Elaine Knutt, Editor CM
Our Alternative Stirling Prize delivered some interesting insights. Not just in revealing the behind-the-scenes stories of buildings that are normally presented to the public only in the most flattering of lights, but in the contrasting mindsets of the project teams and the judging panel.
Interviewing the designers and contractors, most discussed the projects in familiar terms. They assessed their own work in terms of programme, budget and quality; they valued the spirit of compromise that prevailed during the value engineering; they mentioned the building’s energy efficiency and compliance with Part L.
But when it came to the judging session, our expert panel judged the projects against rather higher standards than they judged themselves. Again and again, the panel commented that programme, budget and quality should be a given; that Part L 2006 — even for projects designed in 2006 — is really just the baseline; that value engineering is all very well, but the best of the best should be saving money by adding innovative ideas, not cutting out the frills that shouldn’t be there in the first place; that sustainability is about conserving resources and carbon as well as operational energy.
Of course, the distance between the two viewpoints is partly because this year’s Stirling shortlist were products of the boom, while the judging session took place in a climate of “more for less”. By the time next year’s crop is delivered, we should see projects more attuned to our times. But part of delivering New Realist designs is adding new targets to the “programme, budget, quality” trinity that has held sway for so long. And part of that will involve raising the bar for the award schemes that celebrate the industry’s most high-profile and prestigious projects — so that there’s plenty of aspirational headroom for the rest.
There is Disappointment and disbelief among Construction & Built Environment diploma teachers and lecturers. How could a qualification that was so badly wanted and well-supported deliver such a poor set of results? The main failings seem to be too much bureaucracy and too little preparation. Certainly not insurmountable — as long as the government supports the qualification. Its current review of 14-19 vocational education is perhaps the industry’s one and only chance of communicating the long-term value of retaining the diploma.
Elaine Knutt, editor
Feedback
More for less is easier said than done…
Michael Solomon, via website
In response to your “Money savers” suggestions (CM September) on how the industry can deliver more for less, I have a few thoughts:
• Over-engineering — We all know that most projects are over engineered.
• Greater cost transparency — If clients published out-turn costs perhaps they wouldn’t always accept the lowest tender. Low tender = high out-turn.
• Standardised buildings — Transportation costs need to be considered carefully for modular buildings. Schemes near the factory will be competitive, but the further away you get the less competitive it becomes.
• Standardised products — Architects will always try to reinvent the wheel, to make their mark!
• Pooling procurement of materials across projects — Might work for the majors but the medium-to-small contractors need the builders merchants. Maybe another way for the majors to force the medium-to-small contractors out of business?
• High-calibre staff to deliver major programmes: We need the high-calibre staff on the sites not sat miles away in offices, but with the current competitive market we cannot afford them.
… we can deliver more, if it’s lower quality you’re after
Will Hughes, professor of construction management and economics, University of Reading
Construction can indeed deliver more for less. The sector always has done. It has always been possible to cut corners and replace good materials with low-quality substitutes. Apart from substituting poor materials for good ones, we are also routinely de-skilling and de-professionalising the design and construction processes in every way possible to respond to clients who are not willing or able to pay for a good job.
In the current economic downturn, it is inevitable that construction quality and social responsibility will be low on most agendas. But this does not provide more for less, in the long run. Perhaps what we need is a concerted attempt to persuade our clients of the medium- to long-term benefits of good design and construction?
We need to promote industry
Nick Margetts, via website
I agree with Chris Blythe (CM September) that the pendulum has swung between extremes of boom and bust so quickly the industry hasn’t been able to satisfactorily plan for the future. If we are to get people to come into this industry and retain some of the people already in it, we need to stabilise spending in the coming years with some cohesive policies. If we don’t, history will keep repeating itself. I have been in this industry for 32 years and I remember the 1991 recession. It took years to get skills back in the industry, and some we never got back. Sadly, people don’t see construction as a stable career, and we currently have some of the highest unemployment levels.
I understand that the present government’s hands are tied on finance and spending, but we in the CIOB must take the opportunity in the future, with other bodies, to tell government loud and clear what is required and how we can work with them.
Corrections
• Paul Morrell, the chief construction adviser, has indeed been invited to contribute to the government’s Sebastian James Review of the school building programme. We were unfortunately unable to update our interview with Morrell (CM September) with this information before going to press.
• The photograph used on page 8 in September, was one of the finalists in the Art of Building competition, and should have been credited to Paul Stephenson.
Vox pop
What will you be doing on 20 October, the day of the Comprehensive Spending Review?
I am being sent to Coventry — to talk to Sainsbury’s about biomass energy production allied to the burial of charcoal, a process which Professor James Lovelock has described as perhaps our only chance to avert catastrophic climate change.
We are consuming naturally-renewing resources at a rate 40% greater than the planet can regenerate them.
I am interested in a Comprehensive Spending Review, but one for our planetary budget. Big Society, Big Planet.
Pooran Desai, co-founder, BioRegional
I will probably be in the pub with the rest of the team for a serious review of the spending cuts – I think that’s taking the results in the spirit they should be. But it really is the most important day for the industry for the next year, if not two years, and there’s no question it will have a serious impact on workloads next year. As has happened before, there have been enough leaks prior to publication that most people are already factoring cuts into their strategies and I think most of the impact will come from any surprises contained in the report. I’m working on the Olympic Athletes’ Village, which has been described as an oasis in the desert, or a cruise liner cruising through the recession, but we’re by no means recession proof.
Peter Jacobs FCIOB, operations director, Bovis Lend Lease
I’m thinking about sticking my head in a bucket, or putting on a tin hat and hiding in a bunker. I’ve checked my diary and on the 20th I’ll actually be taking my wife to hospital then going to a client/supplier meeting, so its business as usual. Seriously though, we think we’ve got a reasonable flavour of what public sector capital spend might disappear and we won’t be over exposed to it as we’re a small company with a range of work streams.
We have a five-year plan, which will focus on expanding work around our current long-term relationships in health care, which we see as a continuing market, and our other smaller-value public sector education refurbishment projects in the north, which we believe will continue.
Peter Stone MCIOB, managing director central & south, GB Building Solution
It’s my birthday on the 20th, so I’ll be taking the day off and trying to fit celebrations in with monitoring coverage of the spending review. It’s really a case of “wait and see”, we can’t really second-guess what’s going to be said or what the impact will be. I think most people are worried about cuts to work already under way. I’m sure lots of projects will be cut, and it will almost certainly affect us. Whatever happens it will be a case of getting out there and making the best of whatever the situation is.
Donald Loe MCIOB, director, FK Howard
We’ll be gathered round our computer screens, probably on the BBC website. We’ll be looking at the announcements as they come out one by one, and seeing if they’re as bad as we thought, or perhaps not as bad. Then it’ll be a case of dealing with it, and in the first instance communicating among our teams how it will effect the different market sectors.
John Frankiewicz, chief executive, Willmott Dixon Capital Works
We’re going to be at a legal seminar that day, as we’re bidding for a big FM contract from the Ministry of Justice. Everyone’s poised for opportunities in the new low-carbon economy, so any announcements about the Green Investment Bank will send a message to the industry about whether or not they’re really serious about the green economy. It would be hard to justify setting the industry targets on the one hand and cutting back on funding for one of the most important mechanisms to achieve them.
David Stockdale FCIOB, director, Enterprise
Contact us
Do you have an opinion on any of this month’s articles? Email: [email protected]
