Of course it’s about time that the SMM was revised to reflect practices in the industry.

Those of us who can remember the introduction of SMM7 may recall that we were saying something similar both before and after introduction of SMM7. In fact,

I recall that the substantial overhaul, which became SMM7, was originally going to be SMM6. The actual SMM6 was brought in as a stop gap. The 80/20 split between value and items was recognised at that time, as was the increasing practice of subcontracting all work and of contractor design and build. All of these concerns were supposed to be addressed by the revamped SMM. Now, 20 years on, the wheel has been rediscovered. Anyone want to take bets on whether the same matters will be dealt with any differently this time round?

Peter Horne, Senior Consultant, Knowles

Source

QS News