Skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours. SKEB has become an increasingly familiar acronym in construction as the industry grapples with new expectations around competence. On paper, the four elements sound reasonably straightforward, but applying them to a real project is rather less so.
Architectural ironmongery is a good example because competent specification rarely depends on one piece of knowledge or one particular skill. It comes from understanding the requirements of the door, knowing the relevant standards and products, drawing on experience of similar situations and having the professional judgement to recognise when something needs to be questioned. So what might SKEB actually look like in practice?
Skills: being able to apply what you know
There is a difference between knowing about architectural ironmongery and being able to produce a coordinated specification for a building. An architectural ironmonger may need to interpret architectural drawings and door schedules, establish the performance requirements for individual doors, select compatible products and coordinate the hardware with the door and frame. Depending on the project, that could involve fire performance, accessibility, security, means of escape, access control and automatic operation.
The skill lies partly in bringing all that information together. A product may be perfectly suitable for one requirement but create a problem elsewhere. A closer capable of reliably closing a particular fire door, for example, must also be considered in relation to the people opening it. An electrically controlled door still needs to meet the relevant escape and fire safety requirements.
Producing an ironmongery schedule is therefore not simply an administrative exercise. It involves interpreting information, identifying conflicts and turning a complex set of requirements into something that can be procured, installed and used.
Knowledge: knowing what sits behind the specification
Architectural ironmongery is a technical discipline, and the knowledge base behind a specification can be extensive.
Standards govern products and their performance; requirements arise from the Building Regulations and fire strategy, accessibility guidance, test and certification evidence, and manufacturers’ instructions and limitations. The architectural ironmonger also needs a detailed understanding of the products themselves: how they work, where they can be used, and what happens when different components come together on a door set.
That knowledge also needs to keep pace with the industry. Standards and products change, as does the evidence supporting where and how products can be used. Experience from previous projects is valuable, but it still needs to be checked against current requirements.
Another kind of knowledge matters too: knowing what you don’t know. Modern door specifications can bring architectural ironmongery into contact with increasingly sophisticated access control, automation and building management systems, as well as specialist requirements in sectors such as healthcare. Competence doesn’t require one person to be an expert in every discipline, but it does require them to recognise where additional expertise is needed.
Experience: learning what happens outside the specification
Experience gives context to technical knowledge. It is where the lessons from previous projects, unusual doors, difficult interfaces and problems encountered on site start to inform the next specification.
An experienced architectural ironmonger may recognise that a detail which looks straightforward on a drawing could cause difficulties during installation. They may have encountered a similar door construction or know that a particular combination of hardware needs closer examination. They can draw on previous projects without assuming that what worked before will automatically work again.
That final distinction is important. Length of service and competence are not interchangeable. Twenty or thirty years in architectural ironmongery can provide enormous depth of experience, but experience remains useful only when combined with current knowledge and applied to the particular work being undertaken.
Nor does someone need to have encountered every possible situation personally. Part of working within a competent organisation is having access to the experience of colleagues and specialists and knowing when to draw on it.
Behaviours: what do you do when something doesn’t look right?
Behaviours are perhaps the most interesting part of SKEB because they take competence beyond what somebody knows and can do into how they act professionally.
Building Safety Regulator guidance is quite clear about some of the behaviours expected of competent people. They should recognise the limits of their competence, refuse work beyond those limits, refuse to carry out work that would not comply with the Building
Regulations, and seek help where necessary. Those behaviours have very practical implications for architectural ironmongery.
- What happens when a proposed substitution doesn’t have the evidence required for the door set?
- What if the hardware shown on a drawing conflicts with another performance requirement?
- What if information needed to make a safe specification decision simply isn’t available?
The competent response isn’t to assume and keep the schedule moving. It is to ask the question, request the evidence, raise the concern or involve somebody with the expertise needed to resolve it.
The same applies when commercial pressures enter the equation. Alternative products and value engineering are a normal part of construction, but changing a safety-critical component because it is cheaper or more readily available cannot be separated from its performance and compatibility with the rest of the door set. Competent behaviour includes being prepared to challenge a change where the evidence doesn’t support it.
SKEB works together
Separating competence into skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours is useful because it makes us look beyond qualifications or job titles. In practice, however, the four elements constantly overlap.
Consider an architect asking whether a particular piece of hardware can be substituted on a fire door. Answering properly could require technical knowledge of the product and relevant evidence, the skill to interpret that information in the context of the door set, experience of similar applications and the professional behaviour to say no if the evidence isn’t sufficient.
The same combination comes into play when balancing opening forces and reliable closing, integrating access control with door hardware or dealing with an unusual door construction. It is the combination of the four elements, applied to the work in front of you, that matters.
This is also why competence has to be maintained. CPD and technical training help keep knowledge current, while project experience continues to develop skills and judgement. Behaviours determine how you use that knowledge and experience when decisions become difficult.
For clients, architects, and contractors appointing an architectural ironmonger, SKEB provides a useful way to look beyond the obvious questions about qualifications and years in the industry. The better question is whether the person, and the organisation behind them, has the combination of current knowledge, practical ability, relevant experience and professional judgement that the project actually requires.
Putting SKEB into practice
For Em-B, competence is something that needs to be developed, maintained and applied to every project. As the GAI‘s Number 1 GuildMark member, we have a longstanding commitment to professional standards and continuing development across our team.
That combination of skills, current technical knowledge, practical experience, and professional judgement informs how we approach architectural ironmongery specification. It also means recognising when a project needs additional specialist input and drawing on the wider expertise within Em-B when required.
If you would like to involve our team in an upcoming architectural ironmongery project, talk to us about your specification requirements.
