“Layton Consulting Fenestration Nerds” By Anton Van Dyk:Siloed Codes and Siloed Design: what is the most important?

Have you ever had an argument or debate with someone on what is most important? Have you just gone around in circles getting nowhere as you both saw your bias as most important? A few years ago, I was introduced to a “context” exercise. It was designed to bring awareness that with the lack of context both can be right and both can be wrong. The exercise uses fruit. By asking: “What is the best fruit?” you can get a plethora of answers and a debate will ensue. Now if I ask: “what fruit has the most vitamin C?” it will narrow the answer down and reduce the overall debate to the facts. Orange or lemon?

This process was an eye-opener for me and so I started applying this exercise to the start of some of my presentations. Especially the hot-button topics that always bring on debate. I would simply ask: “What is a high-performance window?” I would get Passive House, U0.8, U1.22, triple glazed, low SHGC, high SHGC, OITC 35, PG50, Class CW, tilt and turn, casements vs. sliders, European product and the answer just kept flowing. The issue was that I didn't provide enough context for the question, and the answers gave me insight into what the audience found most important.

With this in mind, I started to see natural trends pop up in other meetings with manufacturers, designers and regulators. What each individual felt was most important, would dominate the situation, and in some cases at a negative outcome to another individual’s needs. What occurred to me was that we were having a “best fruit” debate.

So, I started to call this Siloed Design or Siloed Codes. This is where an individual amplifies what they feel is most important in the moment without understanding the impact of other individuals’ needs. Like in any relationship, a give/take is fundamental and without empathy for how others feel about a situation, you are going to struggle to get your point across.

So, I started to see examples in the Fenestration industry where this happens all the time. As more and more regulators adopt “climate emergency” policy into codes and standards, you will see a trend in codes move in this direction, but at what consequence? There are two good examples that I see too often. The first one is when an acoustic design for windows demands a ¾” to 1” air space in the Insulated Glazing Unit (IGU). This will introduce convection currents in the air space resulting in a reduction in U value performance. Maybe, to a level that no longer applies to the Step/Tier code. The second is when you renovate a window from double to triple glazing, the sash size may be reduced due to weight limits for durability on hardware and the operable window no longer meets egress. So, in this case, an individual has to determine what is most important. Energy or life safety. For some, this might appear obvious, but I have heard individuals say the “climate emergency” is also life safety. There is no simple answer other than recognizing first that there are multiple needs to be met.

Another example is when regulation and/or design pushes you into a high-risk environment. For example, the move towards project-specific thermal modelling for more accurate U values and SHGC is trending due to the desire for more accurate thermal values for total home energy calculations. This is a move away from standardization using NFRC or CSA for a manufacturer and now their outcomes in performance have to be calculated for each project. This move away from a standard, will put risk onto a manufacturer to meet the actual targets that they are not used to providing.

The other high risk, that this triggers, is a contractual risk. When you move away from standardization in performance metrics, a manufacturer will need to provide a product cost that meets a project-specific outcome. The question is, when is this calculation done before a contract is signed or after? In theory, this needs to be done before, but that will add significant costs to the estimating process driving up Overheads and increasing construction costs even more. Or it can be done after a contract is awarded, which brings on risk in the event that the manufacturer cannot hit the project-specific outcome with their features.

The 3rd example is a recent one where I was asked to review a new “wildfire reliance” code that would be implemented in regions at risk of wildfire. When I saw the fenestration section, I realized very fast that the product they were requiring to be used, would struggle to meet the U value requirements of Step 3 of the BC step code.

The new debate is fall production vs. egress. This one is still being debated at a high level and as it comes with the risk of people falling out of buildings and people not being able to escape from a building, you can see how hard this decision is.

These are just a few examples of why any change in how we function as an industry needs a full spectrum assessment of all impacts. We cannot take what is most important to one individual and run with it. Like any change in any business, knowing its impact on people and the overall community is step #1.

My goal in the industry is to be the voice for the integration of what is required and to assist with how the decision is made on what is most important. We cannot ignore one issue for the benefit of another so all we can do is be educated on their impacts and use this to make good decisions as a team. This is why I stress the importance of knowing the code and how to use the code to make decisions.

I’m offering a half-day fenestration code workshops for a wide range of audiences. If this is of interest send me an email at anton@laytonconsulting.com.