2nd opinion: Take a look at yourselves

The Audit Commission's housing inspection team has come in for a fair amount of stick lately. But this criticism misses the point by a wide margin.

The inspection process, like most processes, could be improved. The commission's recent consultation document seeks to do just that.

Instead of griping, we in the housing sector should be asking ourselves: in the absence of inspection, what strong market drivers exist for organisations to improve the service experience for our customers?

About eight years ago, I wrote an MBA dissertation that sought to investigate whether the provision of high-quality services can offer a competitive advantage in the affordable housing sector.

The current reaction to housing inspection in some quarters confirms the result of that dissertation.

The essential point raised then, and still relevant today, is that in a market environment driven by customers, the need to gain a competitive advantage acts as a key driver for organisations that are putting in place improvement strategies for their businesses.

The idea is this: organisations provide their customers with quality services that their competitors find difficult to imitate.

Thus, quality improvement initiatives tend to work best where businesses are driven to perform because their success depends on it.

Therein lies the joker in the pack. In the absence of the Audit Commission or an equivalent regulatory framework, what will drive housing organisations to perform?

In the absence of the Audit Commission, what will drive housing bodies to perform?

The other issue that bothers me is our definition of success.

Is it the amount of annual development programme grant or the number of homes to be developed? Is it customer satisfaction? Is it financial strength, which in a majority of cases is based on history and not necessarily great financial management?

The political reality is that the government wants delivery of a number of homes – and, some will say, rightly so.

Recent decisions, such as the allocation of grant to private developers, support this – despite the fact that in my experience, the bulk of dwellings that have not fully met their scheme design standards are properties procured through section 106 agreements from private developers.

Before my housebuilding colleagues refuse to drink with me in the future, the fact remains that I welcome the competition, insofar as the regulatory hurdle over which we all have to jump remains the same.

I know some of the characters fairly well and I'm sure they won't support "unfair competition".

At the end of the day, until the sector becomes more self-regulated – and the National Housing Federation's In Business for Neighbourhoods agenda is a great step in that direction – I'm afraid the next best sound system in town is the Roy Irwin Collective.