Thursday, 12 December 2013
The changing face of retail...
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Education, Education, Education.
Monday, 2 December 2013
Here we go again?
Sunday, 24 November 2013
BIM in Education.
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
The Power of Procurement
Thursday, 26 September 2013
Looking beyond BIM
No one who has anything to do with the construction industry can have failed to acknowledge the increased interest in Building Information Modelling over the past few years. Since Paul Morrell made his announcement that the Government would be mandating BIM on all projects by 2016 we have been on a BIM rollercoaster.
This hiatus has turned the industry upside down and has changed the dynamic in so many areas. BIM is not just the clever software which helps the architect look at his designs in 3D. It impacts on every part of the industry from clients through to designers and building operators.
We all know that construction has traditionally been one of least technological industries for many years. We have continued to use tried and tested methods which main contractors know and are comfortable with. Much of this is driven by the placement of risk which is largely driven by procurement routes. That is whole blog in its own right so I won’t go there.
Whilst BIM is bringing new software and techniques to the industry by default it is bringing other changes to our industry.
It wasn’t too many years ago when I would go on a construction site and there would be no IT at all. BIM has been embraced by a new generation who have joined the industry. This generation of 20 and 30 somethings have grown up with IT and embrace social media.
The uptake in the use and understanding of BIM has been accelerated through the sharing ofknowledge on twitter and blogs. The UKBIMcrew is a twitter community which has been instrumental in pushing new thinking and sharing knowledge openly.
This generation are the future of our industry. We can now share information quickly and openly across social networks. The new generation are far from scared of technology, they positively embrace it.
In less than ten years the construction industry has gone from being an industry which has been scared of technology and new ideas to one which is positively looking to innovate.
In the short term there will be tension. Technology is no substitute for experience and it is this experience which the new generation lack. There is no shortcut to experience and it can only be gathered through time.
Due to recession we have lost lots of experience and knowledge as people have taken up new roles in new industries or retired completely.
This will have an effect in the short term but also provides an opportunity for new generations to progress quickly and drive change. The young techies need to understand that experience is of huge value and the experienced hands need to believe there are new ways of thinking about construction in a changing world. If we can bring both sides together the UK construction industry has the opportunity to reach its potential.
Technology and the internet will go much further than just the use of BIM to design and operate assets. Social media is not to be underestimated and will impact upon the whole building lifecycle. A community is already established online and it is growing by the day.
As mentioned above this community is keen to share knowledge and experience in a way previous generations are not familiar with. Information relating to products is no longer obtained from the physical libraries of the past.
Specifiers, contractors and clients now get their information from the internet via a search. This means search engine optimisation is critical. Not only can a product be found online but its cost can easily be found and compared.
In the future it is likely product performance and reliability will be highlighted in a very similar way to trip advisor. Customers and users will be able to provide real time feedback on the performance of their favourite air handling unit or door closer!
E commerce will also become commonplace allowing buying to be carried out online with deliveries going direct to the construction site from manufacturer. Only a few years ago online shopping was the exception not the rule however Amazon is now one of the biggest retailers in the world. An Amazonfor construction is not unrealistic.
So whilst many may be tired of BIM as a concept, be aware that BIM is a disguise for a completerevolution in construction. BIM is driving change and forcing the industry to adapt and change to new technologies. This change is being pushed by a new generation of construction professionals who are passionate about their industry and making it better.
We have never experienced a more challenging period as now however I believe at the same time ourindustry has never been better placed to lead the global market in construction.
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Holiday Reading
Holiday heaven
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Weekend retreat ....
Sunday, 23 June 2013
The impact of Innovation.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
A company to aspire to.
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Ground Hog Day!
Saturday, 20 April 2013
If I were a king for the day...
I know it is never going to happen but if I was, apart seeing Newcastle United beat Manchester United on the last day of the season to win the Premiership I would change a few things in the construction industry.
I would look at construction with a new set of eyes and encourage all parts of the industry to think differently about everything they do. If I could I would wipe the hard drive clean of many of the people in the industry. I would re install the skills but would install new information about culture and approach.
First and foremost in the construction industry we are completely infatuated by process. We focus on procurement and project management. We have flow charts for everthing from design management to procurement. Im not saying these are not required but sometimes this means we miss what we are actually doing.
What we overlook is the product. This is well down our priority list and sometimes forgotten.On time and on budget is our proud mantra! the fact that is does give the client what they want seems to be irrellivant.
All the individual parts of the process protect their own risk,be it design or construction but who takes responsibility for the product?
The designers will blame the contractor and revert to the contract if anything goes wrong. If there are issues with the building on completion the contractor will blame the consultants. This leaves the client not knowing where to get answers from and more importantly leaves them disgruntled with the process and the product.
Provided everyone sticks to this approach the individual parts will be ok. It is a cartell of mediocrity where everyone is protecting there part of the process without taking responsibility for the product. As soon as someone breaks from this circle it may change the thinking of the entire industry.
_space group are a relatively small organisation in term of the construction industry so we will always find it difficult to change the industry single handedly but we will put our money where our mouth is. We are developing a range of building products via our volula brand. we have spent time designing a range of building products including houses, lodges and schools at present. We put our energy into the product off site rather than process so that we can maximise value for the client. The proof of the pudding is in the eating but we are confident we can deliver a 3 bedroom house which has no energy bills for around £80,000.
This brings me onto how we define value. We are fascinated by two key performance indicators in our industry, cost and time. Both metrics are easy to measure. We even have a profession dedicated to measuring cost via our cost consultants or quantity surveyors depending on how old you are.
Value for a client is dependant on more than just cost and time. It will vary from client to client with some focussed on cost and time but what about lifecycle, energy, cost in use carbon or user satisfaction. All of these metrics are important and together will generate a true picture of value. As an industry we need to understand this more and be able to demonstrate the interrelationship between them all.
I would also change the way we approach design. I spent 7 years learning to be an architect. I was encouraged to believe that every building should be an award winner and I would be judged on my original thought and creativity. This is reinforced by the profile the RIBA give to the Stirlng Prize and many other award ceremonies across the profession.
At University we never discussed business or client needs. I am not saying we should lose the creative side of architectural education as I think it does give a great foundation for innovative thinking.However we must realise that the world we operate in is real and we need to be better prepared for what we face in the construction industry.
My favourite analogy to illustrate this is Formula 1. Formula 1 is the catwalk of the automotive industry and is where much of the research and development is carried out which will feed into the cars we all drive every da6. Not everyone in the car industry ends up being a Formulat 1 engineer. The vast majority will join Nissan or Ford and will not expect to design the next Ferrari.
In architecture we are producing hundreds of aspirational Formula 1 engineers every year who are ill prepared for the world of construction. We are taught that every client wants a brand new formula car every time. it needs to be designed from scratch and it is a dreadful crime to use last years engine even though it won the championship.
Whilst Zaha Hadid and a number of other UK architects have the opportunity to design Formula 1 cars on a daily basis the rest of us mere mortals have clients who want a reliable Audi A4. There is no shame in this and Audis are a fantastic lesson in engineering, value and reliability.
There is one final lesson we can learn from the automotive industry. They really understand the benefits of a true supply chain. We claim to understand and manage supply chains in our industry however they are more of a list of people we work with regularly. Main contractors have moved to sub contract as much work as possible to move risk downstream. This does reduce risk for the main contractor but makes a project even more contractural and removes the commitment to the end product and places the focus on process.
In the car industry they have truly joined up supply chains.For example surrounding the Nissan site in Sunderland there are dozen of suppliers to the main factory who have signed long term agreements based on mutual investment and reward. Nissan do not change their engine supplier every 6 month because someone else can provide one £50 cheaper. They understand value and not just cost.
By understating value they have been able to continually improve their product whilst also reducing cost. For the same money their customers were paying 20 years ago they now benefit from power assisted steering, air conditioning, electric windows etc etc. We are still delivering the same product in construction yet asking our clients to pay more.
The pressure of the recession has only demonstrated the reality of our supply chains across the construction industry. We have all heard the stories recently of the contractor who has extended the terms of their supply chain to 120 days. This is hardly an integrated approach and is only pushing the challenges further down the supply chain and is not using any innovation or fresh thinking.
15 years ago partnering was the answer to everything in the industry. At the time I was an advocate but now I realise it is a flawed concept. It relies on people and does not structue the industry in a way which will provide long term benefit. When partnering works there are many positive lessons to be learned however the issue is there is no commercial basis or infrastructure for investment.
A fundamental move away from process is required with more of a focus on product. we need to innovate and look at standardised approaches which are constantly improving. We do not need to design everything from scratch and should use the lessons learnt from previous projects. If it is taken to its extreme there could be standard building such as the volula range or as easily a mixture of components and modules.
In todays environment much of this is possible. The tools are there as are the fresh new minds to make it happen. We are thinking far more about digital solutions now and with the advent of Building Information Modelling there is no excuse not to collect the data.
As our clients start to understand BIM they will also start to ask more questions of us and we need to be able to show as a an industry that we are at least one step ahead if not 10!
Friday, 12 April 2013
Postcard from Cyprus
The fears about Cyprus being in chaos were unfounded. The businesses here still have day to day banking issues but they are getting through. You can't help but feel sorry for the people here. They have been badly treated like so many others in Europe. When you follow the history if Cyrus it has clearly suffered from poor leadership for hundreds of years.
It's clear that Cyprus has been struggling for some time. There are many empty shops but most of these look like they have been closed for a number of years. What Cyprus needs most of all is people to still come and spend their money. It is a beautiful island and the people are really nice.
I have been working my way through the usual holiday book list. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find the type of book I really like. These are usually business biographies but there are not many out there I haven't read.
I have had to go back a few years to find nee material and came across The life and times of Henry Ford. What an amazing book. He was such a visionary and determined in his thinking. The book must be nearly 100 years old and yet the majority of what he says is still relevant today.
Obviously there is a focus on manufacturing which happens to be a current interest of mine. There are also a number of chapters about his views in society which are enlightening.
I have also read several books by Seth Godin and Daniel Pink which I may comment on in future blogs.
As I have been looking into the past for inspiration I decided to re read the Latham and Egan reports. It's proved very interesting in that in reality the UK construction industry has only managed to achieve a small part of what was recommended 20 years ago.
The Egan report which was written 15 years ago is incredibly relevant to what I believe is required in the industry today. I'm all for a relaunch of the report for the current market! How about a 2013 update?
I have ended up writing down my thoughts on the two reports which has ended up being a report in itself.i haven't found a home for it yet but I hope I can share it somewhere.
I have found strangely on this holiday that I have been drawn to write as well as read. I'm not sure if this is something which comes with age. Who knows the next project may be a book!
Monday, 1 April 2013
A Major Government Project win for BIM Technologies
Leading Building Information Modelling specialist BIM technologies have secured a prestigious contract with the UK government to assist in the temporary relocation of the Palace of Westminster .
Following confirmation in 2012 by the House Committee that the Palace of Wetminster was to be closed for a 5 year period to allow for the £3bn refurbishment of the Pugin designed building.
Following a detailed feasibility study to look at relocation options the House Committee has decided to refurbish the existing facilities and temporarily relocate to new accommodation in Milton Keynes
The BIM technologies team were initially appointed to carry out a detailed point cloud survey of the external facade. This information was subsequently converted into a detailed digital model.
This information will be used for the refurbishment project however the data will also be used to produce an identical replica of the Palace using the latest digital printing techniques
BIM technologies have combined this printing with their extensive offsite construction knowledge to allow the building to be manufactured if site and assembled on the Milton Keynes site.
Whilst the new building will have all of the appearance of the origional 1850s Pugin design it will comply with all of the latest building regulations and will be fitted with the latest environmental technologies.
Lord Sewel chairman of the committee commented that " BIM technologies have been able to mix the best if gothic architecture with the most stringent of current building standards through the use of the latest technology"
The government are already looking at uses for the facility once the refurbishment project is complete. Studies are already being carried out to turn the building into a luxury 5 star hotel with the chamber being a themed events venue.
Rob Charlton chief executive of BIM technologies commented that he was delighted to be involved in such an important project and his team looked forward to starting work on 1st April .
Monday, 25 March 2013
The Lead Consultant....
When Sir Christopher Wren designed St. Paul's cathedral in 17th century there was no such thing as an architect. Wren was infact a mathematician. Back then it was the gentlemen of the time who were involved in the design of buildings. Such gentlemen would design the building, carry out the structural engineering and even provide all costs and project management of the build.
Sometime after this the term architect was used and the Royal Institute of British Architects followed in 1834. Over the following years buildings become increasingly complex as new materials and technologies developed. The development of steel, concrete and glass gave greater opportunity to the architect. The structural engineer developed and began to specialise in the complex calculations required. As society developed there was an increase in regulation and buildings needed to comply. Calculations were needed for all aspects if a building design to prove compliance.
With the development of electricity and the telephone in the late 19th century building systems started to become commonplace.The discovery of North Sea gas in the 20th century allowed the development of more complex heating and ventilation systems. This would then mean that a specialist was required and the mechanical and electrical engineering profession was born.
Along the way quantity surveying developed as a profession when building costs were increasingly made up of components and materials. The complexity of projects meant there was a role for the project manager and an increased interest in heath and safety meant the requirement of the CDM coordinator.
We have also seen the development of fire engineers, acousticians , interior designers and landscape architects.
Throughout all of these changes the architect has fought hard to maintain the Sir Christopher Wren position of total control of the build. Such a view is embedded in the universities where the architect is the single point at the centre of the construction process with everything controlled by the profession. The most recent evidence is the development of the specials role of the project manager. Architects faught hard to hold onto this role however specialist could easily show their value to clients.
As buildings have become increasingly complex the ability of the architect to control everything has become impossible. New procurement routes have moved away from a traditional approach toward design and build, which is driven by the need to apportion risk.
At the same time as buildings becoming increasingly complex architecture schools have focussed less and less on the technical aspects of construction and have placed emphasis on the art in architecture. The focus in the art is probably down to the fact that building are so complex it is difficult for the schools to give an appropriate level of understanding.
All of the above is very interesting but you may be wondering what this has to do with the present. We are currently in another period of change. The architect has always had the title of the lead consultant. With the development of Building Information Modelling there is a justified argument to challenge the architect as lead consultant. The title of lead consultant may infact be devicive. Is there still a need for such a title or role?.
There is no doubt that the architect has a central role to play in the early stages of the project and is expert at bringing all of the parts of the process together. This includes the briefing design and planning. In the current environment this is very complex and requires huge investment.
.
As the project moves beyond stage C there is a need for coordination and technical input. This is where the architect starts to struggle with more complex projects.
With the adoption of BIM, the design team will have produced information digitally and included geometary. Instead of trying to coordinate two dimensional information such as drawings of a three dimensional building, a computer programme will carry out the review and identify all of the issues.
The lead consultant has always had responsibility for coordination. A new role has developed in the past few years. The BIM coordinator is a specialist in the use of proprietary software and has an excellent understanding of how a building shold be assembled. The ideal training for such a role is as a project architect or technologist. It is a specialist role and requires specialist skill.
It is an addition to the project team and the glue which can bring a project together. The architect will put the case that this is their role and is what they do. I would agree with the argument and certainly some do have the skills. However it is no different to the development if the role of the project manager or CDMc. The architect can carry out the role but with a large complex building they often do not have the focus to commit. . On smaller projects it is possible to be lead consultant and project manager. But on large inner city projects with complex planning issues the reality is the architect doesn't have time to carry out the role.
Coordination is therefore done with a light touch and even though no architect would ever admit it the risk and coordination is passed to the main contractor and trade. This can and does work however it is expensive and can be advisarial. Ultimately and most importantly it is not providing value for the client investor.
The BIM coordinator can take on the role of coordinator but also model and data manager. This role has to be established at the outset of the project if the maximum benefit is going to be derived from the model and data. As with any database it is essential, the outputs are understood at the outset and are controlled throughout.the BIM coordinator will establish and maintain the protocols throughout the lifecycle of the project.
As buildings have become more complex with increased systems and fabric it is no longer possible to comprehensively coordinate all elements of a building with confidence in 2d. Software is available which will allow the modelling and visual coordination of the building geometry in a virtual environment.
The three main aspects of a building design are brought together into a single geometry and further software has been developed to identify issues in the model.
The computer power and sophistication of the software can assist in resolving issues.
Architects still are keen to retain this role as it is a further erosion of the lead consultants duties. The reality is there are new skills required to understand and operate the software. Coordination of buildings is now so involved that it justifies a separate role. The architect can carry out the role but does need the specialist software skills. The other main issue is that coordination need to be given an appropriate priority. Unfortunatley the architect had so many conflicting responsibilities that coordination can become a low priority.
The BIM coordinator/ model Manager can also add value to the building lifecyle beyond this. If appointed at the outset data sets can be agreed and the information monitored throughout. The information can be used for scheduling through to costing. The as built data also has as yet untapped potential in operation.
Whilst an architect may have the skills to carry out this role it is not sufficiently important to be a role in its own right. This is no different to how the role of project manager or engineer was developed for that matter.
The majority of architects work on small projects and operate as sole practitioners. On such projects they can carry out a wide range of services. However on more complex and high value projects there needs to be an acceptance that there is a requirement for specialisms in a number of fields.
The architect should focus on the areas where he adds the most value and has unique skills. This is usually at the outset of a project resolving the conflicting challenges of briefing requirments, complience and planning.
For the record I am a qualified architect and my views are developed over many years in pat active where I have witnessed the challenges across project delivery.
Reflecting on school design & procurement
School building is always controversial. I was at the House of Lords last week, ( just slipped that in) to see a presentation by a number if year 10 students showing 200 adults how to use the latest BIM software. It was a very humbling experience.
At the event Lord Knight made a speech. You may remember Jim Knight as the labour Governments Schools minister. During his tenure I listened to him on many occasions. He was the minister with responsibility for the BSF programme.
Several years later and now in opposition he has had time to reflect. In the speech he made at the House of Lords he all but admitted that the Labour government had achieved little when it came to education despite throwing "everything at it. "There seemed to be no shortage of spending or resources at the time yet the outcomes were poor.
So what does this tell us.
First of all we wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers money procuring and building unique education facilities. This is very generous if it can be afforded but if the teaching and learning is not right we are wasting our time.
The great and the good of the RIBA will test your conscience and tell you that every school should be designed individually for that location. They also make us feel guilty if we are perceived to short change our young people.
I have an alternative view. By choosing the easy ( and profitable)way and delivering unique schools every time we let down thousands of other students who are still stuck in buildings which leak or are falling down and not fit for purpose.
We overspent and focused on all of the wrong things. The easy route was to assume that all of the issues with our education system were down to the crumbling estate. Whilst this is part of the problem I would argue that it is the culture of what goes on in schools which is fundamentally flawed. Clearly this is much harder to change and I'm sure it was hoped by providing new facilities new cultures would develop. It is clear this hasn't worked.
As an example space architecture designed a fantastic school which was an outstanding environment to allow new methods of learning.On a recent visit it was clear the building is not being used as it had designed and the discipline in the school was poor.
Another good example is a school in north Tyneside which was built around a sports hall. The heads idea was the students would learn in 15 minute bursts followed by exercise.
Some might argue this was very innovative but I wouldn't want this experiment carried out at the expense of my children. Worse still several years on the head fell out with the local authority and moved on. His personal experiment remains in place with others trying to pick up the pieces.
The construction industry sat back during this period and just delivered what the government wanted. They took there large margins and passed it back to shareholders. No one questioned what we were doing or if there was a better way.
We certainly acknowledged the process was wasteful but didn't look at any innovation in design or construction.
I have to pick out one company however. Laing O Rouke identified the waste and invested millions in developing a concrete factory. They trained all of their people in new thinking only to be caught out by the recession.
We have now started to build schools again, in some cases half the cost of BSF schools. Our duty as an industry is to use what we have learned to build as many high quality schools for as little as possible. We can't short change our young people with an inferior product but likewise we can afford to indulge ourselves.
The new Priority Schools Building programme is set up to deliver innovation. We need to look at standardization in our schools and invest in energy conservation to help the long term revenue challenges faced by schools.
These building can still be exciting and inspirational but may not have the "wow" factor which was always pursued during BSF.
There is no evidence that innovation or great learning his linked to a wow environment.Many of the successful organizations of recent years such as google, Facebook or apple all started out in modest spaces.
We have been working with google recently on a number if building projects. Whilst their current spaces are filled with exciting furniture and systems the environments are simple and flexible. There is also a huge difference in that google have massive cash pile behind them.
At space group we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are absolutely convinced that we can deliver excellent schools at a fraction of the capital and revenue costs if the past. Over the last two years we have taken all of the learning from BSF and the recent learning from PSBP to develop scola.
It specifically focuses on the Private finance schools and maximizes the use of offsite, BIM and sustainably to allow as much of the capital to be invested in the product rather than the process.
You will be able to see scola at BFE and we hope it will encourage debate about what part the construction industry can play in the development if our young people
Thursday, 28 February 2013
The story of school procurement...
The response to this was BSF which was a capital programme which seemed to have no end of resources. Schools were being built at an average of £2500 per square metre with some in the capital costing up to as much as £4000 per square meter. These were the good times and the only way was up. The only feedback from the schools was whether they were on the programme or if they were going to get a swimming pool
Some fantastic learning environments were delivered during this period, everyone unique and usually designed specifically to the head teachers requirements.
The academies programme was developed at a similar time to deliver schools which were not going to be part of a local Education Partnership.
Michael Gove was appointed education secretary as part of the new coalition Government and promptly scrapped the BSF programme and instigated the James Review.
There is a place for unique and one off design but for all of the extra pounds we were spending to satisfy the requirements of individual head teaches we were letting down the children with the leaky roofs and windows who were not part of the programme..
In contrast when designing a commercial tower in London this is very much an investment. The construction may cost £100 million but may be worth twice that when complete.
These issues were overlooked in the boom times and there was justification from architects that we should be spending £3000 per square meter on our children. Of course we should but not if we cant afford it. The government lost site of the long term programme. The architects and head teaches all played in our conscience. This is our future. How could we short change our children?
However in my opinion it was the students and staff not on the programme who were short changed We could have delivered twice as many schools in half the time if we had been clear about the requirements in the first instance.
All of this brings me up to date and the current Priority Schools Building Programme. The Government have now been clear about their requiems which are sensible and pragmatic. The schools however will all still have excellent quality if light, air and space. They all have excellent acoustics and are safe places for the staff and students alike.
The capital cost of these schools is £1450. This is a huge step forward. The finished product is still to the highest quality and there is little difference to be seen between the academies schools or even some BSF.
If the product is largely the same as it was before the question is where did all of the money go?
I don't have any science to back this up my theory I'm afraid but my view is it all went in the process. There were so many consultants and advisers on all sides. This added little value to the completed building in retrospect and certainly did not help the young people who would be populating the building.
The PSBP has removed all of this additional and in my opinion unnecessary input and used the learning of the last 10 years to deliver schools which are right for today's learner and are flexible for the future.
I think however there is further to go. The PSPB does still focus on process. With some of the extended batches there is the opportunity to put a greater emphasis on product.
There is still a large amount of bespoke design in every school. We don't require this level of individually when buying a car or a house. Only the very wealthy can afford to have an architect designed home. Most of us mere mortals are pleased if we can change the colour if the kitchen units!
Why then do we as taxpayers accept the bespoke design of every school in the country.I suspect it is because the cognicente have managed to convince everyone that every school should be individual. I just don't buy this!
We have spent the past 2 years at space architecture refining scola which is our standard range of primary and secondary schools. They use all of the learning from the past 100 schools we have worked on whilst also considering offsite manufacture and BIM
We also took on board what we learned from the EFA during the development if the north east batch of the PSBP.
Typically in construction we look at cost. We have been keen to look at value whilst also challenging every aspect of the process.The capital cost of scola is £1300 per square metre. Our energy costs are £6.50 per square meter with life cycle replacement of £10 per square metre.
We have been able to use the data from the BIM to accurately predict the soft FM costs at £15 per square metre and the hard FM costs at £9 per square metre.
This is far more data than would normally be provided at the end of a construction project let alone at the beginning.
All of this helps with the PF2 funding model and will have a significant impact on the unitary charge over 30 years.
Scola considers PSBP not as a process but the delivery of an ever improving product where quality goes up and costs go down. Why have we been able to achieve this with motor car and not our schools.
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Architecture: Process or Product?
In recent weeks it is something I have been giving considerable thought to. Most of my regular readers will know about my frustration at the construction industry and its cartel of poor performance.
We will certainly have lots of debate about whether architecture is a process or a product,however ,for me,I have a very clear view. I'm not really interested in the discussion. What I think is we should be more interested in is the product itself.
In design and construction we do get very involved in the process. In reality all that matters is the product. We seem to overlook this in our industry . The architects are keen to get the killer photo for the website. The structural engineer is long gone and onto the next job. The M and E engineer is really pleased he has got away with producing a performance specification and passed the hard work onto the sub contractor.
The main contractor has packed up and is working on the next job. His commercial manager is working on the final account and trying to make some money by not paying his supply chain.
Meanwhile the client and building user is trying to understand what they have bought. They are not sure how much energy the building will use and they are waiting to see how the building performs on a hot day and a cold day.
They also have to deal with the regular problems such as the flooding toilet and the leaking roof.
This is all because everyone focused on the process and not the product. There is no overall responsibility for the product. The contractor blames the architect. The architect blames the M and E engineer. The M and E engineer blames the sub contractor.
What we are very good at in the construction industry is pointing the finger, avoiding responsibility and understanding contracts.
While all of this is going on is anyone thinking about the customer, their business or the product they have just bought. All of this is embarrassing for us all and a sad reflection on our industry.
We must focus on the product and its performance. We must look to continually improve buildings and their performance.
There is no one simple answer but I think the move towards intelligent and useful data through design and construction will go a long way. We can now be clear where issues lie and quantify them. There is nowhere to hide and we can see issues before we commit to site.
Building Information Modelling has provided us with some fantastic tools but we must ensure we don't continue to do what we have always done but with better tools. We must use these tools and the information it provides us with to improve our products and deliver a better long term result for our client.
A car manufacturer who produced cars which overheated or leaked would not last long!