Bali building risk register

When is a register needed?

As soon as an asset has several documents, conversations or observations that cannot honestly be reduced to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It is especially useful when records from owner, manager, contractor and professional cover different periods.

What is known and what to verify

1. Describe the question, not a label

The phrase ‘water issue’ is useless: it does not say where, when, who noticed it or what is already known. Better: ‘a manager message for this period mentions a report for a specified area; completion and cause are unclear from available records’. That gives the next person a point to answer.

The same rule applies to every alarming phrase. ‘Document risk’ should be expanded into the missing or conflicting record, its period, holder of the answer and an applicability question. Then the register helps decide rather than producing a background of anxiety.

2. Every line has evidence and a boundary

In the ‘basis’ column, name not an impression but a specific record: message, invoice, log, photo, agreement, reply or viewing note. Beside it, keep the boundary: a message does not confirm cause; an invoice does not prove quality; a photo does not show before and after; an oral reply does not replace a record.

This honesty does not weaken a register. It protects a buyer from false certainty and makes it faster to see which exact record, access or professional is still needed.

3. Formal context is a separate line

PP 16/2021 provides national framework for building administration. SIMBG describes electronic processes associated with PBG, SLF, SBKBG and building data. These sources help frame a question about formal material and who can confirm its status.

They do not turn a register entry into an answer for a selected building. Presence or absence of a record in a private folder, an intermediary’s assurance or an old copy should not replace directed verification with the competent party for the actual transaction.

4. Link the question to a decision, not a panic level

A useful last column asks: ‘what changes after the answer?’ For example: can evidence gathering continue, is a separate inspection needed, can document handover be agreed, or should a particular next step pause pending clarification. This is not asset scoring; it is sequence management.

If an answer changes no action, the line is probably too general. Specify the asset, period or expected confirmation before asking every participant to ‘deal with the risk’.

5. Close a question with evidence or carry it honestly

A line can be closed not because conversation stopped, but because understandable support appeared within its stated scope: record, access, reply from responsible party or result of agreed review. State date and what exactly became supported.

If an unknown remains before decision, do not hide it in an archive. Carry the line into a decision memo with owner of the next step and a date that is genuinely agreed, not imagined as a guarantee.

Decision steps

1. Collect observations

   List distinct observations from viewing, records and messages without assigning a diagnosis.

2. Attach basis

   For every line, state source, date, asset or system and its limitation.

3. Assign answer holder

   Identify who can actually explain this part: owner, manager, contractor, service or professional.

4. Name next step

   Record the specific evidence or action needed before decision.

5. Build the decision memo

   Carry open lines with owner, date and impact on the next step.

What to check