In attendance:
Mike Hook Co-owner/Founder, LMG
Nick Cooper Sales Director, Onesight Solutions
Tony Carter Group Energy & Sustainability Director, ABEC
Matt Jennings Principal Consultant, Turner & Townsend
Tom Michael Digital Building Regional Lead (UK & Ireland)|Senior Associate, NDY
Keith Walsh MD, MeterXpert
Brahm Lategan Systems & Solutions Lead, Buro Happold
Graeme Rees Global EcoXpert Leader, Schneider Electric
Matt Wallace UK&I Sales Director - Channel, Schneider Electric
At a recent industry roundtable hosted by Schneider Electric and Smart Buildings Magazine, consultants, system integrators, distributors, and manufacturers sat down to discuss how the channel creates value for the smart buildings community — and what's getting in the way. The answer depends entirely on where you sit in the chain. That, several participants agreed, is the problem.
The accountability gap
System integrators are meant to be the glue holding a smart building together, coordinating mechanical, electrical, lighting, and metering systems into one coherent whole. But glue only works if it's allowed to bond everything.
Participants described a familiar scenario: a Master Systems Integrator (MSI) is appointed under a main contractor but given no direct line to the trades they're supposed to coordinate and limited access to the end client and their objectives. Communication gets funnelled through the general contractor, turning quick conversations into monthly workshops. Contractual position, not competence, often determines what an integrator can actually deliver — even the best integrator can't act on responsibilities that were never written into their contract.
One fix some firms are trialling: bringing MSIs in earlier, sometimes ahead of the main contractor, so coordination authority is established before project politics take hold.
Nobody knows what they want
The most striking admission of the day: most clients don't actually know what they want from a "smart" building. Estimates from the room put it at roughly half of clients arriving with any real vision — and only a fifth of those carrying it through to completion intact.
Why does it collapse? A vision needs a translator — someone tying technical decisions back to business value, cost, and consequence. Without an internal champion doing that job, decisions splinter across silos: IT wants one thing, OT another, facilities management has its own agenda, and cost consultants quietly trim scope to fit budget. Everyone nods along in the workshop; nobody owns the outcome. Systems integrators will often pick up the mantle and deliver much more than contracted to do as its simpler and easier to "just get on with it" . But this is at their own commercial risk.
There are no dumb buildings anymore
Cybersecurity ran through nearly every part of the discussion, summed up in one line: there are no dumb buildings left. Every modern building is now a digital and physical target, from unsecured smart meters nobody can locate to legacy protocols hijacked with off-the-shelf hardware.
The deeper tension is philosophical. IT exists to protect data; OT exists to protect life and physical assets. Merging those mindsets without diluting either remains one of the industry's hardest unsolved problems — made harder by construction's "build it and walk away" habit, which sits badly with technology's need for constant updating and monitoring.
Where do the people come from?
The skills conversation was, if anything, thornier than the technology one. Unlike traditional trades, there's still no established qualification pathway into smart buildings. It was pointed out that there is the BMS Apprenticeship instigated by the BCIA. which is an apprenticeship path for BMS engineers. Most professionals arrive sideways — from IT security, electrical trades, even military systems backgrounds — and get trained on the job.
The room largely agreed the ideal hire isn't the deepest technical specialist but a systems thinker: someone who holds the big picture, admits what they don't know, and translates technical risk into language a budget-holder will act on. Graduate rotations, cross-sector training partnerships, and data-centre-style schools outreach were cited as early steps, but the consensus was that these efforts remain patchy against the scale of the gap.
What do partners want from manufacturers
The session closed on a direct question from Graeme: Asking as a manufacturer: what does good support look like?
The answers were candid. Transparency topped the list, particularly when integrators flag bugs or vulnerabilities, rather than being met with defensiveness. Participants also wanted genuinely modular, future-proofed products built for multi-decade roadmaps, not just rapid iteration cycles, plus shared testing environments to build trust and catch problems before they reach site. For the wider distribution channel, the ask was simpler: competitive pricing and reliable availability.
The takeaway
Across contracts, vision, cybersecurity, skills, and manufacturer support, the same undercurrent kept surfacing: smart buildings succeed or fail less on technology and more on alignment. Getting the right people talking early, with a shared understanding of value and risk, was framed as the real differentiator between a project that delivers and one that limps to a messy finish.