BUILDING INDUSTRY INVESTIGATION TEAM
The Productivity Team representing the Building Industry, which last year visited the U.S.A., has now published its Report in a well compiled document which will be of vital interest to all concerned with the Building Industry in this country.
The following is extracted from a review of this report by G. D. Walford (Fellow), which appeared in the Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The object of the visit to the U.S.A. was to "examine the organisation, constructional technique and industrial outlook of the American Building Industry and to draw conclusions from a comparison of American and British constructional practice likely to increase productivity in the Building Industry of Great Britain." The Team consisted of two Architects, five General Building Contractors, one Specialist Sub-Contractor, six Operatives and two Chartered Quantity Surveyors, and could be said to be truly representative of the Building Industry of this country. Without wishing to detract in any way from the composition of the Team it would perhaps have been advantageous to include a Civil Engineer in view of the comprehensive nature of the American Building Industry embracing as it does both general building construction and civil engineering.
The Report is divided into ten Chapters discussing:—
1. The Team and the tour.
2. The American building industry.
3.
The Architect's contribution to productivity.
4. Tendering procedure and the quantities system.
5. The Contractor's organisation.
6. Constructional techniques and the use of materials.
7. Industrial organisation and labour relations.
8. Labour productivity and recruitment.
9. Housing.
10. Conclusions and recommendations.
Whilst the Report as a whole will be of great interest, there is no doubt that the discussions in Chapters 3 and 4 will be of primary interest to the professions.
The Architect's contribution to productivity appears from the Report to be such a vital part of the success of the American Building Industry that it has quite rightly been discussed at some length. It would perhaps be unfair to say that the American Architect appears to be more of a business man than his British counterpart but there is no doubt that there is something to be learnt from the American organisation and business methods. The Report stresses in the strongest terms that the supply of complete and detailed drawings and specifications at the tender stage is a fundamental factor in securing speed of construction.
There is no doubt, in the Team's view, that the complete and detailed planning of a building at the pre-tender stage is the ideal to be aimed at by the British Architect. Variations of the work during the progress of the job are discouraged by all parties in America as a source of delay, annoyance and loss.
The Chapter on Tendering procedure and the quantities systern will be of particular interest to Quantity Surveyors and it is perhaps unfortunate that a more definite conclusion either one way or the other has not been reached. It will be well known that the American tendering procedure does not employ Quantity Surveyors in the British sense of the pro- fession. All "bids" are made on the full working drawings and detailed specification.
The various Sub-Contractors take off their own "schedules of quantities," either by being given a full set of drawings and the specification or by taking the details in the General Contractor's office, and the General Contractor's estimator "prepares a Schedule of quantities which the General Con- tractor proposes to carry out himself."
The Team further recommend that the Standard Method of Measurement should be simplified and there is no doubt that most members of the profession would agree whole- heartedly.
The Team's conclusions and recommendations are given in the final Chapter and will be studied with interest not only by the building industry but also by the Government depart- ments concerned, In conclusion the Team state: **The out- standing lesson to be learned is, in our view, that the British building industry must be mobilised to eliminate everything which stands in the way of greater efficiency—be it inadequate preparation of the work, bad organisation by architect or contractor, or the continuance of unnecessary or restrictive controls or practices-so that each member of the industry can, in his own sphere, perform the best work of which he is capable."
This report was also discussed at the General Meeting of Quantity Surveyors, which was held on Thursday, 15th June, 1950. An account of this meeting appeared in the Journal of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, from which the following has been extracted.
First I should mention
Mr. M. H. Thackray (Fellow): that the procedure in the letting of contracts and the settle- ment of final accounts in America differs very greatly from our procedure here. It has been common knowledge for many years that the professional quantity surveyor as we know him does not exist in the United States, and that entirely alters the overall picture both of the letting of contracts and of the finalisation of accounts.
31
We
Without bills of quantities, of course, the procedure for letting contracts and settling final accounts is entirely different from what it is in this country. In this connection I would commend to your careful study Chapter 4 of the Report, where we have tried to set out the American procedure and have added some paragraphs about the British method, because this Report will be read in America as well as in this country. have also given a comparison of the two methods, but you will realise that we have not attempted to say which is the better of the two. We all have our own views about that, and it is not a question for this meeting or for the team to decide, but I would say that, in the discussions which we had during our six weeks in America, practically every architect, as well as many of the builders, agreed that our system was the better.
Mr. H. A. Ackland (Fellow) congratulated Mr. Thackray on the way he had introduced the Report. The intention, as Mr. Thackray had said, had been not to go through the Report in detail but to lead members through the several stages of the conception of the plan and the labours of the team. The chief value of the Report was its power to create thought, dis cussion, commentary and action in obtaining what all members knew to be necessary to the health of the building industry.
Mr. E. C. Harris (Fellow): If I had been asked a year ago to compare the system of letting contracts in Britain with the American system, I would have said that the former was immeasurably the better of the two, that it had a hundred years behind it, and so on, but I was a little shaken in that opinion now, having seen some most efficient work done in an amazingly short space of time in the United States.
Mr. P. F. Barrington (Professional Associate): There was one fundamental difference between the British and In American systems with regard to bills of quantities. Britain the bill of quantities was part of the contract and was a legal document, for the correctness of which the quantity surveyor was responsible, whereas in America the contractor took the responsibility for the accuracy of the tender informa- tion. Mr. Barrington thought that in any discussion of the two systems that point should be borne in mind clearly all the time.
Mr. N. Stanley Farrow, speaking as a visitor: I was impressed in America by the pride, which everyone, from the architect down through the builder to the operative, had in the industry. They liked to show the world how well and how quickly they could build. In nine out of ten cases when a new building was being erected in Britain, a wooden or cor- rugated iron hoarding was put round, so that no one could see what was going on. In America they would insert a glass inspection panel in the hoardings with seats for use by the public and in one instance a notice was put up: "Reserve for side-walk superintendents." He thought that in this country, owing to the ill-informed criticisms of the building industry, those engaged in the industry had lost some of their pride in it which he hoped they would recapture.
The following is an excerpt from the actual report.
Conditions for Improving Efficiency
(a)
(b)
(c)
To raise productive efficiency above its pre-war level:-
All concerned in building operations should co-operate fully in everything that helps to improve efficiency, and to extend the advantageous use of the appliances, methods and materials which scientific and technical advances place at their disposal.
Building operations of any size must be completedly pre-planned.
Building research must be efficiently organised and the results made widely known.
Layout and Personnel of the Building Industry
The existing layout of building concerns provides the necessary flexibility and variety of capacities required by building operations; no change in the craft basis is suggested, though greater interchange between crafts would be of advantage. For the personnel of the industry the need is to develop training schemes for all grades. Craft apprenticeship under proper indentures has been encouraged though much remains to be done. The selection and training of foremen require further attention. University courses for future build- ing managers need to be extended and coupled with adequate pay and prospects for those who have successfully completed their courses.
In view of the control which the architect exercises over building operations, it is important that his training should give him adequate knowledge of the practical aspects of building; he should be prepared to adopt new materials and methods wherever appropriate.
Government Departments which control much building work have a special responsibility in regard to efficient practice; to ensure that full advantage is taken of new developments, technical advice on building matters should be provided by one technical Department.
Registration of Builders
No general scheme of qualitative registration is recom- mended to the industry; the present registration of employers should continue for statistical purposes; some form of registra- tion in the plumbing and electrical trades is desirable; the National Housebuilders' Registration Council performs a useful function.