The story of school procurement...

For the last 10 years at space architecture we have been fascinated by school design and construction.

 

We have been involved in the development of hundreds of schools over the past decade with a wide range if procurement routes. In the early 2000s we were involved in the PFI programme. Schools were built quickly and cheaply and the investors realised there was money to be made in the financial structure of the deal. Design and construction quality was of little importance to the consortia.

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

There was lots if discussion about Transformational Learning and al ot if experimentation.
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.

These schools started at around £2200 per square metre but as things became tough the figure was reduced to £1850. Procurement was more straightforward and the buildings more restrained in their specification..

Michael Gove was appointed  education secretary as part of the new coalition Government and promptly scrapped the BSF programme and instigated the James Review.

The James review was mainly made up of common sense but probably not what the construction industry wanted to hear. The Government had been spending billions and the industry helped them along the way

The James Review suggested the Government was paying too much for its school buildings and was delivering an inconsistent product with little standardisation.

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..

 

The Goverenmentt usually procures building which will have there value written down over a 30 year period much like a supermarket. The building will have no paper value at this point and may be demolished. There is therefore little justification for expensive enhancements when the building is an asset or tool to deliver learning

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.

 

Many of the architects who designed these expensive schools have moved on from the market and are designing expensive commercial buildings across the globe. £1450 per square meter is not of any interest to them.

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 environments are still inspiring for the young people who use them. The schools are still consulted however their requiems are moderated. In an environment were there is little resource they are delighted with their new school building.

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.

Architecture: Process or Product?

Now there is a question to think about.Is architecture a processor a 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!

New Year Break

Today is my first day back after my New Years Break. This week in the sun is important for lots of reasons. It gives me the chance to recover after the festive excess and eat some good quality food.I also stay off the booze and every year commit to not drinking for the rest of the year.

It also gives me the chance to reflect on the previous year and look toward the year ahead. I always find it is easier to do this without the day to day distractions which happen in a normal working week. 2012 was a year of change and we now have greater clarity as to how the future will pan out.

I always finalise our strategy for the coming year on this break and start to put the plans and communications is place. It is always useful to use the work produced during this week as a benchmark for the year ahead. Its good to review which plans worked out and which needed to be changed.

Holidays are also a time for reading.I had saved up some great books for this trip. I managed to get through quite a few.

Firstly I read the book by the British CEO of Olympus who resigned after he found some accounting irregularities.A great story and well worth a read.

I then read a great book by Stephanie Shirley called Let it Go. Hers is an amazing story.From a Second World War refugee to multi millionaire.The best part of her story is how she has given away over £100 million in her lifetime.

What I find interesting about business biographies by women is that they are far more open than stories written by their male counterparts.They seem to include far more about personal pressures and the struggles they have had.Other good examples are Hilary Devey and Rachael Elenough. I would exclude Karen Brady from this who seems to have more of a masculine ego.

In contrast to Let it go which is about Philanthropy i read CityBoy which is a humorous read.It is the story of the excesses of the city during the boom. it tells us of all of the things we thought and several which we didnt.

The other books included the new Richard Branson book which is a good short stories type book. I also read Eddie Jordans book as I was intrigued to find out where the money came from. The story is relatively straightforward with it all coming from his passion for motor racing. Not of a great interest to me!

I am writing this on the very early train into London looking forward to 2013! Happy new Year everyone.

The Internet Revolution

I wonder if in years to come the period of 2010 to 2020 will be seen as the heart if the " Internet Revolution"
We all know of the industrial revolution and the impact it had on society. We spent hours at school learning about it.
When I consider what is happening to society at present across the globe and the pace of change the majority is driven by technology and the Internet.
We have been given the opportunity to re think everything we do and how we do it. Our high street is changing and will never be the same again. Shopping habits are changing with a greater emphasis on leisure.
There is a growing adoption of flexible working. Many people no longer work from offices and spend more time in coffee shops.
In construction our biggest challenges have been coordination and communication. Advances in technology and software along with the improvement in internet infrastructure have allowed us to make huge progress over the past couple of years. I only see this increasing in the future with increasing change and innovation.
My big prediction for 2013 will be the revolution in the traditional television. I think the TV as we know it will disappear. If I was a gambling man I would put a bet on apple bringing such a device to market.
It won't be a TV more a single device which will link to the Internet for shared viewing. I think it will be the hub for the home and will be the wireless centre.With AirPlay it will allow integration between all devices.It is also likely we will see further development of the smart TV control.
As the younger generations mature the adoption of these types if technologies will increase exponentially. The use of wireless devices will be second nature.Society will undoubtably change because if this and the challenge is to predict this change and to keep ahead if it.
Companies such as comet and HMV have continued to do what they have always done and the world has changed around them.

Evolve or Die?

This week I have had to encounter one of my least favourite days of the year. As part of my contribution to the family Christmas preparations I always have a day Christmas shopping with Mrs C. It’s never much fun and I would far rather be at work!

However I can always find an angle. What I was interested in this year was how retailers were fairing in a changing market. Retail has been hard hit. Not only has it had to cope with a downturn it has had to adapt to new shopping habits. The internet has had a huge impact on the high street.

I was looking out for retailers who were trying hard and innovating. My first shop of note was Lush. A soap shop! It was new and energetic and the staff were all individual covered in tattoos and piercing. Really current.

Then there was “sweat shop” selling everything for the runner. A strong brand and a great environment. A real commitment to customer service.

Curry’s is a long standing business on the high street. However rather than standing still like Comet it has reconsidered its offer and completely redesigned the retail environment. No longer rows of TVs and HI fi.

We were in the metro centre and the Marks and Spencer store there is fantastic. I know they are struggling to maintain market share but they are certainly trying hard and are innovating. They produce good products are and they are not standing still. I’m sure they will be ok.

Then you look at those not doing so well. HMV for instance.  Still trying to sell CDs and DVD. They have made an effort to sell gadgets but I feels too little too late. I don’t believe it is a complete strategic rethink rather a desperate last throw of the dice. I think their live music strategy was far better! They are getting support from their suppliers as they also want to supply product and want to allow access to back catalogue on the high street. This is not a long term model however and is more nice market and cannot support the store sizes or location.

I believe for retailers to survive they can’t be generalist. They must find a specialist area and excel at it. If they are to be more general they must align this with a complimentary on line strategy.

When I look at the construction industry there are subtle parallels. Construction has been fortunate in that it hasn’t needed to develop or invest for the last few decades. There has been plenty work to allow a whole generation to just keep doing the same things. Shareholders have made millions during this time.

Now however we need talent in the industry and investment. Fortunately there is talent in the industry and we are seeing the younger generations pushing their way through. Investment levels are still woefully low because the models is project based.

The professions are also struggling with leadership and direction.

I believe for example the architectural profession needs to change. At present architects are trained as general practitioners. The high street equivalent of a general dealer. There is a market for this but it is generally regional and for projects p to a value of £2million.

The rest of the market requires specialists. This may be delivered in one organisation but I believe the profession should become more specialist.

For example the UK has some of the best design talent in the world. There is the potential for an executive architect function to specialise in the technical delivery of these buildings. New buildings are becoming increasing technically complex with growing legislation and energy targets.

There is a stigma to the role of the executive in the industry but for me this is an essential role. Not everyone can achieve the heights of Lord Foster earning millions per year but there are opportunities for unsung heroes.

We also have the growth of BIM and the potential this brings in relation to the coordination of the design and delivery process. There is the opportunity for lifecycle experts who can accurately demonstrate how clients can maximise the value of their investment.

What I do know is we are in the middle of a revolution and there is no going back. We are seeing many companies going out of business.

Obviously the market conditions are partly driving this but we can’t just keep doing what we have always done and wait for the market to return. It won’t. We need to respond to the market as an industry and adapt. If we don’t evolve we will die!

Asset Light Business

A few things have come together for me over the last couple of months to shape how i think business will be done in the future.

Space have dipped their toe into the office rental market over the last few months. We had some spare space in our Newcastle office as we reduced some of our teams. The idea of an asset not working can keep me awake at night. We had put the space in the hands of agents for a while but we had little interest. We decided to change the offer and market a more flexible solution ourselfes.

 We have been overwhelmed by the success. In just over 6 months we have filled all of the space and have a waiting list for future suites.This success cannot just be down to Debbie's cappuccino in the cafe.

In September I contributed to a white paper by Mitel looking ar business communication. This focussed on flexible working and home working.

At the same time we are hearing more and more about cloud computing and the move away from hardware solutions. iPad devices are selling like hot cakes.

This all points towards a different way of doing business.

I am calling this ASSET LIGHT BUSINNESS

Companies no longer want onerous leases for extended periods. They want space which can be flexible to suit the markets they are in.

They don't want to invest in hardware which will go out of date or tie upprecious capital.

This will effect the property market as fewer organisations are willing to committ to a traditional lease. This in turn will effect the ability to raise funds.

The serviced office does conjure a picture of a soleless environment. The new asset light solution however will be a vibrant community of businesses supporting each other. (Just like spaceworks!)

 

There is no recession

I trained as an architect in Newcastle in the 90s. When I reflect on the companies who were around then and were Waring and Netts competition it is frightening how many no longer are around. Long established companies such as Mckellar, Browne smith Baker,

Just checking back its been a while since I wrote a blog. This is not due to lack of interest. The last few months have been incredibly busy. When I reflect I think this is due to the current market conditions which may seem strange.Our business has diversified considerably and we are now working across a far wider geography than we have ever done before.

20 years ago we would have been able to work within our locality and focus on a single role. Our business now has a strong technology base and we are using this to work across the industry.

We still provide traditional architectural services but are using technology to add value and deliver more efficiently. We cant compete on price as we will never win the fight.

We are using our skills now in different ways. With BIM technologies we are using our skills across a wider platform. BIMstore exploits the Internet.Our VOLULA manufactured building business is using technology to deliver quicker and better.

We now travel the UK every week going where the opportunities are,taking our offices with us.

Space group grew out of Waring and Netts Partnership which was established in 1957. The world was very different then. At the time the business was on a retainer with certain clients.

The architect was top of the tree looking down on everyone else. ( I'm sure some will say nothing has changed) We re branded to become _space in 2007, 50 years after we were founded. The reason we changed the name was to allow us to be more flexible in our offer and give us the opportunity to explore new opportunities.Dewjoc and Taylor Tulip Hunter have all ceased trading in the last couple of years.

Believe it or not I am a nostalgic person.I find it sad these companies and importantly many of the people are no longer active in the industry.

I suspect the reason for the demise is the changing market and approach.

In _space we no longer mention recession. This is a government term and we need to get used to the now. I don't believe things will go back to how they were in 2007. This is how we will continue to do business. Focusing on a recession encourages you to believe we will go back to how it was before. I'm afraid this is it. There will be no going back.

The pace of change will continue to increase. Markets will continue to become more competitive. What we have to do is find the answers to business in this environment. What I know is, it needs some great thinking and lots and lots of energy.

Business is tough and we all have to focused and fit for the challenge!