Before I get started on this editorial, we at Management, Procurement and Law (MPL) are happy to inform you that the ICE’s Parkman Medal for the best paper published in any of the ICE journals in 2010 on the practical aspects or the control or management, including project management, of the design and/or construction of a specific scheme was awarded to Jill Wells and John Hawkins for their MPL papers on ‘Increasing the ‘local content’ in infrastructure procurement’ (Wells and Hawkins, 2010a, 2010b). As someone who works often in international procurement, I found those papers very interesting and full of practical advice for helping the process of procurement actually contribute to development. I commend them to you. For further details see http://www.icevirtuallibrary. com/content/issue/mpal/163/2.
Now I have pleasure in introducing this edition of MPL which, as one might expect, covers a range of topics on management and procurement, with a sprinkling of law.
This issue opens with a short briefing by David Dryden (2011) – ‘Globalisation, innovation and collaboration’ – explaining how his organisation has adopted modern collaborative tools to get the best from dispersed teams around the company’s global offices. Moving beyond telephone, web and video conferencing, Dryden explains the benefits of the next generation of collaboration technologies that create ‘virtual meeting rooms’ and allow direct team interaction with documents and drawings. This, he says, promotes collaboration and innovation and helps keep the company’s ‘carbon footprint’ down. The briefing does not directly mention BIM – building information modelling – but the combination of the two will surely be the way forward.
Then Sergii Gan’s briefing, ‘Specifics of construction procurement strategies in the CIS’ (Gan 2011), shares some tips for procurement in the Community of Independent States (CIS) – the states of the former Soviet Union. He reminds us that whatever the choice of procurement strategy and contract form one has to be very aware of local legal issues. Particularly important is the need to consider in detail how the detailed requirements for the approval of the ‘design’ by a state-appointed panel of experts will be built in to the overall programme and procurement strategy. Once the design is done, Gan points out the need for the client to ensure that ‘technical control’ is carried out by a person not linked to the design or construction of the project.
In ‘Managing UK Highways Act section 278 projects – a collaborative approach’, Ian Yates and Jamie Povall share their experience of how Liverpool City Council has improved the management of these section 278 projects (Yates and Povall, 2011). ‘Section 278 agreements’ are provided for by the UK Highways Act 1980 (1980) and govern how a developer has to provide for modifications to the existing highway network that are made necessary by his development. Such modifications are often a condition of planning permission; similar provisions are common in other jurisdictions. Historically, a developer had to deal with several departments in the council, which would have checked the developer’s design and inspected the work. Yates and Povall describe how the council set up a 10-year framework agreement with a technical services provider. The role of that technical services provider included managing those section 278 projects. The paper explores how this appointment gave an opportunity to redesign the highways development control service. In a well-structured and readable way, the paper sets out the challenges with the old system and the opportunities for a new system from the perspectives of the main stakeholders: highways authority, developer and technical services provider. The paper explains both legal and practical aspects of the revised system that, importantly, requires the technical services provider to carry out all aspects of the design, tender and contract documentation and inspection of the works. From the point of view of the council this gives a consistency of approach and, importantly, the developer is required to cover the actual costs of this work. The paper concludes with a summary of both the benefits of the new system and, refreshingly, its problems and risks.
As the infrastructure in the developed world ages, more and more projects involve demolition and reconstruction. This brings a need for more and better education in, particularly, the health, safety and waste management aspects of demolition. Mark Shaurette’s paper, ‘Safety and health education for demolition and reconstruction’ shares how he, as an assistant professor for the construction management programme at a US university, recognised this – and did something about it (Shaurette, 2011). The paper explains how he worked with the industry to define the topics that needed to be covered that were either specific to demolition or had specific demolition-related content. The paper continues to give a useful, concise summary of the safety practices that are taught on the course. Demolition often risks exposing both workers and the public to specific health risks and the paper concludes with some detail on prevention of exposure to dust and the need for active and specialist waste management. The paper will not make you an expert in demolition – it was not intended to do so. However, the sections on course development will be of interest to academia and the remainder of the paper is a very useful introduction for the many readers who will find that demolition and reconstruction are a part of their project.
Also from the US, and also of interest to readers from anywhere in the world, Sidney Hymes’ paper on ‘Front-end specification and construction claims’ reports on research on the perceived links between an important part of a project’s contractual documentation and the occurrence of significant claims. Hymes (2011) uses the term ‘front-end specifications’ to describe what might (in the UK at least) be called the ‘general’ (non-technical) sections of a project specification. These, the paper argues, are rarely based on any standard document and are sometimes ‘recycled’ from project to project without sufficient thought. The research broke these requirements down into 16 categories and considered the links of these categories to claims. It also looked at whether the drafting of these provisions was considered overly complex or simple. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the aspects with the most potency to lead to claims were found to be those that do need to be drafted very specifically for the particular project: coordination, scheduling and scope. It is an interesting and useful paper for anyone involved in putting tender and contract documents together.
Lastly, a very specialised paper, one that is definitely at the ‘management’ end of MPL and one that might well affect your company: an ‘Evaluation of workplace drug testing in UK civil engineering’. It is one to read and pass on to your HR director. Sam Wamurziri from Edinburgh Napier University reports on his research into what UK contractors are doing about workplace drug testing (Wamuziri, 2011). The paper is very well set out. It starts with the legal position explaining clearly the basic conflict between the employee’s rights to privacy and the employer’s duty to consider the health and safety risks that the majority of their employees might be exposed to if one employee is under the influence of drugs. The paper carefully explains eight types of drug testing, the arguments for and against and then gives a literature review before moving on to details of Wamuziri’s own research. It covers the reasons UK civil engineering contractors gave for introducing drug testing and what they claimed to have seen as a result. Also addressed are the reasons quoted for why the government should – or should not – legislate to require workplace testing and, if so, whether any testing should be limited to those involved in safety-critical activities or for all on the site. In general, those companies that have implemented workplace testing appear very positive about its effects on safety, their reputation and protection against their legal liabilities. (When) will it happen in your company?
MPL always encourages discussions on its papers. In this issue, Glenn Hide responds to a query relating to his excellent paper on the programme under the NEC form of contract (Hide, 2010): what to do if the contractor’s first revision to the accepted programme brings planned completion forward from the programme submitted at tender. Perhaps the clarity of the reply will encourage you too to take the time to submit a question or comment to spark a discussion? Please do.
Brief reviews of and recommendations for the following books complete this edition: Managing Construction Projects (2nd edition) and Understanding JCT Standard Building Contracts (8th edition).
And finally … if you are interested in joining the editorial advisory panel for MPL, there are some vacancies from November 2011, please contact Sohini Banerjee (e-mail: sohini.banerjee@icepublishing.com) by the end of September for more information.
