Field notes from the work itself.

What these are, and the standard they hold to

Construction publishing has a genre problem. Most of it is written to be found rather than to be read, by people who are not doing the work, about things that cannot be checked. We are a small business and we cannot compete on volume, so we are competing on the opposite thing: writing only about what we have actually built, operated or got wrong.

Four rules, and they are the reason these take a while to write.

• No invented statistics. Every figure is either something we can evidence from our own system, or it carries a link to a primary source you can check. Where we are stating a position rather than a fact, the sentence says so.
• Primary sources only. When a piece cites law, it links to legislation.gov.uk or to the Health and Safety Executive, not to somebody else's summary of it. Second-hand law is how the wrong instrument ends up cited in a tender document.
• No client is identifiable. Construction is small. A project is identifiable from its constraints alone, so nothing here names a client, a site or a supplier, and no example is drawn from a live engagement.
• We publish what did not work. A defect we found in our own system is more useful to a reader than a feature, and it is the only kind of writing that earns any trust at all.

Who writes them

These are written by the people running the engagements, not by an agency. ETABLIX is one accountable partner for the temporary site environment and workforce accommodation around the permanent works. It is not a main contractor: it does not build, design or commission the permanent asset. If something here is relevant to a project you are mobilising, we would rather talk about that project than about us.

Start with what we actually sell, how an engagement runs, or a specimen of the deliverable itself.