The CIOB has announced it is setting up a commission of past presidents to investigate the management of quality in the construction process in the wake of defects that led to the closure of 17 schools in Edinburgh last year.
The commission will consider what steps the CIOB needs to take to address the already identified issues around management and supervision, the importance for its education framework, and whether there are further steps the industry can take to contribute to improving build quality.
The announcement comes as it was confirmed that surveys of the problem of defective wall ties in Edinburgh schools is more widespread than first thought.
The council originally shut 17 schools as a precaution after nine tonnes of masonry collapsed at Oxgangs Primary during Storm Gertrude due to missing wall header ties. Initial structural surveys just after the collapse revealed similar problems at two other schools.
But the full investigation of all school buildings has now confirmed a total of five other schools suffered defects in wall tie design. The extent of the problem was revealed yesterday in evidence to the Scottish Education Committee investigating the matter.
City of Edinburgh Council’s head of property facilities management, Peter Watton, told MSPs yesterday that five properties had similar issues, although they were not identical and not to the same extent.
Across Scotland defects were found across 71 schools – including many where fire safety had been compromised.
Chair of the Commission, Immediate CIOB Past President Paul Nash, said: “The recent tragic events at Grenfell Tower have further underlined the need for an urgent review of the way in which quality is managed in our industry. Whilst aspects of the public inquiry must necessarily focus on the issues of regulation and inspection, I think we have to look beyond this at the behaviours that have led to a lack of focus on quality at all stages of the build process, from design and procurement through to construction and re-fit.
“The CIOB has a duty to respond to this issue, acting in the public interest. As professionals we have a duty to the industry and wider society to act responsibly and ethically. This defines what it means to be a professional. And we all have a responsibility for the reputation of our industry and, most importantly, the wellbeing of those who use the buildings that we create.”
The issue of poor workmanship is increasingly coming to the fore – fire stops have been found to be missing at a spate of PFI hospitals. In an article for Construction Manager last month, BRE Global reported that poor workmanship was responsible for spread of fire in 30% of the cases it had investigated.
There is growing anger among consumers over the poor quality of workmanship in housing, highlighted in a report from the APPG for the Built Environment published last year.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment (APPGEBE), in its report More homes, Fewer Complaints, says housebuilders should be upping their game and putting consumers at the heart of the business model. Alongside this, the government should use its influence to promote quality at every opportunity.
The cross-party committee of MPs and construction experts is calling on the government to set up a New Homes Ombudsman to mediate in disputes between homebuyers and housebuilders.
This is one of 10 recommendations setting out measures to improve the quality of workmanship in new homes and provide consumers with easier and cheaper forms of redress to get problems fixed.
Comments
Comments are closed.
While there are some workmanship issues to be addressed, to construct brick panel walls without the necessary wind posts and effective head restraints is surely a design issue rather than a workmanship issue.
The answer is simply to make sure that designs are able to be fully built to and then to completely build in accordance with the specification and drawings.
Quality management ensures that this happens in other industries throughout their processes, and has the power to stop what is happening when an issue is found. We still seem content to carry out inspections once works elements are completed and record a non-conformance that cannot then be acted upon, without the risk of major cost or time impact on a project.
I speak as someone who qualified as a Chartered quality professional, through the formal study of quality management, alongside professionals from other industries who considered the way quality management in construction operated as joke by comparison.
I suggest that the Institute reverts to the former HND/HNC entry format with direct membership examinations parts 1 and 2 plus an interview designed to actually test competence in the knowledge of Building process consisting of, according to the subjects listed on my HND certificate, Building Technology; Theory of Structures; Building Services; Quantity Surveying and Estimating; Site Organisation; Management; Law and Building Regulations and the Economics of the Industry.
Only then can the populous at large trust that a Professional in the industry knows what he is talking about.
I despaired when the Institution reverted to reliance on outside educational establishments. Michael Romans knows what I am talking about – he taught me!
Jeff
As a former auditor as part of ISO 9001 I used to find that Site Supervisors rarely prepared or indeed completed their test and inspection registers as required by the QA system.
The Test and Inspection register required specifically that works which were of significant importance and work which would subsequently be covered up should be inspected and approved before further work was carried out.
My findings indicated that Site Supervisors were reluctant to carry out this inspection due to the following:
1. Time taken to prepare the schedule properly.
2. Time required to carry out the inspections and prepare associated paperwork, particularly if a non-conformance occurred.
3. Pressure from senior management to carry on with the works for fear of late completion and payment of L&A damages.
4. Pressure to carry on with work as a result of other workload issues. (Normally they were supervisors on too many other projects at different phases of completion)
The findings of these audits were collated within a report and as required presented to the board of directors who made all the right noises at the meeting but resulted in no actual difference to the actual results of follow-up audits. It got to the stage where I was so demotivated at the pointless nature of the work I quit.
Philip
As someone who also completed ONC, HNC, Degree, CIOB Examinations and Professional Interview to become a member of the CIOB. I agree that the standards with regard to entry to the Profession need to be reviewed.
I concur with Philip Earwicker’s comments especially having travelled the route he describes. I found both my training and education invaluable and comprehensive with a full understanding of the construction processes. Hands on training and education is essential if we are to support the industry with robust management. You can employ all the processes and procedures to control quality but without a clear understanding of what is involved no amount of paperwork will substitute education training and experience.