Saying nothing new

The special report in CM March 2003 seems to (again!) go over well trodden ground. I came into the construction industry at an early age towards the end of WW2, and spent over 20 years working for companies carrying out all types of work, (from general dogsbody to Director), and spent 16 years in higher education (principal lecturer/deputy head) teaching "building" degrees.

I can therefore remember "Banwell" and its follow-up, but more importantly the CIOB/BEC report "Degrees in Building Management: Demand, Provision and Promotion", otherwise known as the "Lighthill Report" after its chairman Sir James Lighthill, Provost, University College, London. Other reports were, of course Latham and Egan.

I'm not surprised that the Leeds meeting last November between industry and academia achieved little. In all my time connected with construction I have heard the same tales of woe. When there is high economic activity (a lot of building) the companies queue up at the doors of academe for their students, often vying with each other to take them on. When there is a recession in the industry the first areas of overhead expenditure to be axed is the training and apprenticeship departments. This is perhaps understandable where many companies are working on small margins and in a highly competitive environment.

The industry cannot escape the national/international economic ups and downs, but cut-throat tendering and "claims" reliant management does not give companies the buffer to face aggresive markets. There is a place in the industry for site/general managers to come up through both the trades and graduate routes, and both should be encouraged.

In the foreword to "Lightill"(15.07.86) the chairman set out nine points for all in the industry to address, and I would suggest that if it had done so there would have been no need for any further reports. Is it too late?