Latest:
Putting good design back in the mix
00:00 14 Jun 2000
|
New forms of building procurement favoured by the Treasury look set
to radically alter the face of construction if applied over a wider
scale. One of these, Prime Contracting (PC), promoted by the
Defence Estates division of The Ministry of Defence (MoD), aims at
achieving an integrated supply chain under the control of a single
point of responsibility known as the prime contractor. Its wider
adoption could alter the role of consultants, especially
architects.
The concept of PC has been dogged by controversy ever since the introduction in early 1996 of the Building Down Barriers initiative, which aimed to lay down the principles of supply chain integration in construction. Some architects were ruffled at the MoD's initial claim that the role of the designer in a prime contract would be reduced to that of just another supplier in an integrated supply chain. But it has since become clear that this reaction may have been due to widespread misunderstanding of the term prime contractor.
Many took the term at face value, clinging to the idea that the main contractor would be the sole point of responsibility to integrate and manage the entire supply chain at the expense of the architect. While this may be the case in situations where aesthetics do not form part of a client's core values, Clive Cain of the Defence Estates has since gone to great pains to make it clear that there is no reason why a prime contractor cannot be a QS, an architect or other design consultant, depending on their skills and the project requirements.
For instance, on a civil engineering project the design leader can be the engineer, on a process engineering plant it may be the mechanical/electrical engineer, and so on. Says Cain: "We used the term prime contractor in the sense of a party vested with single point responsibility with whom you have a contract, so a prime contractor can be a main contractor, but can also be an architect or other consultant."
Taking stock of the adverse reaction to its original proposals, the MoD invited feedback from the RIBA and a panel of architects to discuss and formulate the possible future role of the architect in a prime contract. The result has been a rethink by the MoD and a slight reformulation of the original concept of design leadership. But how have things changed and what are the implications for architects and designers?
Put simply, Building Down Barriers is a toolkit designed to allow the industry to deliver the type of savings and improvements envisaged by Latham and Egan. It is intended not just for MoD use, but to be applicable to all clients throughout the industry. The BDB initiative started as a joint venture between the MoD and the DETR, along with private sector sponsorship from AMEC and Laing.
What the MoD required was a mechanism for integrating the supply chain within a construction project, thereby achieving the sort of improvements that had been envisaged by Latham. Reducing inefficiency and waste - put at 30% across the industry by Latham - came as a high priority for the Defence Estates, which annually spends well over £1bn - half of which is on general maintenance and refurbishment - on its 3,000 sites.
Cain explains: "We looked at our procurement programme and accepted that the Latham report was broadly correct and that the situation demanded radical change. We then looked at other sectors and found that almost all involved a total integration of design and manufacture. Nobody in their right mind would commission the design of a car separate to the manufacture and we agree with Latham that unless the construction team is totally integrated, there cannot be serious improvements."
These sentiments were recently echoed by Defence Estates' chief executive Ian Andrews, who is convinced that achieving the sort of improvements aimed at by the MoD will only be possible when the whole design and construction process is integrated within a single supply chain under the control of one fully accountable prime contractor.
Yet this could reinforce the fears of those who think that the architect might end up being just another cog in the supply chain. Cain refutes this, but concedes that everybody's role must change without exception, and that includes the architect's. He feels that not enough effort is being put into what is really meant by integration of design with construction.
"What we have done in prime contracting", he explains, "is no different to what was espoused by Egan and Latham. It's nothing peculiar, just a wish to integrate the entire design and construction process and bring people together as a team in long-term relationships. The trouble is the industry is very resistant to change because it is based on fragmentation and adversarial relationships. And the assumption is that if anything new comes along, one part of the industry must be trying to shaft another."
Confirmation that the initial attempt to define the designer's role within the prime contracting set up may not have been entirely on target came last year: following adverse reaction from some architectural circles, Clive Cain set up a working group of architects to figure out exactly how the architect would fit into an integrated supply chain and what the role would entail.
Cain's panel comprised Stefanie Fischer (Burrell Foley Fischer), Andrew Morris (Richard Rogers Partnership), Richard Saxon (Building Design Partnership) and from the architects involved on the two BDB pilot projects came Andrew Kane (FaulknerBrowns) and Paul Weston (The Charter Partnership). Working alongside the panel was Cain and Dr Richard Holti of the Tavistock Institute.
The main concept to emerge from the panel was the recognition that a healthy balance of both design and construction leadership is a vital part of any integrated supply chain. Thus, the reformulated prime contracting model involves two key roles, that of design leadership and construction (or delivery) leadership, both of which are on an equal footing.
Cain makes a useful analogy with the car industry. When a new car is on the drawing board, stylists work with market researchers to establish what will be required by the market. They then work with engineers to ensure that the final design is buildable, remains true to the original concept and meets the clients' needs. Design leadership therefore involves somebody to work with the customer, the client and the rest of the supply chain to develop a buildable design that satisfies the clients' needs within budgetary, quality, maintenance and operational constraints. Building design leadership will also ensure that what is delivered at the end of the process is closely aligned with the original concept. That way, there are no nasty surprises for the client when the building is handed over.
Just how the roles of design and construction leadership are to interact can be gauged from a new report to be published by CIRIA in July and written by Dr Holti. The Handbook of Supply Chain Management Part 1: The Essentials provides an overview of the general approach that was developed on the two MoD pilot projects for the garrisons at Aldershot and Wattisham, and sets out to convey what being a prime contractor involves.
Recognising that entrusting design and construction leadership to different organisations - as is the general situation in the UK - can lead to a clash of two sets of priorities, the handbook maps out the roles of design and construction leadership. The design leader will engage with client and end-users to set out and clarify the functional requirements of the building, the design aspirations and the observation of capital and cost constraints. It will also involve developing the overall design strategy and monitoring the design and detailing to ensure they remain true to the overall concept in the same manner as Cain's car designers.
Success in design leadership must necessarily involve design management, comprising systems for scheduling, monitoring and integrating the inter-related design activities.
The construction/delivery leader will be responsible for developing the overall construction strategy in order to deliver the design within a target through-life cost. Effective construction management is also a fundamental part of this process. Both design and construction leaders are involved in an effective common dialogue and on an equal footing with one another, but remain under the overall control of the prime contractor.
He therefore takes overall responsibility, provides design and construction management and promotes the integrated approach so that the client's needs are fulfiled.
But how will the process overcome contractors' traditional suspicions of architects' design leadership that is sometimes perceived as geared too strongly to esoteric design aspirations at the cost of buildability and functionality? And what about architects' experiences of design and build contractors who, as head of the design process, may have substituted cheaper materials and thus severely comprised the original design concept?
Distortions such as these can be avoided, according to the handbook, by both parties establishing the project values with the client from the outset and comparing notes at regular intervals. Furthermore, the prime contractor will draw on the expertise of design and construction leadership to provide the necessary aspects of leadership appropriate to the project. Cited as examples of this mechanism are the two BDB pilot projects, where in each case, organisations that had hitherto operated as contractors took responsibility not only for design and delivery management, but also worked closely with an architectural practice as part of the integrated supply team to provide design leadership. One of the underlying principles of the process is the long-term strategic link-ups between the prime contractor and the entire supply chain. But how you ensure long-standing relationships in a climate of workload uncertainty is something that remains unresolved.
However, once a chain is in place and has operated successfully for more than one project, design and construction leaders will have hopefully established a successful working relationship; the ability to get on will therefore be a foregone conclusion.
Given this type of set up, there seems no reason why the design authority that architects have enjoyed as leaders of the building team cannot be preserved. As design leader, the architect remains responsible for the design and can exert his professional influence for the benefit of the project; fears about the demise of design quality may have been grossly exaggerated. In the words of Richard Saxon of BDP: "Prime contracting only diminishes the architect in the eyes of those who think that the architect is God."
It may be that the MoD has hit on a system to ensure it gets the buildings it needs at the right price. But it will be interesting to see just how successfully prime contracting can be applied across different sectors and particularly on smaller projects. But Cain is confident: "I think PC is the way ahead for all projects, no matter how complex or aesthetically advanced they may be. I don't see a problem - it will work for any type of project."
The concept of PC has been dogged by controversy ever since the introduction in early 1996 of the Building Down Barriers initiative, which aimed to lay down the principles of supply chain integration in construction. Some architects were ruffled at the MoD's initial claim that the role of the designer in a prime contract would be reduced to that of just another supplier in an integrated supply chain. But it has since become clear that this reaction may have been due to widespread misunderstanding of the term prime contractor.
ADVERTISEMENT
Many took the term at face value, clinging to the idea that the main contractor would be the sole point of responsibility to integrate and manage the entire supply chain at the expense of the architect. While this may be the case in situations where aesthetics do not form part of a client's core values, Clive Cain of the Defence Estates has since gone to great pains to make it clear that there is no reason why a prime contractor cannot be a QS, an architect or other design consultant, depending on their skills and the project requirements.
For instance, on a civil engineering project the design leader can be the engineer, on a process engineering plant it may be the mechanical/electrical engineer, and so on. Says Cain: "We used the term prime contractor in the sense of a party vested with single point responsibility with whom you have a contract, so a prime contractor can be a main contractor, but can also be an architect or other consultant."
Taking stock of the adverse reaction to its original proposals, the MoD invited feedback from the RIBA and a panel of architects to discuss and formulate the possible future role of the architect in a prime contract. The result has been a rethink by the MoD and a slight reformulation of the original concept of design leadership. But how have things changed and what are the implications for architects and designers?
Put simply, Building Down Barriers is a toolkit designed to allow the industry to deliver the type of savings and improvements envisaged by Latham and Egan. It is intended not just for MoD use, but to be applicable to all clients throughout the industry. The BDB initiative started as a joint venture between the MoD and the DETR, along with private sector sponsorship from AMEC and Laing.
What the MoD required was a mechanism for integrating the supply chain within a construction project, thereby achieving the sort of improvements that had been envisaged by Latham. Reducing inefficiency and waste - put at 30% across the industry by Latham - came as a high priority for the Defence Estates, which annually spends well over £1bn - half of which is on general maintenance and refurbishment - on its 3,000 sites.
Cain explains: "We looked at our procurement programme and accepted that the Latham report was broadly correct and that the situation demanded radical change. We then looked at other sectors and found that almost all involved a total integration of design and manufacture. Nobody in their right mind would commission the design of a car separate to the manufacture and we agree with Latham that unless the construction team is totally integrated, there cannot be serious improvements."
These sentiments were recently echoed by Defence Estates' chief executive Ian Andrews, who is convinced that achieving the sort of improvements aimed at by the MoD will only be possible when the whole design and construction process is integrated within a single supply chain under the control of one fully accountable prime contractor.
Yet this could reinforce the fears of those who think that the architect might end up being just another cog in the supply chain. Cain refutes this, but concedes that everybody's role must change without exception, and that includes the architect's. He feels that not enough effort is being put into what is really meant by integration of design with construction.
"What we have done in prime contracting", he explains, "is no different to what was espoused by Egan and Latham. It's nothing peculiar, just a wish to integrate the entire design and construction process and bring people together as a team in long-term relationships. The trouble is the industry is very resistant to change because it is based on fragmentation and adversarial relationships. And the assumption is that if anything new comes along, one part of the industry must be trying to shaft another."
Confirmation that the initial attempt to define the designer's role within the prime contracting set up may not have been entirely on target came last year: following adverse reaction from some architectural circles, Clive Cain set up a working group of architects to figure out exactly how the architect would fit into an integrated supply chain and what the role would entail.
Cain's panel comprised Stefanie Fischer (Burrell Foley Fischer), Andrew Morris (Richard Rogers Partnership), Richard Saxon (Building Design Partnership) and from the architects involved on the two BDB pilot projects came Andrew Kane (FaulknerBrowns) and Paul Weston (The Charter Partnership). Working alongside the panel was Cain and Dr Richard Holti of the Tavistock Institute.
The main concept to emerge from the panel was the recognition that a healthy balance of both design and construction leadership is a vital part of any integrated supply chain. Thus, the reformulated prime contracting model involves two key roles, that of design leadership and construction (or delivery) leadership, both of which are on an equal footing.
Cain makes a useful analogy with the car industry. When a new car is on the drawing board, stylists work with market researchers to establish what will be required by the market. They then work with engineers to ensure that the final design is buildable, remains true to the original concept and meets the clients' needs. Design leadership therefore involves somebody to work with the customer, the client and the rest of the supply chain to develop a buildable design that satisfies the clients' needs within budgetary, quality, maintenance and operational constraints. Building design leadership will also ensure that what is delivered at the end of the process is closely aligned with the original concept. That way, there are no nasty surprises for the client when the building is handed over.
Just how the roles of design and construction leadership are to interact can be gauged from a new report to be published by CIRIA in July and written by Dr Holti. The Handbook of Supply Chain Management Part 1: The Essentials provides an overview of the general approach that was developed on the two MoD pilot projects for the garrisons at Aldershot and Wattisham, and sets out to convey what being a prime contractor involves.
Recognising that entrusting design and construction leadership to different organisations - as is the general situation in the UK - can lead to a clash of two sets of priorities, the handbook maps out the roles of design and construction leadership. The design leader will engage with client and end-users to set out and clarify the functional requirements of the building, the design aspirations and the observation of capital and cost constraints. It will also involve developing the overall design strategy and monitoring the design and detailing to ensure they remain true to the overall concept in the same manner as Cain's car designers.
Success in design leadership must necessarily involve design management, comprising systems for scheduling, monitoring and integrating the inter-related design activities.
The construction/delivery leader will be responsible for developing the overall construction strategy in order to deliver the design within a target through-life cost. Effective construction management is also a fundamental part of this process. Both design and construction leaders are involved in an effective common dialogue and on an equal footing with one another, but remain under the overall control of the prime contractor.
He therefore takes overall responsibility, provides design and construction management and promotes the integrated approach so that the client's needs are fulfiled.
But how will the process overcome contractors' traditional suspicions of architects' design leadership that is sometimes perceived as geared too strongly to esoteric design aspirations at the cost of buildability and functionality? And what about architects' experiences of design and build contractors who, as head of the design process, may have substituted cheaper materials and thus severely comprised the original design concept?
Distortions such as these can be avoided, according to the handbook, by both parties establishing the project values with the client from the outset and comparing notes at regular intervals. Furthermore, the prime contractor will draw on the expertise of design and construction leadership to provide the necessary aspects of leadership appropriate to the project. Cited as examples of this mechanism are the two BDB pilot projects, where in each case, organisations that had hitherto operated as contractors took responsibility not only for design and delivery management, but also worked closely with an architectural practice as part of the integrated supply team to provide design leadership. One of the underlying principles of the process is the long-term strategic link-ups between the prime contractor and the entire supply chain. But how you ensure long-standing relationships in a climate of workload uncertainty is something that remains unresolved.
However, once a chain is in place and has operated successfully for more than one project, design and construction leaders will have hopefully established a successful working relationship; the ability to get on will therefore be a foregone conclusion.
Given this type of set up, there seems no reason why the design authority that architects have enjoyed as leaders of the building team cannot be preserved. As design leader, the architect remains responsible for the design and can exert his professional influence for the benefit of the project; fears about the demise of design quality may have been grossly exaggerated. In the words of Richard Saxon of BDP: "Prime contracting only diminishes the architect in the eyes of those who think that the architect is God."
It may be that the MoD has hit on a system to ensure it gets the buildings it needs at the right price. But it will be interesting to see just how successfully prime contracting can be applied across different sectors and particularly on smaller projects. But Cain is confident: "I think PC is the way ahead for all projects, no matter how complex or aesthetically advanced they may be. I don't see a problem - it will work for any type of project."
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT