One of the reasons the "rebellion" began was because the quantity surveyor identity appeared to become lost in the RICS. The review talks about a new professional community for quantity surveyors, but do we need more new bodies or communities?
I think it's time for what was the quantity surveyors' division, currently amalgamated into the construction faculty, to be reborn as the QS faculty (discussions to this effect are already under way). I hope the overall grouping in the RICS, comprising quantity surveyors, building surveyors, project managers and the like, will unite as RICS Construction with a much more powerful and representative voice. Within this structure, I am sure the quantity surveyors will take a leading part.
Launce Morgan, RICS construction faculty chairman
… perhaps not
I fail to understand how an organisation that apparently cannot afford to hold an EGM, despite a call by the requisite number of members, can carry out an important review of itself without including a review of costs as a central, prime element.
An organisation of more than 100,000 professional members, most of whom make their living from providing efficient cost-effective services, must itself ensure its services are not just cost-effective, but also required by its members. This review does not even attempt to do this and is therefore nowhere near adequate for its purpose. It will not satisfy members that the huge income the RICS obtains from members' subscriptions is well spent.
Unless the RICS does that, it will continue to dissatisfy its members.
Roger Thrush, Wetherby, West Yorkshire