When was the egan report written

Concepts such as partnering and framework agreements could assist in the process. The Task Force takes matters much further. Not only is it important to develop long term working relationships, those relationships must be established as part of a concept which focuses on what the client needs, i.

In other words, construction should not be an industry which, through a staged process and chronology converts an empty piece of land into a building; rather, construction should be an industry which looks first at the required product and decides how to make that product a reality using knowledge, equipment and skills which are readily available; i. To do this, the industry needs to have a blueprint for a number of generic construction products e.

The blueprint is translated into a specific project, on a particular site for a particular. The blueprints themselves are continually refined and developed as indeed is the design and engineering of the components and processes.

In this new society, there will be no room for traditional types of procurement contracts or consultancy appointments. Indeed, the Task Force suggests that formalised contractual relationships could become a thing of the past and contract terms and conditions unnecessary.

There is little doubt that "Rethinking Construction", if implemented, would mean moving away from construction contracts as we know them.

However, different types of agreement could, and should, be put in place if not only to allocate risk in a defined way so that everyone involved in the process knows what is expected of them. Then again, lawyers would say this wouldn't they!

The Task Force acknowledges that this is one of its more radical proposals but, of course, it is consistent with the desired concept of establishing long term relationships. From a client's perspective, fears of not obtaining value for money, if competitive tendering goes, are to be allayed by the quantitative performance data which will be available by pricing transparency and reliance on relationships established throughout the supply chain. The Task Force invites the Government, through the Treasury and DETR, to put appropriate mechanisms in place so that competitive tendering can be a thing of the past.

Of course, as we all know, economically Britain is no longer an island and in terms of our relationship with Brussels, the Task Force has set the Government an interesting problem given the EC Procurement Rules for public sector work.

This is neither the time nor the place to examine how the Task Force's vision for the future fits within EC Regulations but clearly "Rethinking Construction" cannot be implemented fully without considering Britain's commitment to its European partners.

Whilst the Task Force report is client driven, it does not seek to place the blame for all the ills of the industry at the feet of contractors and consultants. Clients are customers and, as such, entitled to value for money.

They pay and, hence, have a right to receive buildings on time and within budget, provided, of course, that they do not move the goalposts too often during the construction process! Nevertheless, the Task Force recognises that clients should focus on value, rather than on the lowest price; clients should not take all the benefits of cost savings but should share these with "all the players in the team".

Construction companies should operate in an environment which enables them to make "reasonable" profits and much better returns than are made at present; and clients must be persuaded of the need for increased resources and hence increased costs up front, before any physical work starts on site.

Contractors and consultants should be cheered by these notions. However, it is fair to say that these are by no means the focal points of the report. Indeed, you might ask whether the Task Force's idea of "value for money" means that clients should identify themselves, at the outset, as interested in BMWs or Skodas?

The report has been criticised as being of no relevance to one-off clients or smaller developers who would not have the clout of the more substantial procurers in the industry. The Task Force makes no secret of the fact that its report is geared towards projects for major private and public sector clients. However, there is an admission that:. Whilst one can understand the wish for an industry wide change, it does seem a little unsatisfactory, on the one hand, to acknowledge the importance of the so-called occasional client and express concern as to how that client may benefit from the report's proposals.

Yet, on the other hand, not to develop the thinking any further to make the occasional client feel part of the proposed reforms. To say, as the Task Force does, that any client can do things to improve performance in the construction industry "given the time, the commitment and the resources", simply illustrates the problems, i. To whom, therefore, does the Task Force suggest he should turn? Back to the car industry.

Isn't there a significant difference between cars and construction? It's not the fact that a building is a more complex product or that a road is different from an office which is different from a block of flats. Isn't it that clients are different? Ford design and manufacture Fords. Tesco commissions Tesco stores. But what about other construction clients? Sir John Egan made several remarks based on the findings of his original report in and the progress of the construction industry in the 10 years since in his address.

The purpose of this essay is to look at some of the main points raised by Egan in his address and evaluate their relevance with regard to the structure and practices of the modern UK construction industry.

It is not suited to all projects certainly not in the guise of full, 3D BMI. The idea of a small building company implementing BMI for use in adding a ground floor extension to a private dwelling seems counter-intuitive. The amount the company would have to invest in training, software, and hardware, without even looking at investing in the skills of in-house designers is extremely cost prohibitive for such a project.

All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. Oxford Reference. Publications Pages Publications Pages.

Recently viewed 0 Save Search. Find at OUP. Read More. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Subscriber sign in You could not be signed in, please check and try again.