Sir John Egan once gave construction 4 marks out of 10 for its faltering attempt to implement his Rethinking Construction plan.
That was a few years ago and if asked today he would probably be a little less generous and score construction a paltry two, given the way best practice has flown out of the window at the first sign of workloads drying up.
Respected engineer, Andrew Wolstenholme's assessment this week of the direction the rethinking agenda should take contains some blunt words for the supply chain.
He firmly believes contractors will have to find there own way out of this crisis. Clients cannot be relied upon to drive change for at least five years.
In his report "Never Waste a Good Crisis" he argues it is no longer a case of "would like to change" rather a case of "must change" if you are to survive the uncertain years ahead.
As chair of the review team, Wolstenholme makes good points about eradicating the silo thinking that is so prevalent in construction and dulls the enthusiasm and creativity of young talent joining the industry.
Above all he argues that the industry must sell the value of the Built Environment to society. This means understanding how value is created over the whole life cycle of an asset rather than concentrating only on building cost which is only after all a part of the equation.
The mantra for the future reads relatively small upfront costs of design and construction can have such huge consequences for future users.
Also it is high time that the construction industry marshalled its arguments and spelt out the true value that a zero carbon economy brings to clients as well as the UK.
In this respect, contractors are not alone and would do well to sidle up to the environmentalists, who could prove to be the contractor's ally in troubled times.
Some firms have made a few tentative moves in this direction, but how many directors can put their hand on their hearts and say the green agenda is their agenda?
That was a few years ago and if asked today he would probably be a little less generous and score construction a paltry two, given the way best practice has flown out of the window at the first sign of workloads drying up.
Respected engineer, Andrew Wolstenholme's assessment this week of the direction the rethinking agenda should take contains some blunt words for the supply chain.
He firmly believes contractors will have to find there own way out of this crisis. Clients cannot be relied upon to drive change for at least five years.
In his report "Never Waste a Good Crisis" he argues it is no longer a case of "would like to change" rather a case of "must change" if you are to survive the uncertain years ahead.
As chair of the review team, Wolstenholme makes good points about eradicating the silo thinking that is so prevalent in construction and dulls the enthusiasm and creativity of young talent joining the industry.
Above all he argues that the industry must sell the value of the Built Environment to society. This means understanding how value is created over the whole life cycle of an asset rather than concentrating only on building cost which is only after all a part of the equation.
The mantra for the future reads relatively small upfront costs of design and construction can have such huge consequences for future users.
Also it is high time that the construction industry marshalled its arguments and spelt out the true value that a zero carbon economy brings to clients as well as the UK.
In this respect, contractors are not alone and would do well to sidle up to the environmentalists, who could prove to be the contractor's ally in troubled times.
Some firms have made a few tentative moves in this direction, but how many directors can put their hand on their hearts and say the green agenda is their agenda?
Subscribe to CJ's blog by RSS
Comments (2)
With reference to the opening part of the: "Change or fail" item, the following illustrates many of my experiences with main contractors and sub-contractors:
The batch of Educational Colleges which finally received funding, came also with the message for the main contractors that savings of ca. 20% had to found.
Working on one project we were asked to suggest ways of doing this. Subsequent examination by our own UK structural engineers revealed that from the foundations to the roof the structure was substantially over-engineered. The client's representative agreed with our findings. One of the methods of achieving an estimated 25 to 30% potential saving in construction time was the use of precast concrete, permanent formwork, resulting in lesser use of props compared with traditional shuttering and placing of reinforcement in the bottom layer of the slabs. Savings in material cost and preliminaries resulted.
The client's representative - a management contractor - then suggested we (?) get in touch with the concrete frame sub-contractor as they had given the sub-contractor a very tight time schedule and the project is already months late in commencing. The findings were presented to the sub-contractor and nothing more has been heard. Thus, a potential, and it would seem, much needed cost reduction on a multi-million pound scheme is not implemented because the tail is wagging the dog.
On another project, with exactly the same scenario, the sub-contractor replied that: "This was they way they'd always done it and it is simpler to work with timber than have to comply with time and logistics scenarios. Never mind the fact that it is more expensive.
Posted by Bastiaan. | October 30, 2009 3:08 PM
Posted on October 30, 2009 15:08
This is really good post for contractors. i liked your post.This blog is really help full for construction developers.....
Posted by construction news | November 7, 2009 6:44 AM
Posted on November 7, 2009 06:44