Chartered Arbitrator and Engineer, Adjudicator, Mediator
Before commencing adjudication, you should audit your adjudication risk. Risk audit is a process, which helps you make sensible commercial decisions. It highlights risks, their nature and scope, and allows you to determine how to prevent or reduce the risks.
One way to evaluate adjudication risk is to use a decision tree. Widely used in engineering, a decision tree can help you decide the dispute resolution strategy most likely to secure the best financial outcome for you. Graphical representation of risk helps you to make a reasoned assessment of the adjudication outcome, and allows you to compare that outcome to the costs you will incur in adjudication, and to any settlement offer. If you have suffered a loss of cash flow because of non-payment and invested in preparing a detailed claim, there will always be a maximum recovery amount. The maximum is the total of the quantum of all the items claimed without deductions. It is natural for senior management to focus on the maximum amount possible; this is the wrong approach. Experience shows that “independent experts” often provide different credible quantum calculations, seemingly underpinned by objective standards. The maximum amount is only ever an aspirational figure, and to imbue realism I recommend the use of a decision tree to calculate an “expected cash equivalent” (ECE). Competent mediators will use the decision tree method, or a variation of it, to help destabilise the parties and move them from entrenched positions.
In an adjudication concerning the modernisation and installation of lifts, the Referring Party said that it was entitled to additional money because of 17 variations. The Responding Party said that it was entitled to deduct money because of defective and incomplete work. Figure 1 shows how a decision tree can be used to chart the lifts dispute. The Referring Party said one variation was for Lift Builders Work, another variation was for dealing with Inherited Faults, etc. The Responding Party said that it wanted credit for Unfinished Items.
To grow the decision tree, each variation becomes a branch of the diagram, and determines the likely ECE based on statistical probability. Each branch of the decision tree represents a monetary decision event. The tree structure links the outcome of occurrences, and shows how one decision leads to the next. The use of branches indicates that each variation or deduction is mutually exclusive to another.
The efficient and normal way for an adjudicator to consider variations or deductions is first to decide liability and then to decide quantum. If the adjudicator decides that there is no liability, there is no need for him to look at quantum. However, for you, once the branches are in place it is easier to populate decision tree information starting with quantum and then moving to liability. In the lifts dispute the Lift Builders Work variation has a possible high valuation of £40,000 and a possible low valuation of £10,000. You assess that there is a 75% (0.75) probability that the adjudicator will decide the high valuation is correct, and there is a 25% (0.25) probability that the adjudicator will decide the low valuation is correct. Factoring the high and low valuation with their associated probability leads to a Net Quantum Outcome of £32,500. Often the decision tree has three sub- branches representing a high, medium and low valuation. Whatever number, it is essential that the probability of the branch events occurring always add to 100% (1.0).
Figure 1 Decision Tree in relation to the Lifts Dispute
To make the decision tree robust it is important to support each probability with reasons. Intuition is not a reason. Not preparing a full list of reasons makes the decision tree branches brittle, and is a common decision tree malady. If you identify the reasons why the adjudicator will decide that the low valuation is correct, you are identifying the scope and nature of the risks that you face. Risk is a measure of the probability and severity of adverse effects. As you may be able to do things to reduce the risks, change the risk consequences, or share the risk with another party such as a sub- contractor, there might be a sequence of linked dispute decision trees. Decision trees can be drafted using paper and pencil, by using a PC based spreadsheet such as Microsoft Excel, or proprietary low cost decision tree software. Using a spreadsheet or software makes it easy to update the decision tree quickly when there is new information that changes your assessment of branch risks or outcomes.
Linked to the Net Quantum Outcome is the likelihood of the adjudicator deciding that one party or the other has liability for the variation. You assess that there is an 80% (0.80) probability that the adjudicator will decide that the other party is liable for the Lift Builders Work variation, and a 20% (0.20) probability that you are liable. If the adjudicator decides that you are liable, you get nothing. Multiplying the probability 80% (0.8) that the other side is liable, by the Net Quantum Outcome, £32,500 gives the Lift Builders Work variation ECE of £26,000. Populating the Figure 1 decision tree with the Lift Builders Work and Inherited Faults variations, and the Unfinished Items deduction gives an ECE adjudication outcome of £37,000. This contrasts starkly with the maximum, amount possible £64,000.
Each party might spend £15,000 in claims consultants and lawyers’ fees to assist it. Except in very limited circumstances, in the UK a party’s costs in preparing for and participating in adjudication are not recoverable. However, the adjudicator could decide that you should pay all of his fees and expenses, or a percentage thereof. Based on the above, if the ECE adjudication outcome is £37,000, and your adjudication professional fees budget is £15,000, irrespective of whether you are risk- adverse or not, accepting an offer to settle for £22,500 makes sense. This would give you £500 more than the ECE, and you can invest your companies’ time pursuing other more profitable opportunities.
If you are adjudicating in a jurisdiction such as Malaysia, where the party’s costs in preparing for and participating in adjudication are recoverable, then not accepting an offer of £37,500 leads you to liability to pay the other parties’ costs, which if not taxed, could reduce your net recovery to £37,000- £15,000 = £22,000.
Contributor: Niall is Chair of the CIC Adjudicator Nominating Body Management Board. He is a Chartered Arbitrator, Building Services Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Information Systems Engineer and Chartered Builder. He provides arbitration, adjudication and mediation services in commercial technology, engineering and construction disputes. https://www.linkedin.com/in/adjudicator
Julie Fleck OBE, MRTPI
British Standard Committee B/559 Member
A new British Standard has been published to help built environment professionals create an inclusive environment for everyone – this is not just a moral or social issue but a statutory duty
We learnt last summer of the stark reality that, despite years of antidiscrimination legislation, disabled people are still finding their lives needlessly restricted by features of the built environment. The Women and Equalities Committee Inquiry into Disability and the Built Environment reminded us all that inclusive design is not just a nice to do. All built environment professionals, through the critical role we play in planning, building and managing our towns and cities, have a statutory duty to ensure that disabled and older people have the same opportunities as non disabled people to live full and independent lives. We as must all respond by ensuring that we no longer allow barriers to inclusion to be designed built or maintained.
Do you have the skills and knowledge to plan to include?
Do you have the technical knowhow to judge whether a development proposal will provide an inclusive environment or not? Do you know whether you overlook the critical detail that will make a building or place easy and comfortable to use?
We are getting better at assessing wheelchair accessibility, but do we really understand how to design buildings and spaces that are accessible and usable by blind and partially sighted people, or by people whose walking ability is limited or whose perception of space requires legible routes and predictable layouts. With the loss in many local authorities of the expert access officer on hand to ask, we all need to recognise what we don’t know and brush up on our technical skills.
A new British Standard
If you need to refresh your skills, the new British Standard, a revised and updated version of BS 8300:2010, provides an opportunity for you to gain a greater understanding of inclusive design and help you ensure that your development adequately addresses accessibility.
Published in January, the Code of Practice BS 8300:2018 Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment is divided into two parts. Part 1: External Environment explains how the external built environment, including streets, parks, landscaped areas, the approach to a building and the spaces between and around buildings, can be designed, built and managed to achieve an inclusive environment. It complements and is intended to be read in conjunction with Part 2: Buildings.
Advice given in Part 1 incorporates material relating to the external environment that was in the original BS 8300:2010 but it has been expanded to include wider aspects not previously included, such as lighting, assistance dog toilets, water features and public art. Advice is also given for specific locations such as access to beaches, play areas, parks and gardens, and nature trails.
Part 2 has updated and expanded the advice on nearly all aspects of the accessibility of buildings. Although the standard recognises that more research is needed before comprehensive advice can be given to address ‘Designs for the Mind’, the new code does include advice on, for example, quiet spaces. This includes when and what to provide in a dedicated room or space where people can find peace, calm and tranquillity in order to manage sensory / neurological processing needs or spend time in prayer or contemplation.
Integrating inclusive design principles into the development process
For the first time, the British Standard has included advice on how to integrate inclusive design principles into the development process. Recognising the importance of addressing access and inclusion from the outset of any project it recommends, in Section 4, the development of an Inclusive Design Strategy as part of any strategic vision, with the principles of inclusive design embedded into the initial concept brief. Budget estimates, procurement processes and development agreements should make explicit reference to meeting best practice, helping to establish the principles of an inclusive development prior to the drafting of master plans and outline designs.
This should make it easier for designers to demonstrate how access and inclusion has been addressed in the Design and Access Statement submitted at planning application stage. If the commitment to an inclusive development process has been championed by the developer from the outset, monitoring compliance with best practice standards throughout the construction phases should also be easier and more transparent.
The masterplan and outline planning stages provide the opportunity to address the accessibility of the site and building layout. Section 5 sets out guidance on site planning, the position of buildings and their features, navigation, orientation and way finding, the legibility of space, and the principles of two senses (audible / tactile and visual).
Early consideration of the impact topography and the location of buildings across the site, the position of entrances and other features and how they are arranged can help to maximise their accessibility.
If you want to hear more about the new BS 8300:2018 register here for the CIC Inclusive Environment Briefing February 22nd at the RICS Headquarters in London.
Use the advice and guidance in BS 8300: 2018 and help make inclusion the norm not the exception
Contributor: Julie Fleck OBE, MRTPI is the RTPI representative on British Standard Committee B/559 the committee responsible for the development of BS 8300.
Beale & Company
A number of companies within the Carillion group have been placed in compulsory liquidation. The Official Receiver has been appointed as liquidator, with support from PwC. It has been confirmed that there is no prospect of any return to shareholders.
Given the size of Carillion, the UK’s second-biggest construction company, with 43,000 employees and contracts on a wide range of projects, including a number of flagship infrastructure projects, this will inevitably have a significant impact on the UK construction sector as a whole.
Official advice from PwC is:
“Unless advised otherwise, all agents, subcontractors and suppliers should continue to work and provide goods and services as normal, under their existing contracts, terms and conditions. You will get paid for goods and services you supply from the date of the Official Receiver’s appointment onwards. Over the coming days we will review supplier contracts and we’ll contact you concerning these soon. Goods and services you supply during the liquidation will be paid for. A letter will be sent to suppliers shortly containing further instructions.”
Our view is that any firm that has exposure to a Carillion group company must carefully assess its position. PwC’s statement that “you will get paid for goods and services” only applies for work from today. A creditor might be in a better position if it were to terminate its contract (though this will depend on the termination provisions and its particular circumstances).
We suggest the following:
1. Immediately conduct an internal review of your exposure to Carillion, its subsidiaries and related joint ventures.
2. Collate all contractual documentation to enable you to review your legal options.
3. Be extremely cautious if asked to enter into a new contract with the liquidator:
(i) pay close attention to the contractual terms, and consider whether to enter into the contract at all;
(ii) seek to negotiate favourable terms around payment: ensure that the payment timeframe is short, that you have a right to suspend and terminate for non-payment, avoid granting the liquidator/Carillion the right to set-off your fees against amounts due under other contracts, and if supplying materials, incorporate an effective retention of title clause; and
(iii) avoid agreeing contractual novation provisions, or if these are incorporated, seek to incorporate a requirement for your consent to novation of the contract.
4. If already in a contract with Carillion, ensure that payment notices are served on time. This is essential for maintaining your contractual entitlement to payment. If you are not paid, consider whether you have a right to suspend for non-payment or under contractual insolvency provisions.
5. Keep a close eye on developments, as these may occur rapidly, PwC have set up a website, https://www.pwc.co.uk/carillion, and you should monitor this as well as the news.
6. Where collateral warranties are demanded by third parties on existing contracts where you are employed by Carillion, carefully consider whether you are obligated to grant these, as you may be able to resist providing them if you are not paid.
7. There may be an opportunity to renegotiate unfavourable contractual terms with the liquidator or if a new entity buys a part of the Carillion business with which you have contracted.
8. Depending on your contractual terms, consider whether you can suspend any intellectual property licences. This might put you in a strong negotiating position with the liquidator.
9. Consider whether there are any contracts that you may wish to ‘take over’ from Carillion; if so, approach the liquidator to discuss.
10. Where you have appointed sub-contractors on a Carillion project, make sure you review those terms and consider what action needs to be taken.
Contributor: James Hutchinson is a Partner at Beale & Company. If you have any queries in relation to the above, or any concerns in relation to the Carillion liquidation and issues arising out of it, please contact James on +44 (0) 20 7469 0408 or at email@example.com.
Peter W.G. Morris
Emeritus professor of construction & project management
University College London (UCL)
Climate Change is one of the biggest challenges facing mankind, but what is the profession of project management doing about it? There are important exceptions but by and large the profession is fairly quiet on the subject. In my new book just published by APM (November, 2017), Climate Change and what the project management profession should be doing about it – a UK perspective, I argue that project management has a potentially significant role to play in reducing the causes and consequences of Climate Change.
I begin by noting the difference between Sustainability and Climate Change. Sustainability has become a catch-all for actions to do with saving the environment. It actually refers to the capacity to endure. Climate Change speaks to a broader, more urgent, potentially catastrophic set of factors. Over the last 10 years Climate Change has become increasingly accepted as a critical challenge to our world and to us, its passengers.
I begin by listing the effects of rises in the Earth’s ambient temperature above pre-industrial levels of 2, 3 or 4 or more degrees Celsius. The impact will be significant and dramatic yet, although there was jubilation the UN meeting in Paris 2015 where specific targets were agreed, actions to address how they would be met were left to individual countries. Follow-up is being done in a very weak and decentralised way. The project management profession, as the major discipline for managing change, should surely have something to contribute that addresses the situation more effectively. After all, over 20% of GDP is organised on a project basis. It's partly our own fault: there is next to nothing in the literature on how project management can help ameliorate the causes or consequences of Climate Change.
Thinking of what can be done, two fundamental practices seem missing: We await the opportunity to explore with the UN how these practices can be deployed. The situation technically is not unlike the Apollo Moon program of the 1960s. The energy there was focused and managed. With Climate Change we have yet to organise as effectively.
But it's not as though nothing is being done. In fact, project, program and portfolio management is already working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the primary source of temperature rise, in all kinds of ways. Buildings are being modified; new products are being introduced; fresh policies and regulations are being applied. Behaviours are key. Unfortunately however, the behaviour changes required to achieve the UN targets are so major that one must doubt whether the goals are realistically attainable.
But the profession can help in other ways. We can help by managing projects that will deliver new forms of mitigation, for example fusion based electrical power generation and carbon capture and storage. These are still a long way off however: the R&D required is enormous and the track record of achievements to date, worryingly slight. Renewables offer an attractive alternative but rarely exceed 30% of the power supply mix. This is considered too low, at least by the British Government, and in the UK at least we are thrown back on nuclear fission, and gas. But again, project management is not delivering as hoped – often as result of technology, as with the recent collapse of Westinghouse and as potentially, I believe, with Hinkley Point C with the government's procurement strategy resulting in highly risky technology being used).
In fact, in the built environment as a whole, the roles of the sponsor and other stakeholders are central, whether for big projects or for portfolio-type decisions, as, for example, in addressing flooding. Thus, managing the institutional contexts within which projects and programs have to operate often requires a new type and level of skill. In effect, the book advocates a model of project management that involves a more probing, creative, front-end oriented approach – an approach fit for tomorrow’s challenges as well as today’s.
There are plenty of opportunities, and needs, for project managers and the project management profession to stand up, claim the right to direct and influence activities, and perform and contribute to the development of a lower emitting world of greenhouse gases. But to do that many of us will have to stand up and be counted, making difficult decisions, and suffering adverse commentary. Looking at your children and neighbours, one can't doubt that this is the right thing to do: it's the only game in town. Let's act professional and play hard before they take our pitch away.
Contributor: Peter W.G. Morris is emeritus professor of construction and project management at University College London (UCL). He was head of UCL’s Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management between 2002 and 2012. During this time, the school tripled in size.
Bradley Mason LLP
The BEPE project aims are clear, more training and education is need to improved inclusive design knowledge and skills would make a positive impact on the work surveyors and designers produce. This in turn has an impact on the independence of building users whatever their access needs may be. But is the scale of the problem bigger than envisaged? And is the willingness of some working in the industry to upskill and change how they work lacking?
When I started my journey into the area of Inclusive Environments it was 1997 and I was working for a major retail bank that had a profile and reputation to protect and enhance. The British Banking Association provided us with guidance and the business was committed to respond to the ‘new’ legislation; the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. All areas of the business were responding; changing ATM’s and developing telephone and then internet banking. Budgets were of course an issue and works were phased while in some urban areas providing a number of accessible branches i.e. not all was thought to address our duties as a Services provider.
I left the bank in 2005 and can see no evidence of an access improvement programme continuing, indeed sadly closure programmes seems to be prevalent. In a small town near where I live Natwest, HSBC and Barclays have all closed and the vital services provided by the post office, which are also under threat, must certainly be protected. Back in the late 90’s the Post Office was one of the larger service providers to go out and spread the word that access must be achieved across their network, designing a wheelchair accessible counter unit. However, my local post office which relocated about 3 years ago is now in a building with stepped access and has a wooden ramp which they use as and when needed – their previous location had level access. This unfortunately all points to the Post Office neglecting their commitment to access.
Is anyone currently procuring retrospective access projects for example relocating entrances to a level area, enlarging doorways and fitting automatic door gear? Are occupiers seeking accessible units? I would advocate that all service providers write this requirement into their policies and when their typically short 5 year leases are up for renewal they use this to relocate to a more accessible unit or negotiate with their landlord to make the necessary improvements to their current unit. I recently read some letting particulars for a city centre office building with retail at ground level. Mention was made of ‘DDA complaint’ toilets. This tells me letting agents haven’t noticed that the DDA was absorbed into the Equality Act in 2010 so is no longer with us and indeed their clients haven’t noticed or don’t care.
The lack of well publicised relevant case law has meant that businesses have left their access projects to gather dust. The deadlines which the DDA set out were easy to grasp and like the Millennium bug the fear of the unknown meant that resources were committed to the project. Now there is no urgency and little or no interest. My downbeat assessment is that the strategy of ‘doing nothing’ is seen as low risk and this wins the day. However, as the evidence provided to the Women and Equalities Committee earlier this year in their Inquiry into Disability and the Built Environment demonstrated – disabled people still face challenges when accessing and using homes, buildings and public spaces. This constitutes ‘an unacceptable diminution of quality of life and equality’ – not good news for the construction industry more than 20 years after the DDA made discrimination illegal.
I would like to be more optimistic in relation to new schemes but again the evidence is that old habits die hard. Why are designers still wedded to the notion that all handrails must be brushed stainless steel and WC cubicle doors should be hidden along a wall of usually white glossy panelling? Public seating which should be for all is another area where standards are ignored.
Where designers are proposing such schemes and Approved Inspectors are appointed I feel strongly that the latter should not be shy in pointing out the failings that contravene Approved Document M (ADM). I spoke to an Approved Inspector recently on this issue and they confirmed that they had tried to enforce ADM - they raised the lack of visual contrast in a toilet. ADM paragraph 5.4 k requires; “the surface finish of sanitary fittings and grab bars contrasts visually with the background wall and floor finishes, and there is also visual contrast between wall and floor finishes”. The Approved Inspector asked that the walls be redecorated but said they were left with the impression that at the next redecoration this would be undone.
Maintenance is the poor relation in property but if this is undertaken without care and attention then the original design is compromised and any good access features can be lost. Every time you can’t take the lift as it is out of order consider how lucky you are to be able to use the stairs. When an access platform is out of order a wheelchair user is excluded from the building. Yet such features may be chosen as a solution without suitable consideration given to maintaining this feature and the associated costs. Educating building managers is a must; they are on the ground and see what is and is not working; but if all their choices are made based on costs then access will be relegated to ‘nice to have’ status. Businesses are losing out however, as disabled people will take their purple pound (estimated at £249 bn) and spend it elsewhere.
Contributor: Bairbre McKendrick is a Building Surveyor for Bradley Mason LLP
If you're reading this then congratulations you are about to enter the realms of supporting your mental wellbeing, being able to better resource yourself, increase productivity, meet the deadlines and have healthier handovers. All that, and enjoying a happier life too!
When the hours are stacking up, the margins are getting tighter and with the pressure increasing, how do you manage the stress this causes? How do you not take this home with you? And equally how do you not take the stresses and strains of home life to work?
Well, good news, the impact this is having on the mental wellbeing of our industry's workforce is finally being recognised. 1 in 4 of us will have a mental health issue during the course of the coming year. More than half of those in the trade - 55% - have suffered mental health issues, more than double the national average according to mental health charity Mind. So, look around you and start counting. What that really means is there are a lot of people who for some reason can't, won't or find it hard to talk about what's going on for them. They are not able to share how they are feeling because there's been little or no support in construction.
Three in ten, 29% of construction workers have taken time off due to stress and similar issues but only 32% of these told their boss the real reason for their absence.
Back in September 2016 I was interviewed in London by the Financial Times on the suicide percentages rates within the construction industry. The statistics show the suicide rate is the highest of any trade in Britain – it's 63% higher than the national average!
I found it interesting that the Government launched a scheme for the younger generation through a National Citizen Services program this provides information on mental health that offers services for young people to support and help improving their mental wellbeing. This could lead to a whole generation of people being able to talk about the struggles and challenges they face in their day-to-day life in a more open and honest way.
The challenge we face in our industry is how we build an environment where we can talk about our inner wellbeing, 'our feelings' open and honestly. There are plenty of tools that make life easier on the outside but where do we find the tools that make life easier on the inside?
We have a chance to draw up a new set of plans for this one, creating a culture change in our industry where the stigma around sharing how we feel, talking about our wellbeing, our feelings isn’t seen as a sign of weakness and not being able to cope.
How ridiculous is it?
Why would young people be attracted to working in an industry that suffers from a perceived macho stereotype and a put up and shut up attitude. Surely, we in the industry have a responsibility not just to ourselves but to those inheriting it to create a legacy and a working environment that sees, hears and values the person and not just the job role.
When we look back over the last fifty years construction has suffered both up's and down's, boom and bust. From the mid-1960s to the current day there has been a continuing increase in deindustrialization, which will continue to challenge the construction industry. Building methods have changed, technology has changed, the workforce has changed, but predominantly the attitude towards mental wellbeing in construction hasn’t. Surely now is the time for a culture change.
I know the stress, suffering and hardship those individuals working in construction during the down times went through, I was one of them. I lost friends to suicide and saw the impact it had on their families and friends. What support was there for them? And I can understand how those circumstances created and shaped our current culture and working practices of today.
So, what do we need to learn from history?
Well, in 2017 we have to understand that if we only focus on job roles and productivity without supporting the inner wellbeing of the individual, we will continue in creating an undervalued and unsupported workforce and an industry where you’re only as good as your last job.
What is self-awareness and mindfulness all about?
We want to do this because it will create a better industry a bigger industry, make it a place where people want to come to work because they feel supported, feel seen heard and valued. Lets' all create a better work-life balance and understand the positives that creates by looking after each other together.
Benefits of Mindfulness
If we continue to create an ever more stressful working environment that people survive in rather than thrive in, will not encourage new people into the industry and stop skilled people leaving. Either leaving voluntarily, because of the pressure, a breakdown or even worse suicide. The job role has to include the whole person, of course there are going to be challenges and stressful days, stressful weeks but what is most important is how we manage those times? Traditionally the industry hasn’t given enough support or been given enough in way of support to make a real difference. But, this is changing. There are those within the industry that are taking on the responsibility of creating and providing support.
Mindfulness and Self awareness are the foundations to build on, to meet the challenging experiences both in our personal and professional lives. The word 'Mindful' in Latin is a derivative from 'memor'. Which is a theory on 'man being more' grateful thankful thoughtful. The word self-awareness is a derivative ‘conscientia’. So your conscience or knowledge, or remorse, is key factors to becoming self aware
Contributor: Andy Dean heads up BS2B a not-for-profit training organisation, founded by builders, company owners, developers and therapists with a combined experience of 130 years in construction. This gives BS2B an expert understanding of the industry’s language, challenges and needs. BS2B run an online Self-Awareness Course which focuses on promoting mental health through Inner Wellbeing tailored to the industry.
Owen Anthony, Project Manager and Daniel Nicholls, Research Manager, APM
Posed with the question how can we hand over projects better? Handing over projects from the project phase to the business as usual environment is often perceived as the end of the job by project practitioners and the start of the job by the end users who will be assuming the management responsibility afterwards. This view makes a number of assumptions with project handover being an often neglected area for project management which given that it affects a multitude of projects across all business sectors makes one wonder why there is so little coverage of this topic to date.
How do we improve the transition of a project from the project team delivering in a project life cycle to the end users’ business as usual activities, to ensure the realisation of the benefits the project set out to achieve? These questions pose fundamental questions to anyone involved in commissioning, delivering or receiving the outputs of projects particularly in the construction sector where there is an industry drive to better manage transitions and design and deliver buildings properly. Initiatives such as the Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) Soft Landings and Government Soft Landings as well as an increasing focus on benefits realisation are raising the profile of the transition from project phase to business as usual and the construction industry is increasingly being required at procurement stage to demonstrate commitment to improved knowledge transfer and handovers.
A a practitioner, Owen has first-hand experience of projects in the built environment and thought it important to capture lessons learned and success factors from projects that have completed that transition (some more successfully than others) and share these in the hope that it will help more projects to handover successfully.
One of the challenges we had with the research was trying to obtain participating organisations and individuals that provided a good cross section of the UK project profession that enabled handover to be assessed across a range of business sectors. Getting the input of some organisations was sometimes difficult - unsuccessful project handovers could be seen as bad publicity and have negative commercial implications and successful recipes for handing over projects can be viewed as a unique selling point or area of commercial strength that provides competitive advantage. One of the difficulties of any study of this nature is getting participants to consider how it could work better rather than how things have gone in the past. A final challenge we faced was isolating which factors in the project lifecycle have an impact on handover specifically, as opposed to just good project practice, which was easier said than done.
Not all projects hand over successfully. This is frequently attributable to many factors. We hoped that this research, drawn from the experience of previous projects, identifies both pitfalls and good practice and distils them into guidance that practitioners can adopt for their own projects. Learning these lessons helps to mitigate the risk of poor handovers and improve the likelihood of a successful project handover.
Drawing on input from a diverse and wide array of notable organisations including Civica, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, Laing O’Rourke, Mediacity/Peel Holdings, Transport for London and Vinci Construction amongst others some key learnings were identified. Firstly, you the need to establish a common data environment. Secondly, work with the ‘end users’ to ensure the right people are being trained at the right time, in the most effective manner, to support the transfer of knowledge and responsibility. Thirdly, produce documents that are meaningful and useful to the end users and finally conduct dry runs to simulate the operational phase.
The research identified 12 factors to ensure effective handover:
- Requirements should be written into tender documentation/contracts in as much detail and as specifically as possible including engagement requirements, data environment and any standardisation of equipment or product that the client requires.
- Whole life cost must be considered if at all possible.
- Incentivise success. If a scheme is well delivered, this should reward all parties.
- Handover is a process not a date. Planning for it should be from the start of the project and it should be viewed as an incremental transfer of knowledge and operation from project team to business as usual.
- The benefits and deliverables must be measurable and communicable from the start. Ask why are we doing this project and how will we know when it is done?
- Involve end users from the outset. Through stakeholder analysis, understand who will benefit from the project, who will be required to facilitate the delivery of the benefits and how the project outputs will impact their role.
Data and knowledge transfer
- Documentation must be written for the end users. It may require different sets of documentation for different users but for documentation to support knowledge transfer it needs to be meaningful, applicable and relevant to the end users.
- Collate lessons learned as the project progresses. It provides more meaningful data for future projects, it can be tied to stage gateways or key deliverables.
- Agree the information requirements at the outset. This ensures all parties have a clear deliverable, know what is expected of them and work towards achieving the goal from the start of project.
- Often overlooked but put simply get good people on your project and keep them for as long as you are able.
- Definition of stakeholders should be carried out throughout and in detail. Who will be impacted by the project and who is needed to make it a success?
- The client role is pivotal including client engagement.
The full report can be downloaded here
Contributors: Owen Anthony is an experienced project management practitioner, who as well as being a Full member of APM is also a member of the Soft Landings User Group who acted as the study’s research lead.
Daniel Nicholls is APM’s Research Manager who commissioned the research study for APM and having been a project manager thought it important to help improve understanding around this often neglected subject. For more information on APM Research please visit www.apm.org.uk/research
Julie Fleck RTPI OBE
Built Enivironment & Professional Education (BEPE) Project Lead
Despite 20 years of anti-discrimination legislation and over 50 years of technical standards, a recent Women and Equalities Committee inquiry has found that disabled people still find their lives needlessly restricted by features of the built environment.
The findings point to a stark fact: the burden of creating an accessible environment falls too heavily on individual disabled people, and the bodies who create, occupy and manage the environment are not doing enough.
As built environment professionals that means you and me! What can we do more? When we are designing a scheme, drafting policy or making decisions on a development proposal, do we fully understand the human aspect of how people use and interact with buildings? Do we really understand how disabled and older people perceive, use and experience buildings and places? If we don’t fully understand these issues, accessibility can become a tick box exercise that results in compromise and sometimes exclusion for a large section of society.
Not just “nice to do”
The business case for access and inclusion has been made by the Design Council in its Inclusive Environment Hub. The government’s own statistics stress that excluding over 12 million disabled people in the UK and the increasing number of older and very old people who wish to remain active and engaged citizens, can result in a loss of over £212billion to the economy.
The Women and Equalities Committee questioned how the planning system can better design an environment that enables disabled people to take part in society on an equal basis. The report also made a number of recommendations to government, including making clear the legal status of achieving an inclusive environment, so that it is no longer treated as a ‘nice to do’ but a statutory requirement.
Another recommendation was to amend the NPPF "to incorporate a dedicated section on access for disabled people and inclusive design for local planning authorities and decision-takers”. It also calls on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to look at how the Equality Act is enforced.
Enforcement currently relies heavily on litigation by disabled people who have already been disadvantaged by the situation they are seeking to redress. There is a fundamental need for national and local government and the professionals concerned to take seriously the challenge of creating an inclusive environment. That means you and me!
Built Environment Professional Education Project
We have a tool box full of legislation, policy, standards and examples of best practice, but how can we embed this knowledge from the beginning of our built environment education?
One of the projects to emerge from the Government’s Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Programme was the Built Environment Professional Education Project (BEPE). Launched in 2013 and supported by many built environment professional institutions (see the BEPE Report of Progress March 2016, ODI), BEPE transferred to the Construction Industry Council (CIC) in 2016 to become an industry owned and led project.
Education can change attitudes, challenge perceptions and deliver behaviour change. BEPE aims to embed inclusive design as a core part of the required curriculum in the education and training of built environment professionals, with student and professional competence assessments that reflect this.
The response so far
CIC summarised the latest progress in a report published in March 2017 (BEPE Report of Progress March 2017, CIC ). A key stimulus for change within the higher education sector is the revised Quality Assurance Agency’s Subject Benchmark Statements for Architectural Technology, Town and Country Planning, Landscape Architecture, and Land Construction Real Estate and Surveying (SBS Land Construction Real Estate and Surveying) which now ask graduates to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of inclusive design. Educators will have to take this into account when assessing graduates. The CIC will shortly be publishing a Teaching and Learning Briefing Guide to illustrate the key issues in terms of improving knowledge, skills and understanding in the creation of an accessible and inclusive built environment.
Other improvements include changes by RIBA to its CPD Programme, publication by the RTPI of a planning practice guide on Dementia and Town Planning and the requirement that all entries to the RTPI Planning Excellence Awards demonstrate inclusive planning. The aim is that all institutions make inclusive design a key aspect of their award programmes. This will I hope result in some great submissions to this year’s CIC Inclusive Environment Award.
What can you do?
Your work as a built environment professional can have a huge impact on the accessibility and inclusivity of the built environment. CIC published in March 2017 six essential principles to support you when making decisions:
- Contribute to building an inclusive society now and in the future
- Apply professional and responsible judgement and take a leadership role
- Apply and integrate the principles of inclusive design from the outset of a project
- Do more than just comply with legislation and codes
- Seek multiple views to solve accessibility and inclusivity challenges
- Acquire the skills, knowledge, understanding and confidence to make inclusion the norm not the exception
Many of the key built environment institutions endorsed these principles and we ask you to adopt them in your work. You can also help by sharing with your institution examples of case studies and examples of best practice, supporting and demanding the provision of new and better educational resources, becoming Disability Confident, refreshing your disability equality training, and engaging with and learning from disabled and older people.
Contributor: Julie Fleck is the Project Lead of the Built Environment and Professional Education Project at the Construction Industry Council. She is a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and was awarded the OBE for services to disabled people.
The newly launched CIM Foundation course for the Construction industry marks a real step forward in the drive to make an academic qualification that is of immediate relevance to practitioners – and about time too.
Marketing is a broad (and much misunderstood) discipline, whose principles need to be learnt and understood. The principles hold for any market sector, but the application is necessarily different depending on the industry in which you work. Sometimes so different that it is difficult to apply the principles without some transitional guidance.
However, it is surely impossible for a central organisation to supply training tailored precisely to meet the changing requirements of a hundred unique industry sectors: a collaborative approach that combines an established and authoritative training programme with insight from current industry practitioners has to be the ideal solution.
The construction sector is the first to have undertaken such a collaboration: marketing professionals currently working in the sector provide practical guidance based on first-hand experience of the specific challenges of this diverse industry. One small example illustrates the point. Marketing training will demand that you focus on the customer – but in the construction industry, who is that customer? The architect who specifies? The contractor who builds? The commissioner who pays, or the occupant who lives with the consequences?
With its complex supply chains and various influencers, the sector is difficult to navigate and also very much in need of skilled and enthusiastic professionals. The new course draws on the experience of marketers who have had to adapt their learning to meet the needs of the construction sector and are happy to help smooth the process for new entrants.
The result is the very best hybrid – a measured and expert framework in which the unique and specific application of knowledge is explained and demonstrated. Candidates completing the course will come away not only with an understanding of marketing principles, but also with the interpretation to enable them to apply those principles in a construction environment immediately.
The first course begins in September, with the closing date for registrations at the start of August. More information is available here.
Contributor: Anna Hern is MD of Ridgemount PR, a consultancy specialising in the construction sector, and CIMCIG committee member
Billy O'Brien CIOSH
Health & Safety Professional and Director of Customer Success
Effective Software were delighted and honoured to host The Future of ISO 45001 conference on April 26th in the Hilton, Birmingham. These events are created to provide an opportunity to sit down with peers of health & safety and talk through any new advancements in the industry. With 2016 not seeing the publication of the promised ISO 45001, the long-awaited replacement for the occupational health and safety standard, OHSAS 18001, it was a subject that needed a discussion. Our panel of health and safety professionals sat down in front of a packed room of health and safety professionals and discussed the future of the accreditation.
The overall feedback from the conference was extremely positive. The participation from audience members and panel members alike created valuable insights and shared ideas on the future of ISO 45001. Here are the top 5 takeaways from the conference:
1. Just A Tick Box Exercise
There was a clear concern over whether ISO 45001 will just be a tick-box exercise for organisations. In dealing with prospect clients, some participants thought the accreditation would only benefit in a way to win tenders.
“I think a lot of companies who do have accreditation’s and are already compliant are going to use it as a tick the box exercise. As we deal with some major clients, I feel it will be used as a way to win tenders/business.” Steven Pawley, Group H&S and facilities manager, Wanzl.
“People from the floor had the same opinion that it was a tick the box exercise. It’s another way of auditing firms to make money, then go on a tender list.” Richard Baker, QHSE, Future Industrial Services.
“Personally, I don’t think we will implement 45001 as we feel as a company I doesn’t concern us. But we have a feeling that our customers will enforce this on us.” Trevor Brown, Senior Health & Safety Manger, McAleer & Rushe.
2. Means For Continuous Improvement
There was an acknowledgement that ISO 45001 will lay foundations for continuous safety improvement and that health and safety management systems will benefit from it.“It will be a very useful tool to help companies with their health and safety management systems.” Helen Jones, Safety, Health and Environmental Assurance Manager, Merlin Housing.
“ISO will be used as a tool to make sure we’re auditing for continuous improvement.” Richard Baker, QHSE, Future Industrial Services.
3. Implementation Uncertainty
There was a common uncertainty as to how much work will be involved to implement the accreditation. For larger companies, there were issues in implementing past ISO standards, so there is a natural concern for the workload that may be involved.
“Such a large amount of work went into implementing 18001 with our company as there is so many divisions and is so diverse. We don’t know whether it is going to be too difficult to implement.” Steven Pawley, Group H&S and facilities manager, Wanzl.
4. Do We All Need It?
A common theme that came from the conference was the overall uncertainty around the standard and whether certain companies should be worrying about it. For instance, some people agreed that the standard is not suitable for SME’s, due to its complexity.
“As with all of the ISO’s, it will potentially be harder to implement for smaller businesses.” Richard Baker, QHSE, Future Industrial Services.
“I still think it is quite detailed and complicated and may not be suitable for SME’s and would be much more preferred to large organisations.” Helen Jones, Safety, Health and Environmental Assurance Manager, Merlin Housing
“What I took away from the conference was that there is still a lot of uncertainty and debate going on, even from the standards body.” Alan Lyon, Client Services Director, ITM Communications
5. Are Some Standards Too Far?
The aim of these standards is to avoid the “one-size fits all” problem by allowing organisations the flexibility to adapt their management systems but there is still a large amount of concerns surrounding over-standardising in a diverse business landscape. Some companies, especially smaller companies can have adoption issues.
“Despite the flaws of standardisation, I loved Helen’s (Helen Jones, Merlin Housing) enthusiasm for making standards work for her organisation as a real means of improving safety” Bridget Leathley, CMIOSH, Freelance Health and Safety Consultant.
Click here to download your free ISO 45001 Whitepaper
Contributor: Billy O'Brien is a Health & Safety Professional and Director of Customer Success at Effective Software. Effective Software can help you with the management of your organisations Risk Assessments and Method Statements please do get in touch for more information.