Peter Rogers' comments seem to be an extension of the debate held within each profession, where the absence of holistic knowledge of every other discipline is lamented.
It is unfortunate that one person, or profession, cannot be the fount of all construction knowledge or act as arbiter in all layers of the process, but this is not possible in the sophisticated industry we have developed in the past two decades.

Project management has developed into a profession because of the fragmented way a project is designed and procured and the emphasis on legal censorship. We must adopt sectional procurement because of the constraints of design, time and cost.

Close relationships with cost consultants are an invaluable method of fusing the control of the project. A good team can act successfully as construction manager if the project benefits from this method of procurement, and the individual trade packages can be clearly split.

A single principle should be identified as the administrator, and could come from any of the professional bodies. This position is already supported in current contracts. The holder must, however, be released from any traditional functional activity, have clear authority and become the single point of instruction. This is something we implement across our projects and we do not need another discipline invented.

If I have to invent one to win the Bollinger then my submission is "management engineer", as this is suitably shallow and 1980s.