Performance Solutions have been part of the Australian building code landscape for nearly three decades. Yet even now, many see them as novel or fringe. In reality, they’ve always existed as a way to enable flexibility — recognising that good design doesn’t always follow a one-size-fits-all approach.

Under the National Construction Code (NCC), the usual compliance pathway is to follow Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) provisions — a clear, prescriptive set of rules. But the Code also allows for Performance Solutions: alternate ways to demonstrate that a design still meets the Code’s intent. This isn’t just about ticking boxes — it’s about proving that your approach upholds key outcomes like safety, accessibility, sustainability, and amenity.

As project demands increase — tighter budgets, faster programs, more ambitious design targets — the need for alternative approaches is only growing. But it’s important to understand that Performance Solutions aren’t just technical workarounds. They’re a structured part of a broader compliance ecosystem that’s ultimately about one thing: risk management.

The NCC is a Risk Management Framework

At its core, the NCC isn’t just a collection of technical specs. It’s a risk filter — a national agreement on acceptable risk in the built environment. It addresses everything from life safety and structural reliability to environmental performance and social equity. Over decades, it has absorbed legislation, theory, lived experience, and expert review to create an ecosystem of compliance that balances building needs with public trust.

DtS provisions are simply the codified version of that balance. So when you deviate from DtS — even for good reasons — you’re stepping outside a highly interconnected system of assurance checks. A decision that feels minor in isolation may introduce uncertainty into a risk management structure that depends on many interlocking risk filters.

That’s why a Performance Solution isn’t just about proving an outcome is “OK” in isolation — it’s about understanding and managing the uncertainty around it. In a tightly balanced system, removing a single element might do nothing or it might trigger systemic failure in a very real game of “Risk Jenga”.

Risk Needs a Framework — Not Just Expertise

Abrahamson’s well-known principle says risks should be allocated to the party best able to manage them. But in complex construction projects, risks are often shared, interdependent, or not fully visible. That makes it hard to assign accountability — especially when design innovation is involved.

Now consider the role of the building surveyor. They’re responsible for approving a Performance Solution, but they aren’t specialists in every domain — nor should they be. Without a clear structure, they’re being asked to take on liability based on little more than professional assurances. That’s not fair — and it’s not functional.

This is where the Performance Solution pathway plays a vital role.

A Better Model for Risk

The Performance Solution process is structured to broadly address the inherent risks found in innovation. It brings transparency, accountability, and evidence into a space that otherwise could rely too heavily on trust. It purposely includes requirements beyond the specifics of the DtS deviation's validation:

• Engaging relevant stakeholders

• Defining the reasons for deviating from DtS

• Aligning with NCC validation methods

• Clarifying what compliance looks like

• Acknowledging report limitations

• Justifying supporting assumptions and evidence

This way is acts as a dual-layered form of risk management: not only proving the alternate approach is valid, but also framing it in a way that non-experts can review with more confidence, and the practitioner proposing it is forced to consider the broader context of their proposal. That’s what makes the process itself is so important — and sometimes so demanding. The rigor isn’t just more "red tape" — it makes risk-managed innovation possible.