and counteract aspects of the established “minimum requirement” strategy of many Developers and designers, the Risk aspects encountered in the process of design , construction and use of the buildings and infrastructure; plus the possibilities of using modern digital technology to aid the design, construction and occupation process from a Risk management framework perspective. What lessons can be learnt in terms of professional development and ethics for such an tragic event to be avoided in the future?