ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

It was also a project that broke new ground in terms of the design and manufacturing processes that were employed in its conception and realisation. It led the way in what we now call partnering, with its design and manufacturing shared between BAC in the UK and Sud-Aviation in France. This was done under an agreement signed in London by Julian Amery, Minister of Supply, and Geoffroy de Courcel, the French ambassador to Britain, by which the British and French Governments undertook to finance the development and building of a supersonic airliner. Everything would be shared – costs, work and sale proceed.

Initially there was an understanding that France would lead on the design side of the project and BAC would be leaders on the manufacturing side. But the first few months working together made it clear that joint direction was needed.

BAC was responsible for the front fuselage, including the flight deck, the engine nacelles, air intakes and engine mountings; the rear fuselage; fin and rudder. It also had design responsibility for the electrics, oxygen, fuel, engine instrumentation, engine controls, fire, air conditioning distribution and de-icing.

Sud-Aviation's share of the structure comprised the entire centre fuselage section, the wings and the landing gear. The French company was also given design responsibility for the hydraulics, flying control, navigation, radio and air conditioning supply systems.

On paper, the committee had a chair and a vice-chair. In practice, it had two chairs – the two leaders of the project, General Andre Puget, president of Sud-Aviation and Sir George Edwards, chair of BAC, taking all major executive decisions jointly.

However, intervention at chair level was not often needed. Indeed, Edwards subsequently suggested that one of the secrets of the success of the Concorde industrial collaboration was that the committee of directors rarely met. The reality was that Anglo-French pairs at executive level kept in daily contact. In many cases, collaboration led to firm friendships.

As the project moved onwards, more people in both countries grew convinced on two points: that Concorde was well worthwhile; and Britain and France had a much better chance of success by working together. It was the strength of these convictions that enabled the Concorde team to push ahead, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Construction partners
Why do we have so much trouble applying these same basic concepts in our industry? What lessons can we learn from Concorde and the aviation industry that we can apply to construction?

What is amazing is that this collaboration happened 35 years ago, between two countries not always recognised for their entente cordiale. Yet what they achieved demonstrates the essential ingredients of best practice, where the key components are commitment from the top, mutually agreed goals, agreed problem resolution methods and a culture of continuous improvement.

From the outline of the Concorde story it is obvious that the project partners clearly understood and believed in the same core principles that are laid out in the Strategic Forum's integrated team toolkit (see www.strategicforum.org.uk/sfctoolkit2/home/home.html). But why has it taken us so long to get to this point?

There are many aspects of the building industry that contribute to the problems. These include a large and fragmented industry; an extended delivery chain that is viewed as vertical rather than horizontal or joined up; poor information management across the life cycle of a building; and a lack of feedback between the design and operations phases of the building process.

There are many thousands of small companies involved in the design, construction and operation of buildings. This fragmentation stands in stark contrast to other major sectors like transportation, where fewer large companies are responsible for the design and manufacture of aircraft, cars or other items.

This fragmentation is a major barrier to changing current practice. It is also one of the reasons that organisations like Constructing Excellence, with its remit to create awareness and provide tools for change, and the Strategic Forum, addressing all facets of the construction industry, are needed.

In the past many problems were associated with the loss of, or poorly communicated, information generated during the design, construction or operation of a building. Assumptions made during the design stage were poorly recorded. This resulted in specialist contractors having to pick up and correct suboptimal or problematic situations that could have been avoided by earlier involvement.

Then, as now, an empowered team with common goals and no-blame culture proved to be the essential ingredient to effective collaborative working. Experience has since proved that a well integrated team will guarantee prices, keep costs within agreed limits and make reasonable profits.

Real teamwork is about every member valuing the whole project, not just their part of it. That is why the whole Concorde project was so ahead of its time. Partnering is not a soft issue. There is nothing soft about changing an ingrained culture, but with committed participants, partnering delivers considerable benefits. Challenges will still arise, as they did with Concorde many times, but when partners work on the basis of trust, openness and integrity, wonderful things can be achieved.

Another key ingredient in the Concorde story was what we now term off-site fabrication and assembly. It was the only way that the project could be effectively completed, given that the two partners were located in multiple locations in two countries, and were each responsible for the design, manufacture and pre-testing of the different elements.

Yet despite different languages, cultures and native measurement systems, the component sub-assemblies were built and rigorously tested at their various locations before being brought together successfully for final assembly.

When applied to construction, this philosophy has proven to minimise loss and waste. It also delivers consistent results in terms of building performance, while saving up to 30% time in the building and commissioning process. Yet what has become a standard process in the aviation and automobile industries is still not fully practised in the building industry, where we still appear to want to reinvent the wheel at every opportunity.

Concorde is now history, but it has left a legacy of experience and success that the building and construction industries still have to take on board. Bodies like Constructing Excellence and the Strategic Forum are providing the facilitation skills and the tools that are available to help companies move forward.

The rewards are improved performance, profitability and productivity. The alternative is not an option.