ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

But the purpose of Think 2010 wasn't ever to create a vivid picture of what construction will be like in seven years' time. Its aim was to gather together influencers from today's building services industry, to try to predict what clients might want from the sector in 2010, and how leading associations and companies might set about supplying that.

The outcome will be a joint development strategy from the sponsoring bodies (ECA, HVCA, CIBSE, BSRIA and FETA). This will be an 'industry-wide declaration' of what the industry intends to do to meet its customers' needs in seven years.

Forty-five delegates spent the weekend thrashing out where building services is today, and where we need to go, under key headings such as industry rationalisation, skills and competencies, technical challenges and project pre-planning.

Before discussions commenced, a few gave presentations of their general thoughts on questions that the industry needs to answer.

John Sharp of NG Bailey felt that the challenges the industry faces are cultural as well as technical. "We must change what we do, not just do the same thing better," he commented. On the subject of partnering, Sharp also felt that it must be made clear how all can benefit from this way of working. "Partnerships often don't cascade down to building services. Only the big clients really benefit. How do we engender trust in this case?"

Eddie Brown of the Electrical Contractors' Association said that in the UK mechanical and electrical engineering are undervalued. "How can we persuade customers to understand the importance of m&e in making their buildings work? If we don't do this, how can we move away from price-led buying of products?" he asked.

Industry must change what it does, not just do the same better

Sharp

He also raised the interesting point of professionalism among engineers and questioned if there should be an acceptable level of minimum cost. On the subject of best value analysis he called for realism: "We often pay lip service to best value and it still means 'cheapest price' to many clients."

The first and main discussion of Think 2010 revolved around the question: "What are clients' business requirements today and in the immediate future?" Delegates broke into four groups, reporting back with findings in plenary sessions. (For the purposes of reporting, group discussions were anonymous.)

The main issue for delegates was who is the client? "Our difficulty," said one commentator, "is that the person who pays for the building isn't necessarily the occupier. The client could be said to be the main contractor, another consultant, the end-user...the next person up the supply chain." The other difficulty is deciding whose needs are the most fundamental, given that there are effectively multiple clients with multiple needs.

Of course, getting down to the fundamentals of client requirements will inevitably lead to discussions of money. "What clients want is lowest cost and best value," commented one delegate, reflecting the views of many in the construction industry. All agreed that underspending was a real problem. "Money, how it's used and the results of spreading it too far is a terrible malaise which leads to user-dissatisfaction, high cost in use, and refurbishment after a few years," said one speaker. The general feeling was that cost- cutting is one of the worst problems faced by the industry, leading to poor buildings, and even encouraging bad working practices such as black market working due to the low cost aims of clients.

One key solution to these problems is to educate clients better; give them good information on which to base intelligent decisions. "Very often, the client doesn't know what they want. The client doesn't know how to get the best out of construction, and the construction industry doesn't understand the client's business." This pointed to the quantity surveyor as the main source of information to clients. "The qs is a money man, so the client can understand their terminology better. But the qs has little understanding of the technical side." It was also felt that client expectations could be raised too high – that they think they can get more for their money than is possible. There was a general call for better data on the operating costs of buildings in order to clarify the issue of whole life costing for clients.

"We have to get closer to the clients. If we don't know the needs of the end-user, someone in the supply chain does, and we should share that information." Delegates described an 'education gap' between clients and construction that needs to be closed. "Clients do believe in value, they just don't know how to achieve it."

We often pay lip service to best value and it still means cheapest price to many clients

Brown

PFI projects, which have come in for so much criticism in general, were praised as creating a better climate in which to build. "PFI projects supply feedback, so we can learn from past projects. Also, where the facilities contractor is part of the consortium, we have to be very careful about our choice of plant. We have to buy with a long-term view." It was felt that perhaps PFI could have a positive effect on the way the industry procures.

Skills and competencies required for the future were also discussed. Delegates agreed that the industry would see a fundamental change in training and education needs. Integrated working will result in the need for "less depth and more width" in skills. It was predicted that with the increase of pre-fabrication off site, there would be a need for lesser-skilled workers. However, the positive aspect of this was seen as better working conditions, possibly attracting more women to the industry.

New skills will be needed at the technical management level. This would include creation of workers who can operate 3D modelling software and use virtual planning tools – both of which are seen as vital elements in the construction industry of the future.

Without doubt, the industry has to invest more in training. Across the board, there was a call for integration of training courses. This would apply even to the higher levels of engineer and architect sharing a foundation course in general construction techniques before specialising. The new form of training would also help to bring down barriers between professions in construction. Delegates commented that universities need better briefing from the industry. But it was also viewed as vital that the Government rebuilds confidence in vocational training.

Many delegates felt that while many of them had risen through the ranks from engineers and technicians to director level, it was no longer possible to be a leader in the construction industry without good management training. It was suggested that courses should include elements of management and business studies. In the short-term, some speakers suggested that construction turns to other sectors to recruit experienced business people from, for example, the automotive industry.

At the end of two days of heavy discussions, delegates had tackled most of the major issues facing construction, and building services, today. They had also sketched a picture of what the industry might look like in 2010.