好色先生TV

In what seems like a few minutes鈥� time, my generation of crumblies will be replaced by all you up-and-coming surveyors, managers, architects, engineers, consultants and soffit-fixers. Thirty-something middle-managers will soon become 40-something chiefs and policy-makers with an appetite for change and improvement. And I have begun to wonder what you are hankering for; what inkling, what hint is there that you will manage building differently?

I mused on this last week when I wrote about three contract documents, JCT, NEC and PPC2000, all of which go on about 鈥渃ollaborative working鈥�. And the honest truth about my generation is that when we read about this we smile, mutter 鈥測eah, yeah鈥� and stifle a yawn. We are set in our ways and it needs the next generation to pick up the baton. And then a little light went on in my cranial conference hall. I seemed to recall that a bunch of missionaries came proselytising this idea when I was 鈥渢he next generation鈥�.

The smile fades a little at interim 15, when the amount payable has exceeded the contract sum. The mutual trust and co-operation become just a little strained, don鈥檛 they?

Look, lots of us old constructors were brought up on a diet of Sir Harold Emmerson and Sir Harold Banwell. They were a sort of Flanders & Swan duo. They sang about 鈥渕ud, mud, glorious mud, nothing quite like it for cooling the blood鈥�. Emmerson did a 鈥渟urvey of problems in the construction industry鈥� in 1992; Banwell did the same in 1964. And do you know, they went on about 鈥渃ollaborative working鈥�, or rather, the want of it. Banwell said our main problem was 鈥渢hat the sections of the industry have long acted independently鈥�. It was said that the most important single sentence in the report was 鈥渨hile we make suggestions for alterations in practices and procedures, these will be of no avail until those engaged in the industry think and act together鈥�. Then there鈥檚 鈥渨e again find it necessary to emphasise the importance of building as a product of a team 鈥� all our recommendations bear upon the general objective of thinking and acting together鈥�. Wow, doesn鈥檛 it make you want to jump up and shout: 鈥淎men, amen 鈥� praise the Lord!鈥� And do you know what happened after all this 1964 hype? Oh, we just ignored it.

You next lot were weaned on Latham. He, too, was charged with carrying out a survey of problems in the industry. And he soon discovered that 鈥渆ach of the sections of the industry has different concerns and priorities, which are vital to their section but are often of much less interest to the others 鈥� the industry has deeply ingrained adversarial attitudes鈥�. It needs 鈥渆ach employer and contractor to affirm that they intend to undertake the project in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation, and to trade fairly with each other鈥�. Praise the Lord!

If you put a lump of money in the price for all the usual shenanigans, there needn鈥檛 be a fuss, need there?

Well it鈥檚 15 years on from Latham and 45 years on from Banwell. How, is collaborative working going for you? I mean, when the two QSs differ on the amount payable under interim account one, do they smile and reach a fair agreement in the spirit of mutual trust and co-operation? Of course they do. The smile fades a little at interims 13, 14 and 15, when the amount payable has exceeded the contract sum. The mutual trust and co-operation become just a little strained, don鈥檛 they? Oh, and by then the job is running weeks late and the liquidated damages sword hangs by a thread and the mutual trust and co-operation and promise to trade fairly has faded a tad. Collaborative working requires the contract administrator to dish out extensions of time that deprive his client of 拢10,000 a week in liquidated damages 鈥� or, to be fair, requires the contractor to say 鈥渘o, I don鈥檛 deserve an extension of time, I will pay the 15-weeks damages鈥�. Praise the Lord! Final accounts are a doddle. Variations are agreed at the drop of a hat. Disruptive working and costs are compromised 鈥� let鈥檚 split it down the middle, say the collaborative working missionaries. No, no, says the contractor: forget about it.

How might all that collaboration happen? It鈥檚 easy. But it wasn鈥檛 mentioned by our learned gurus. It was an idea of my old Auntie Nell. 鈥淲ell son,鈥� she said, 鈥渋t鈥檚 like this: if you put a lump of money in the price for all the usual shenanigans, there needn鈥檛 be a fuss, need there?鈥� And I said: 鈥淒o you think prices are too low, auntie?鈥� And she said: 鈥淟et鈥檚 go to the pictures; Flanders & Swan are on鈥�.

Tony Bingham is a barrister and arbitrator at 3 Paper 好色先生TVs Temple