Smart Buildings: What’s next for the MSI?

Last week, our Commercial Director, Jess Costanzo, took part in a panel that kicked around the question that’s been lingering in our industry for years: are Master Systems Integrators becoming obsolete?  

Hosted by Matt O’Halloran of Smart Spaces, experts from across the delivery landscape of digital buildings came together to debate what was next for the MSI. In the hot seats alongside Jess were Dan Watson of Hereworks, Mike Hook of LMG, Linden Stephens of British Land – and whilst there was a healthy discussion around the changing role of the MSI and what vendors and clients alike need, a different question emerged – why do smart building deployments still takes so long, and what we can all do to fix it? 

British Land are at the forefront of Smart Building Deployment right now, and that’s because they have developed robust frameworks with a kaizen mentality. We are talking 400+ page detailed Asset Modelling Guides, Smart Building Design Guidelines that are actively revised with lessons learned from every project to continually improve implementation. This level of detail has managed to reduce intelligent building deployment from months to weeks.

Where do the Simmtronic fit in?  Not through some revolutionary new technology, but by doing something perhaps straightforward: making our assets self-reporting via native MQTT. 

This wasn’t innovation in isolation. It was a direct response to clients like British Land who were setting standards that made sense. Linden Stevens described their approach as being “90% towards a plug-and-play model” – built on those two key documents: the Asset Modelling Guide and a Smart Building Design Guide. These aren’t aspirational white papers; they’re practical tools that define how assets should communicate and establish clear data strategies.  

The bit that Linden feels is still missing? Design consideration for the digital building from RIBA Stage 2. Stage 2, not Stage 4. Design integration, not bolt-on solutions. 

Dan and Mike were inclined to agree; whilst both Hereworks and LMG have taken on the role of MSI in a more traditional sense in the past, both companies have taken steps towards the role of a “Digital Buildings Contractor” – taking more ownership of the delivery of the core infrastructure that enables smart building deployments, getting the job done and being accountable for it, rather than validating data sets and converting data into the right format regardless of protocol. 

Here’s what we’ve learned: the technology for smart buildings is largely there, at least for today’s vision of what smart means for most. Self-reporting assets that communicate via standardized protocols aren’t science fiction; they’re available now. The challenge isn’t making clever technology; it’s getting everyone in the supply chain aligned to use it properly. 

When Jess spoke about our native MQTT deployment, she wasn’t just talking about our product roadmap. She was highlighting what becomes possible when manufacturers design for interoperability from the start. No data conversion layers. No middleware translating between protocols. Just assets that speak a common language from day one, utilising the robust asset modelling frameworks provided.  

But (and this is critical) even with the right technology, we’re still seeing projects where only 50% of lighting assets are properly tagged by practical completion. The technology works. The processes around it? Not always. 

Linden’s point about British Land’s guides resonated strongly with us because it mirrors what we see across our client base. The projects that run smoothly aren’t necessarily the ones with the most budget or the most sophisticated technology. They’re the ones where someone has defined what success looks like before ground is broken. 

Smart-enabled drawings that uniquely name sensors, lights, fan coils. Asset lists that reflect reality, not aspirational thinking. Data point definitions that everyone—from design through to facilities management—understands and agrees upon. These aren’t exciting innovations, but they’re the foundation that makes everything else possible. 

Yet British Land remains somewhat of an outlier. As Jess noted during the panel, many projects lack this kind of structured framework. That’s where things get complicated, expensive, and slow. And that’s where the industry still needs help, not because the technology isn’t ready, but because the processes aren’t. The panellists agreed – and here is a place that the existing skill set of the forward deployed engineering types that make up the majority of Master Systems Integrators could adapt and excel, putting that practical implementation experience to use in a changing landscape. 

Dan Watson made a point during the discussion that probably made a few people uncomfortable: the biggest smart building challenge is procurement. It’s broken, it’s too late in the project lifecycle, and it’s fundamentally misaligned with how smart buildings actually need to be delivered. 

This hits home for us as a manufacturer. We can make the most interoperable, standards-compliant, easy-to-deploy products in the world, but without clear data requirements and in a system where saving 00’s in capital expense is prioritised over delivering value, we’re all just making expensive problems. 

The panel consensus was clear: smart building requirements need embedding at RIBA Stage 2, ideally with a dedicated digital main contractor overseeing the process. Until procurement catches up with technical capability, we’re going to keep seeing the same delays and complications. 

This isn’t a criticism of procurement professionals; it’s a recognition that our industry hasn’t given them the tools and frameworks to do their jobs effectively in the smart building context. Bullet-proof employer’s requirements and a more detailed level of consideration at an earlier stage of project design could be the game changer – particularly if we go with Dan Watson’s suggestion; identify success metrics rather than listing use cases, and actually measure them. 

Jess made a point about innovation that reflects our philosophy at Simmtronic: it must be driven by market demand and partnership, not vendors working in isolation. 

We’ve doubled down on self-reporting lighting because clients like British Land asked for it, and because we could see how it solved real problems across multiple projects. That collaborative approach lets us build reusable solutions that deploy across many buildings, reducing risk and improving outcomes each time. 

But vendor innovation is only valuable when it connects to actual client needs. We can’t innovate our way out of poor asset tagging. We can’t make a product so good it compensates for unclear data ownership. And we certainly can’t fix procurement. 

What we can do is remain flexible and responsive. When a client presents a challenge, we look for solutions that don’t just work for that one project but can scale across their portfolio and potentially across the industry. That’s how British Land’s forward-thinking approach influenced our product development, which then benefits our entire client base. 

The panel didn’t reach consensus on whether MSIs are becoming obsolete, and honestly, that might be because it’s the wrong question. The better question is: how do we get to a place where smart building deployment is fast, reliable, and delivers the outcomes clients actually need? 

Based on the discussion and our own experience, here’s what needs to happen: 

Manufacturers need to step up. We’re calling on our peers to adopt self-reporting capabilities as standard. Make it the default, not an optional feature. Design for MQTT and other open standards from the ground up. Make procurement easier for clients by reducing the complexity of smart deployment. 

Clients need to take ownership earlier. Asset naming, data requirements, and service catalogues can’t be afterthoughts. The British Land model works because they’ve defined what they need upfront. More clients need to do the same, even if it means investing in expertise at earlier stages. There are consulting experts industry wide raring to go when it comes to supporting in this area. 

The industry needs better frameworks. The smart enablement playbook that Linden mentioned can’t come soon enough – BMS control guides standardized building automation 20 years ago, so this shouldn’t be out of reach. We need practical, accessible guidance that helps everyone deliver better outcomes. 

Consultants and integrators need earlier engagement. Getting digital building consultants and MSIs involved at RIBA Stage 2 isn’t an unnecessary expense; it’s how you avoid much larger expenses later. The industry needs to shift from viewing smart buildings as a construction challenge to seeing them as a full lifecycle commitment. 

Jess predicted slow improvement in design quality over the next five to ten years, especially outside leading clients like British Land. That’s probably realistic. Industry-wide change doesn’t happen overnight, particularly in construction where processes are deeply embedded, and risk aversion is culturally strong. 

But that doesn’t mean we sit back and wait. At Simmtronic, we’re committed to making our part of the equation as straightforward as possible. Self-reporting assets. Native MQTT. Clear documentation. Close collaboration with clients to understand their real needs, not just their stated requirements. 

We can’t fix the industry on our own, but we can make sure that when clients are ready to move faster, our technology isn’t the bottleneck. 

The future of smart buildings isn’t about any single technology or any single role becoming obsolete. It’s about an ecosystem where manufacturers, consultants, integrators, contractors, and clients all understand their part in delivering buildings that work as intended from day one. 

Technology like ours accelerates deployment from months to weeks—but only when it’s part of a properly structured process. Standards create consistency—but only when they’re adopted widely and embedded early. Innovation solves problems—but only when it’s driven by real client needs and delivered through partnership. 

We’re fortunate to work with clients who understand this. And we’re committed to helping more of the industry get there. 

Because ultimately, smart buildings aren’t about being smart—they’re about being better. Better for occupants, better for operations, better for owners, and better for the planet. Getting there faster means we can deliver those benefits sooner. 

That’s worth the effort. 

Want to discuss how self-reporting assets could work in your projects? We’re always happy to talk through real challenges and explore practical solutions. Get in touch with our team to start the conversation.