Consultants have a unique vantage point on the built environment professions review - they must use it

Time is running out on the government’s call for evidence on the future of built environment professions, trades and occupations.

With only a few days to go, it is essential that this is not ignored or treated as another routine consultation. As the sector continues to navigate the post-Grenfell world, the outcomes will influence where accountability and responsibility sit across the built environment.

For multidisciplinary consultancies like Hollis, we are well placed to offer perspectives. Consultants sit between clients, designers, contractors, funders, occupiers and regulators.

We see how national policy, local market conditions, commercial pressures and on-site realities interact, from design and construction, through to handover, operation and ultimately sale or disposal.

With this in mind, it is incumbent on us to respond, and we would urge others to do the same.

The risk of siloed responses

This is because there is a risk that the findings will miss key elements of how the system currently works. That could lead to government drawing incomplete conclusions and making suggestions that might not drive the outcomes needed.

In many consultations groups tend to work together. As is natural, they form a response to the areas that predominantly affect them.

Take building safety as an example. The professional bodies mostly focused on registration and standards, and how to improve skills and prove competence. The government and regulators thought about how standards might be enforced. Developers and funders considered the implications for scheme viability. Contractors thought about supply-chain capability and delivery risk.

Where consultants can really add value is in the ability to offer wider perspectives and tie together these multiple viewpoints.

Understanding capability and accountability

The government is using the consultation to understand accountability, organisational capability and competence throughout the project lifecycle. There are many areas appropriate for consultants to respond to.

For example, it specifically mentions the relationships between clients and the industry. It cites issues in culture and behaviour and the allocation of risk within projects. That framing is useful, but it risks being too simplistic. This should not be about clients versus industry. This should be about whether projects correctly balance liability, accountability, and reward.

We cannot end up in an industry that just adds badges without improving project outcomes

There is also a huge focus on competence. The government must get the recommendations on this right.

The move towards demonstrating competence throughout careers is sensible and appropriate. We need people who are on top of their skills and can adapt to the environment around them and the changing nature of client demands.

However, there are already concerns about the mixed nature of the market, with multiple accreditation schemes, and a mix of legislative approaches and voluntary codes of practice. We cannot end up in an industry that just adds badges without improving project outcomes.

New requirements also add more responsibility onto consultants and professionals and it is important to recognise the commercial drivers at play too. It all influences procurement, project scope, time, cost, liability and ultimately fee levels.

That sits alongside the wider skills question and what is appropriate going forward in terms of qualifications, training and development. That will influence recruitment, team shape, retention and remuneration.  

A call for evidence is one of the few opportunities when government explicitly asks for help to grow its understanding. The evidence gathered now will influence a new strategy next spring and have far-reaching consequences.

If consultants do not engage, we are missing a huge opportunity. Our place at the front line of delivery means that we can explain how projects are commissioned, designed, built and managed, and where professional responsibility sits in practice.

Andy Hay is chief executive at Hollis