Download Response to CIC consultation on Innovation in Construction

British Institute of Facilities Management November 2007
Response to CIC consultation on Innovation in Construction Services
Background
A joint Industry/ Government study is looking at innovation in construction
services, in particular the key interaction between construction clients and
their key advisers.
As a member of the Project Board, on behalf of the Strategic Forum for
Construction, CIC is supporting the study.
The project has an industry advisory Group, the Construction Services
Innovation Advisory Group (SIAG), the aims of which are:
o To deepen understanding of innovation in construction services,
defined as the inputs of professional advisers and consultants
o To assess whether there are actions which Government and Industry
might take to encourage and facilitate innovation in construction
services, or to reduce barriers, to stimulate the construction services
sector to become even more successful.
As part of its information gathering process, and in order to better identify
areas where there may be a role for Government, CIC is asking key
organisations questions in order to better understand the innovation process –
focusing on the interaction between the client and their key advisers in the
definition, design and delivery of building projects.
Key questions and BIFM responses
o What are the emerging innovations that are making a real
difference in the construction service sector? What are the
broader innovative practices the client /client adviser relationship
can inspire?
The increasing move by clients towards ‘whole life value’ asset management
in the specification of client requirements (as evidenced through the PFI / PPP
procurement model) has resulted in a renewed focus on value as against
base cost budgeting. This in turn should have an impact on the development
of products and services that offer improved returns on investment over the
life of the asset by measuring the real cost of managing the facility over its
lifetime.
The importance of informed clients to the procurement process has a
fundamental impact on the partnership between client and client
(professional) advisers. An understanding of the value proposition attached to
alternative innovative solutions should be the starting point for evaluating
preferred solutions.
This in turn should impact throughout the supply chain in the design and
production of materials that contribute to overall improvements in life-cycle
performance and value management.
o What drives this innovation in the client or the client adviser
relationship?
The key drivers relate to value/return on investment; affordability; improved
functionality in respect of building use and performance; environmental
performance; energy/cost in use reductions and alignment of the chosen
solution to the values and culture of the organisation.
The client is focusing on the business needs and this takes into consideration
Corporate Social Responsibility issues.
o How is this innovation evidenced, and how could Government and
industry better develop indicators or tools to benchmark the state
and level of service innovation?
Standard quantitative measures of performance (e.g. cost of construction;
running costs; maintenance and energy costs) need to be compared with
measures of qualitative performance (e.g. customer satisfaction; user
productivity; return on capital invested; contribution to meeting environmental
targets; resource management and impact on local communities).
NB Innovation (or at least diffusion of innovation) is normally measured by
rate of adoption linked back to various independent factors. Consequently,
practical measures such as number of architects specifying innovative
products could be useful in building up a picture.
Techniques are being developed to calculate user efficiency against a
common matrix including ‘value add’ and customer service. Government
needs to work with the industry to determine standard models of
measurement.
o What are the barriers to further service innovation?
Short-termism in the construction supply chain and design professions, when
continued responsibility/ ownership ceases following completion of the
construction project.
Lack of authoritative evidence on the performance of alternative design
solutions and the relative benefits of different approaches. Reluctance of
business to share intellectual property where perceived commercial
competitive advantage exists – need for a more open approach to innovation,
whilst recognising and protecting the investment in innovation made by
companies.
Lack of investment in research into alternative technologies.
Legislative obligations that may lead clients/advisers to favour overengineered solutions from a desire to ‘play safe’ (e.g. health & safety
legislation, litigation culture).
Failure to adopt / learn from innovations applied in other countries and adapt
good practices to UK context.
Not taking a service perspective, but rather paying only lip service - if
followed through this would logically result in facilities management being
further up the construction agenda.
Failure to recognise the special factors in construction (see Q5)
Pro-innovation bias that ignores anti-innovation and proper questioning of
innovation 'failure'.
Failure to look at the big picture - 95% ish of buildings are existing etc
o Is there a role for Government in supporting these systems of
innovation (such as adjusting policy or regulation) in order to gain
further economic and social value?
Government can encourage innovation through clear guidance on the role of
the construction process in the development of its sustainable communities
agenda and environmental strategies and how it intends to reward investment
in cost efficient environmental solutions that can be proven to result in wider
community benefits.
Provide incentives for reducing waste throughout the construction and
operation of a building by adopting a resource management approach, that
acknowledges the advantages of reducing overall costs of running a building
and minimising / reclaiming waste by-products.
Fund a programme of knowledge exchange and dissemination between
various sectors and throughout the supply chain, based on examples of
successful approaches – a development of the existing KTP approach
focused on the built environment.
Reintroduce support for applied research aimed at supporting innovation in
the construction, materials and supply industries.
Knowledge Transfer Projects should be encouraged and made to drive
practical tools that are supported by Government.
Contact:
Richard Byatt
BIFM Communications & External Affairs Director
01732 522948
[email protected]