The 7th Edge Debate: 20th April 1999

Action Points from the Seventh Debate

1. Third party feedback? How to change the culture - building down barriers programme/MoD. All buy into the design before project starts.
2. Proposition: if we had better feedback we could design better? Where are the gains? Designing better or settling quickly? How bad are our buildings. Not as bad as we are telling ourselves they are.
3. Design review. (Boeing example)
4. PI originally for technical error. Now, majority of claims - pass the parcel with contracts. Focus should be on contractual management between the parties.
5. Technical claims have fallen by about 20% (G&A, 1000 claims pa). Improvement overtaken by contractual claims. More sense for clients to adopt no blame loss policy.
6. Sense of a weak insurer behind you attracts claims.
7. A sense that problem that can only be solved by the client. What is needed is for someone to produce a nice set of sums for clients showing that project-based insurance is cheaper.
8. Problem with this is supply and demand. Cannot move from one system to another overnight. Insurers will need to build in a margin. Market forces will not be able to force this through. Something else needed.
9. Client is the prime mover. If a big client is prepared to make a stand, passing benefits from big jobs on to small.
10. Where there are enlightened clients they need help from insurers.
11. Problems with industry comparisons. Construction - everything is unique. For example, having DMC contractors to sit with Railtrack to produce a standard station.
12. Tescos/repeat business what are the aspects of the job that you cannot control?
13. Why do we use standard contracts when everything else in the industry is unique?
14. French railways: good designers but a limited range, so that anyone can build. Are not so concerned with winning prizes.
15. Argument that not every building is a prototype. Prototype issue is interface between standard products.
16. Building down the barriers is concerned to address e.g.: DMC contractors to sit with Railtrack to produce a standard station.
17. We are all saying it is someone else's problem. Surely it is industry wide. Taking building interruption insurance and building into it some of the issues that have been discussed.
18. Construction Qual. Forum. Feedback ceased when useful information exhausted from PSA database. Little feedback from industry. Voluntary scheme unlikely to work.
19. Insurer not part of the team in any M4I demo project.
20. Challenges not just before the clients, but also before the insurance industry. CRT should take this up. More holistic view of the process needed.
21. It is not in the insurer's interest to reduce the claims. Large premiums do not exist for non-existent risks.
22. Construction industry continually called upon to become more efficient. This means more prototypes and risk.
23. If premiums come down may lose incentive to guard as effectively against making mistakes.
24. Legal notification can be made in good time, but can sit around for years before proceedings begin.
25. Woolf Reforms are front-end loaded.
26. Judges can cap costs under CPR
27. 80/20 (division of insurance claims) one symptom of industry PI procedure. Also defensive practice and lack of innovation. Clients focused on passing liability - forcing up barriers.
28. Need to differentiate between different types of client. Why have larger corporations need to set up single vehicles for some type of projects.
29. Why are legal fees roughly equal to all the other fees on the job. Lenders trying to offset risk. Could cut out cost if didn't need to borrow money. Behaviour of ultimate funder is a factor.
30. No blame, loss of incentive to avoid faults.
31. Look at potential consultant's exposure relative to fees, incentives still there. Netherlands - statutory cap on consultants is equal to their fee. Cost of PI is 10% of what it is in the UK.
32. The UK. A practical example of what can happen if there is a will from industry or action from government.
33. Project by project insurance. Some clients might want turnover insurance. P by P may carry a high excess. Consultants should have more limited risk and less attractive to attack.
34. Gamble factor. For client the size of a consultant's PI can be something to go for. A risk of legal fees against a payout from a consultant's PI. If there is statutory cap, gamble changes.
35. If half of industry's product commissioned by government, can we not look to a gov't depart. Have there been discussions within gov't on this?
36. Suggestions would raise interesting opportunities/CRT? It is an industry-wide issue.
37. Gov't have just released 'constructing the best government client'. Interesting to see how they are going to resource it/achieve it? Feedback in relation to problems that have occurred. There is a way that one should be looking at design. More holistic, directed towards eliminating mistakes. We live in a magazine culture. Cumulative effect of poor buildings. Buildings evaluated in press before occupancy. Need to know a building's behaviour in real life.

For real post occupancy feedback design construction professionals should read The Way Buildings Learn by Steward Brand.

Summary by Alec Moir.

The following points were felt worthy of highlighting.

Linking enlightened clients, innovation projects M4i through CRT.

Holistic approach: change of culture.

Needs proactive participation of insurance industry/funders, clients and.

Analysis of risk and improve qual of management of projects.

Anonymous feedback/balance between risk and reward.

Mediation greater role in reducing cost. Facing errors on projects much earlier on.