Is the UK pricing itself out of the global construction market?

Just over 140 years ago in 1872, the Marie Celeste set sail from New York with a crew that was never to be seen or heard of again. It was in that same year that Yellowstone became the world’s first National park and it was also the same year that Louis Bleriot was born - the pioneer of the modern aviation industry.

However, believe it or not, it was also in that year that the Swiss Government set in place the first climate initiative by implementing the protection of migratory birds. This initiative was the first of many such agreements and initiatives put in place over the next 125 years which gradually changed from the protection of birds and fishes to the protection of the earth and culminated in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Has the implementation of these initiatives and awareness made any difference?

Despite steps taken to minimise the impact of man on the environment, in 1997, 125 years after that first initiative, the effects of the environment caused worldwide damage.

• Texas was hit by more ferocious tornados than it had ever seen.
• Great areas of Poland were flooded in areas never seen before.
• The continuing burning and de-forestation was seen as the contributory cause of the crashing of Flight 152 in Indonesia.

It is clear that back in 1872, we had no concept of the rate of increase in the world’s population. At present we are increasing the world’s population at about 1 billion every 12-15 years and it is estimated that the population will only begin to slow down in about 40 years’ time. At that point, the population will be more than 10 times that of what it was when that first initiative was put in place.

If not of greater significance, it is the enormous growth of the economy of the world. Not only has the population of the world ballooned beyond all expectations, a higher proportion of that  population uses more and more earth resources and produces more and more waste whether it is gas, inert or other forms of pollution.

And the question arises, at what point does the planet reach saturation point and the whole system close down?

The SternReview amongst others, presents a formidable argument for undertaking action now to not only minimise our emissions but to reduce them in order to slow the environmental clock down.

Introduction of financial incentives and penalties are suggested with the aim to effectively force polluters to take stock as corporate and social responsibility does not seem to have the desired effect. With regard to our own industry and current construction methods and building regulations, studies have shown that in the UK;

• Nearly 50% of carbon dioxide emissions are building related
• Over a quarter of CO2 emissions come from housing
• Approximately 10% of CO2 emissions are associated with the manufacturer and transport of construction materials and the construction process.

So what, in the construction industry, can we do?

In the great scheme of things – probably, not a lot. Yes we can provide better insulated buildings, more efficient heaters and adopt lean construction techniques but at what cost?

The UK forms less than 2% of the world’s CO2 polluters – are we expected to lead by example and possibly price ourselves out of the construction market or do we try and save the world?

Scale Fees & the Rise Of Computers

Was the abolition of the ACE ‘Scale Fees’ the catalyst for the use of modern design technology for Structural Engineers?

In comparison with the origins of the profession, it would appear that the least experienced, and often unqualified engineers, are undertaking designs utilising computer software to solve complex problems leaving the more experienced engineer to manage the business aspects of the company. 

With the Governments’ initiative to introduce Building Information Modeling (BIM) throughout the industry, are the days of the Chartered Engineer numbered?

Creative destruction, sometimes known as Schumpeter's Gale, describes the way in which new economic development arises from the diminution of some prior economic order by a reconfiguration of previous beliefs and systems. In 1987, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) banned the use of the ‘Scale Fees’ after they ruled they were uncompetitive and did not reflect that computers and information technology made engineers more competitive. The consequence of introducing competitive fee bidding is estimated to have reduced the average consultancy fee by approximately 50%. Subsequently, in order to stay competitive and provide ‘added value’, there has been a need to provide a service at a competitive cost but without compromise to the underlying philosophy of the industry Institute's charters.

In the modern design office, there is a move by some, away from the experienced, senior engineer undertaking designs with this role now being carried out by a technician with computer software. Modern computer programs with their graphical interface and powerful analysis abilities allow a simple interface in which to ‘model’ buildings and the environment allowing easier ‘access’ by less qualified employees.The subsequent reduction in the overhead costs of salaries has reintroduced a monetary based competitive advantage as opposed to technical competence.

In 1818 the Institution of Civil Engineers was founded in London and received a Royal Charter in 1828, formally recognising civil engineering as a profession. Its charter defined civil engineering as:

‘the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man, as the means of production and of traffic in states, both for external and internal trade, as applied in the construction of roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, river navigation and docks for internal intercourse and exchange, and in the construction of ports, harbours, moles, breakwaters and lighthouses, and in the art of navigation by artificial power for the purposes of commerce, and in the construction and application of machinery, and in the drainage of cities and towns.’

Much discussion is undertaken within the industry’s’ journals and forums over concerns regarding the improper use of computers and in particular their use by inexperienced staff with a recurring theme being “a good computer program does not make a good engineer, only a good engineer should use a good computer program”.

Should engineers protect themselves from the belief that computers are the replacement of ACE Scale fees in respect of economical benefits?