好色先生TV

There鈥檚 a very good reason why the companies that build things in the UK are most usually called contractors. While to the layman, the core of their expertise is in putting up buildings, those in the industry know that just as fundamental - or possibly even more so - is the management of the legal and commercial relationships between all the often hundreds of parties involved in any building project.

Now Colin Harding, a lifelong contractor and past president of the Chartered Institute of 好色先生TV, has come up with a serious proposal to totally redesign how this contractual playground works. If adopted, he says, it would result in nothing less than a radical restructure of the industry - completely shifting the power balance of the sector in favour of contractors, once and for all removing from architects and engineers their prized role controlling the design of a building. Harding reckons his plan will cut the need for 50% of the supervisory roles consultants currently carry out on behalf of clients. Unsurprisingly, the backlash from consultants has already started.

But the idea can鈥檛 be dismissed when someone of the calibre of James Wates, the chairman of industry body, Build UK, as well as the CITB and contracting giant Wates Group, has endorsed it as a practical system that is the 鈥渇inal extension of the paradigm shift鈥� initiated by Sir Michael Latham and Sir John Egan two decades ago. Harding鈥檚 concept is that buying a building should be just like buying any other high-value, bespoke manufactured product at a fixed price - such as a new car. Re-organising the industry around this principle, he says, will finally enable contractors to escape the low margin, low investment, high-risk business models that are widely seen as the reason for most of the industry鈥檚 ills. So what exactly is he proposing, can it work - and how worried should architects really be?

Design and build

Harding鈥檚 name for the idea, 鈥淚ntegrated Design and Construction - single responsibility鈥�, certainly isn鈥檛 catchy. In simple terms, he suggests a client doesn鈥檛 take out a contract for construction services, rather it buys a building whose performance is guaranteed by a product sale agreement and a warranty. In his system, the body delivering this 鈥減roduct鈥� is the Integrated Design and Construction (IDC) constructor 鈥� essentially the builder - which takes total and single responsibility for standing behind this guarantee of performance, and is also, vitally, in charge of the design process.

The IDC constructor, therefore, employs and directs the architect and design engineers, working to a budget and a detailed client brief. In this sense it can be likened to a pure form of design and build contracting - except that the client doesn鈥檛 have its own concept designs to pass over to the design and build contractor in the first place. Indeed, one of the biggest changes would be that the proposal envisages far fewer client-side advisers overall - the IDC constructor would be trusted to deliver the design brief.

Long term, I see IDC constructors running the industry. Most of the architects who are dead against it don鈥檛 want to lose their authority

Colin Harding

So far, so technical - but what does it mean? Harding says the model could have far reaching consequences, and he鈥檚 not alone in thinking so. 鈥淭his is a step change in how we鈥檝e been thinking for the past 50 years,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t will probably halve the number of people in external consultants managing and supervising construction which is what they鈥檙e afraid of. Long term, I see IDC constructors running the industry. Most of the architects who are dead against it don鈥檛 want to lose their authority.鈥�

Don Ward, chief executive of Constructing Excellence, and the chair of a Cabinet Office committee trialling new forms of procurement, says Harding鈥檚 idea is one of a new class of procurement and delivery models that allow contractors to 鈥渂reak free of the low-margin high-risk environment they鈥檙e in鈥� and deliver on the aims outlined in the industrial strategy, Construction 2025. 鈥淚f widely adopted, this would have to lead to consolidation at a tier one contractor level between those who were willing to take on the risk of design as well as delivery. It would lead to more standing supply chains like you get in other sectors such as the automotive industry, and would lead to contractors employing designers directly in-house.鈥�

He鈥檚 so enthusiastic that he says he鈥檚 willing to recommend the model is put forward for a pilot with a live government project. Harding鈥檚 idea is that with the early involvement of the IDC constructor (contractor), who is given control over the design process, and the use of collaboration tools such as project bank accounts and integrated insurance, a fully integrated team is created. This means - Harding says - there will be no 鈥渄umping鈥� of unrealistic, incomplete or defective designs on contractors in the expectation they will sort out the design mess later. So all parties will be incentivised to achieve the outcome desired by the client.

Harding says it is reasonable for the IDC constructor to accept all the risk because it 鈥渉as total authority in return for total responsibility backed up by the IDC project insurance cover. If you have full control over design and construction, risk can be assessed much more accurately.鈥�

Nevertheless, critics of Harding鈥檚 plan point out that since the Latham report first recommended 鈥減artnering鈥� in 1994, much of the focus for reforming construction has centred around ways to share risk between different parts of the construction process, in order that all members of a project team have a financial interest in the project鈥檚 success. They say this proposal will make integrating the project team more difficult. Industry consultant Alan Crane, another former CIOB president and long-time director at contractor Bovis, says: 鈥淟atham was all about sharing risk, rather than single point responsibility. This is the antithesis of risk share.

鈥淭here鈥檚 nothing fundamentally wrong with this system in process terms, but I don鈥檛 see why it would produce an integrated team. Architects are not going to be happy at all to work like this, and you鈥檒l have a standard contractual chain.鈥�

Backlash

Harding says in his book detailing the proposal that 鈥渃lient need, particularly cost certainty, will take precedence over design-centric aspirations鈥�, hinting at the most controversial aspect of the proposal: the loss of the architect鈥檚 pre-eminent role controlling the design. Architect Rab Bennetts, founder of Bennetts Associates, says Harding has long been the 鈥渘emesis鈥� of the architectural profession. 鈥淗e absolutely hates architects. He talks about integration, but what he鈥檚 actually talking about is subjugation. He just doesn鈥檛 understand what architects bring to the process. If contractors were put in charge you鈥檇 have a fantastic dumbing down of the process as they don鈥檛 understand the finer points of design and building for the long term.鈥�

Harding, a former 好色先生TV columnist, has long made a distinction between what he calls 鈥渞eal鈥� construction - actual building work on site - and 鈥渧irtual鈥� construction: the design phase, populated by myriad consultants who aren鈥檛 necessarily around when the project is built. He has talked of 鈥減arasitic鈥� consultants feeding off the 鈥渞eal鈥� construction industry, but he denies his proposal is coloured by an anti-architect stance.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 have anything against architects. They鈥檙e one of the most important professionals engaged in the building process. They鈥檙e just not the most important professional, as they have thought they are for some time. IDCsr is about integrated, collaborative team work.鈥�

鈥淭he vast majority of architects I鈥檝e worked with are conscientious, competent and diligent designers. But many lacked the basic skills of 鈥榖uildability鈥� and basic construction management and in some cases even design management,鈥� he says.

If widely adopted, this would have to lead to consolidation at a tier one contractor level between those who were willing to take on the risk of design as well as delivery

Don Ward, Constructing Excellence

Bennetts says he accepts many architects need to take on new skills to improve the deliverability of their buildings, but also says a move to a system which prioritised buildability above traditional design values would be socially insupportable. 鈥淭he public won鈥檛 accept it. They need to feel secure someone is standing up for design and the environment, and it鈥檚 hard enough for architects to do this, let alone contractors,鈥� he says.

It鈥檚 not only architects who dispute this viewpoint. Peter Jacobs, another former CIOB president, and MD of construction logistics business Wilson James, says the debate between 鈥渞eal鈥� and 鈥渧irtual鈥� construction is outdated. 鈥淚 think contractors versus consultants is an old debate, it鈥檚 yesterday鈥檚 argument and I think we鈥檝e moved on. The industry is more sophisticated about teams coming together for the project.鈥�

Harding says this controversy was behind a decision by the CIOB to remove its name from the cover of his book detailing his plan, despite the institute having provided invaluable assistance in developing his idea. Initial copies including the CIOB logo have had to be reprinted. He says: 鈥淭here were one or two senior people from the virtual construction side of the industry who would prefer not to see this full integration happen. They tried to stop publication but it was too late.鈥�

The CIOB wasn鈥檛 able to comment in detail as to why it insisted its name be taken off the book cover, but said in a statement: 鈥淭he book is a publication supported by the institute as an alternative view and we have provided support in its formation.鈥�

Harding鈥檚 critics admit that the system may work well for relatively simple buildings, such as warehouses, or ones where designs are likely to be rolled out again and again. Crane says: 鈥淭his is a process-led delivery system. So you can imagine if it was applied to standard buildings for Travelodge or McDonald鈥檚, then it would be much more applicable. Unfortunately, most buildings are not like that.鈥� Construction Industry Council chief executive Graham Watts says: 鈥淚f you want a Stirling prize-winning building, then as a client you鈥檙e not likely to think that the design ingenuity you need resides in a firm of contractors.鈥�

Harding, in response, maintains that his system would allow for buildings with very high design values to be created, if that was part of the original client brief.

Client challenge

Harding鈥檚 critics suggest the biggest hurdle for the proposal to overcome is with clients - despite the fact his aim has been to make buying buildings simpler for them - because of a fear they may lose control. Harding says that clients will have full control of the process through their appointed client team manager, and that the system actually addresses common client concerns about lack of direct access to their builder. But former chief construction adviser, QS Paul Morrell, says: 鈥淕iven that real value is generated in the design stage, and never on site, how can clients have reasonable confidence that the IDC constructor will be focused on whole life value, rather than relative ease of construction?鈥�

Under traditional procurement forms, clients work directly with an architect to generate a design before going to the market to find someone to build it. Crane says: 鈥淐lients find it very difficult to define what they want from a building, and they use the traditional design development approach to help them get to a definition of what they want. This [proposal] doesn鈥檛 allow you to get to the best knowledge at the front end of the process.鈥�

While this traditional procurement is not necessarily in the best interests of the contractor, the fact it allows the client to directly control the design up front, and then still pass off the construction risk as well remains very attractive. Rupert Choat, construction barrister at Atkin Chambers, says: 鈥淭he elephant in the room is the commerciality of this. This kind of thing is potentially available already, but I haven鈥檛 seen anyone offering it, as we have contractors fighting each other already to offer standard design and build. Most of them have clients who want far more control over the project than this envisages.鈥�

Given the implications of his new system, Harding knows converting the industry to it is not going to be an overnight job, estimating it will take 25 years to become the standard. Constructing Excellence鈥檚 Don Ward, likewise, admits 鈥渋t won鈥檛 happen in my lifetime鈥� because of the 鈥渧ested interests鈥� lining up against it, and supporter Rudi Klein, chief executive of engineering specialists body SEC Group, says it鈥檒l be 20-30 years before projects commonly work in this way.

But for Harding, it is worth the long gestation, the aim being nothing less than a return to a 鈥済olden age鈥� of construction preceding the first world war, 鈥渨hen builders were architects and architects were builders - now working together again as constructors鈥�. Whether he鈥檚 right remains to be seen.