Views

Stirling sets a standard — so why isn’t it higher?

OUR ALTERNATIVE STIRLING PRIZE delivered some interesting insights. Not just in revealing the behind-the-scenes stories of buildings that are normally presented to the public only in the most flattering of lights, but in the contrasting mindsets of the project teams and the judging panel. Interviewing the designers and

contractors, most discussed the projects in familiar terms. They assessed their own work in terms of programme, budget and quality; they valued the spirit of compromise that prevailed during the value engineering; they mentioned the building’s energy efficiency and compliance with Part L. But when it came to the judging session, our expert panel judged the projects against rather higher standards than they judged themselves. Again and again, the panel commented that programme, budget and quality should be a given; that Part L 2006 — even for projects designed in 2006 — is really just the baseline; that value engineering is all very well, but the best of the best should be saving money by adding innovative ideas, not cutting out the frills that shouldn’t be there in the first place; that sustainability is about conserving resources and carbon as well as operational energy.

➜Online poll

This month Should CITB- ConstructionSkills be privatised?

Vote now at: www.construction- manager.co.uk

Yes 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | CONSTRUCTION MANAGER No

Last month Should we have more transparency on public sector project costs?

Of course, the distance between the

two viewpoints is partly because this year’s Stirling shortlist were products of the boom, while the judging session took place in a climate of “more for less”. By the time next year’s crop is delivered, we should see projects more attuned to our times. But part of delivering New Realist designs is adding new targets to the “programme, budget, quality” trinity that has held sway for so long. And part of that will involve raising the bar for the award schemes that celebrate the industry’s most high-profile and prestigious projects — so that there’s plenty of aspirational headroom for the rest.

THERE IS DISAPPOINTMENT and disbelief among Construction & Built Environment diploma teachers and lecturers. How could a qualification that was so badly wanted and well-supported deliver such a poor set of results? The main failings seem to be too much bureaucracy and too little preparation. Certainly not insurmountable — as long as the government supports the qualification. Its current review of 14-19 vocational education is perhaps the industry’s one and only chance of communicating the long-term value of retaining the diploma. Elaine Knutt, editor

Feedback

More for less is easier said than done...

Michael Solomon, via website In response to your “Money savers” suggestions (CM September) on how the industry can deliver more for less, I have a few thoughts: •Over-engineering — We all know that most projects are over engineered.

• Greater cost transparency — If clients published out-turn costs perhaps they wouldn’t always accept the lowest tender. Low tender = high out-turn.

• Standardised buildings — Transportation costs need to be considered carefully for modular buildings. Schemes near the factory will be competitive, but the further away you get the less competitive it becomes.

• Standardised products — Architects will always try to reinvent the wheel, to make their mark!

• Pooling procurement of materials across projects — Might work for the majors but the medium-to-small contractors need the builders merchants. Maybe another way for the majors to force the medium-to- small contractors out of business?

• High-calibre staff to deliver major programmes: We need the high-calibre staff on the sites not sat miles away in offices, but with the current competitive market we cannot afford them.

... we can deliver more, if it’s lower quality you’re after

Will Hughes, professor of construction management and economics,

University of Reading Construction can indeed deliver more for less. The sector always has done. It has always been possible to cut corners and replace good materials with low-quality substitutes. Apart from substituting poor materials for good ones, we are also routinely de-skilling and de-professionalising the design and construction processes in every way possible to respond to clients who are not willing or able to pay for a good job. In the current economic downturn, it is

inevitable that construction quality and social responsibility will be low on most agendas. But this does not provide more for less, in the long run. Perhaps what we need is a concerted attempt to persuade our clients of the medium- to long-term benefits of good design and construction?