Entornos CBA en Computer Science

Delivering Excellence in Construction

(Cabinet Office 2012d) Presumed disbanded

Further formal progress of the Government Construction Strategy does not appear to be

publically available apart from updates on cost reductions (Cabinet Office, 2014a). “The overall cost reductions declared by departments for 2012/13 and 2013/14 were:

In-Year 2012/13: £447m on an expenditure of £2.4bn (15.6%)

In-Year 2013/14: £840m on an expenditure of £3.5bn (19.6%) “ (Cabinet Office 2014a) Whilst each task group has produced outputs and activity is still on-going, it is unclear how further progress of the Construction Strategy is being coordinated and reported. As previously mentioned, the author was Academic Partner on the trial project of the Supply Chain Management Group (SCMG). A case study of this project was published (Cabinet Office, 2014b). Despite the empirical evidence indicating that the objectives of the Government

Construction Strategy, namely cost and carbon reduction, were achieved by the SCMG, (in

addition to many other benefits), wider adoption of the approach has proved significantly more challenging. It is this issue of adopting perceived better practice that will be explored in more detail in the next section.

Paul Morrell was appointed as Chief Construction Adviser, initially for a two-year term in office; however this was extended for a further 12 months ending in November 2012. Peter Hansford, who had overseen the publication of the Infrastructure Cost Review, was appointed

and started as Morrell’s successor in December 2012. Hansford’s initial responsibility focused on the production of another report, Construction 2025 (BIS, 2013), one of a collection of

industrial strategies1 _{setting out how government and industry should work in partnership for}

the benefit of the country. Whereas the Government Construction Strategy was focused on the

public sector, Construction 2025 had an industry-wide remit. Furthermore, whilst Construction 2025 contains targets and strategic intent, unlike the Government Construction Strategy there

is no definite implementation plan. The Construction Leadership Council2 _{was established to}

oversee the implementation of Construction 2025. As Wilkinson (2014) indicates “it is not

entirely clear what the relationship is between the Government Construction Strategy and Construction 2025, or between the Government Construction Board and the Construction

Leadership Council”. Further investigation has revealed that the Government Construction Board is still active and is separate from the Construction Leadership Council (Dammers, 2015). A principal reason for creating the post of Chief Construction Adviser was to provide leadership and coordination in matters affecting the construction industry (BERR, 2008). It was perceived that the Chief Construction Adviser would be a better solution than a ministerial post, yet the lack of clarity over the relationship between the Government Construction Board and the Construction Leadership council could raise concerns over the leadership and coordination of construction.

Moreover, in 2013, Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, called for a review of architecture and the built environment. The Farrell Review (Farrell, 2013)

was subsequently published in 2014. It contained a recommendation that a Chief Architect position be created, similar to the Chief Construction Adviser as well as a leadership body similar to the Construction Leadership Council. Whilst consultation took place with both the current and former Chief Construction Advisers, the concern is that another review of built environment leadership was deemed necessary and again calls into question the coordination across government departments by the Chief Construction Adviser. Further investigation is necessary to identify the motivation for The Farrell Review; however an initial proposition

would be that the architecture profession was not effectively consulted in the production of the

Government Construction Strategy. Indeed a review of the Government Construction Strategy

indicates that whilst reference is made to design and designers, there is no specific reference to architects. A key challenge for reform within the built environment has been the fragmented nature of both the professional and supply chain constituents. It would indicate further challenges with coordination and leadership.

As the end of the current Parliament draws near, it is difficult to find a concise assessment of the current status of the Government Construction Strategy and determine whether its key

objectives have been achieved. It would appear the incumbent Chief Construction Advisor has focused on Construction 2025 rather than the implementation of his predecessor’s strategy.

Whilst, it is evident that the strategy has engaged a great number of people within the industry, a significant number of outputs have been produced and further work continues with the BIM

Task Group and Infrastructure UK (2012, 2014), the question is whether the laudable aspirations of the strategy will achieve the desired long-term sustainable cost and carbon reduction?

This section has considered progress of the Government Construction Strategy since its

publication in 2011. Whilst there is limited evidence to support a conclusive response to the achievement of the strategy’s principal aims, there has nonetheless been a substantial volume of work produced in the form of guidance and case studies. Moreover, work continues in a number of areas. However, concerns could be inferred with the ongoing coordination and leadership of construction matters within government. Was the creation of a Chief Construction Adviser more appropriate than a Minister for the Built Environment? Furthermore do government-sponsored reports influence the desired changes, and if not, why not? Similarly, the same questions could be asked of the volumes of best practice guidance that are generated. Which further queries whether construction is different to other industries; is construction industry resistant to change; or does it change, but just not in the way envisaged?