Another report? Does the civil engineering market study simply state what we already know?

Last month, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published the final report on its civil engineering market study.

The aim of the study was to identify practical opportunities to strengthen competition and improve outcomes for public road and rail infrastructure.

Here are a few quotes.

“…there is deep concern that the industry as a whole is under-achieving. It has low profitability and invests too little in capital, research and development and training. Too many of the industry's clients are dissatisfied with its overall performance.”

“The industry should create an integrated project process around the four key elements of product development, project implementation, partnering the supply chain and production of components.”

“The industry must replace competitive tendering with long term relationships based on clear measurement of performance and sustained improvements in quality and efficiency.”

These statements all sound timely and wholly sensible.

However (and please forgive my deception) these aren’t extracts from the CMA Study. They’re from the report by Sir John Egan, Rethinking Construction, published in 1998 – just three years after I graduated.

The Egan Report and the report by Sir Michael Latham, Constructing the Team, published four years earlier, were landmarks.

Their principles have formed foundational thinking in the UK and around the world, kickstarting an ongoing quest to improve the construction industry.

What’s wrong (again)?

If you’re familiar with the recommendations of these reports – and many others since – the CMA’s findings will bring on a feeling of déjà vu.

They highlight, as the report puts it, “poor market outcomes over a sustained period of time”. Costs are high, overruns are common, quality is variable, and innovation constrained.

It’s validating to see the CMA restating the challenges so starkly. We’ve not been imagining all of this. The question now is, “what’s new?”

There’s been plenty of progress…

Of course, it would be flippant and disrespectful to suggest there’s been no progress in the 30 years since the Egan and Latham reports.

Design and construction technology is more advanced and reliable. Contracts are fairer and more refined. Supply chains are more efficient. Health, safety, and welfare laws are more robust.

All this plus a growing focus on sustainability have resulted in general improvements in project quality, performance, and environmental impact.

…but there’s still work to do

However, the CMA study shows that there’s still significant work to do to drive fundamental change and improve productivity.

Those of us who’ve been in the industry for decades will know how far we’ve come since the Egan and Latham era. It’s all relative, but this isn’t a valid excuse.

And those of us working deeply in delivery will feel the frustrations and see the opportunities day to day.

So, following last years’ publication of the UK government’s £725bn 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, the question that comes to mind is, “Can it be done?”

What needs to change?

The CMA Study provides 19 clear recommendations that seek to shape the market, alleviate public authority capacity constraints, improve procurement, and reduce regulatory barriers.

These recommendations resonate strongly with those detailed in the ICE’s policy paper published last year.

The CMA explicitly states that these actions should be holistic. A half-hearted, bite-sized attempt will be far less effective.

They also, quite rightly, suggest that the recommendations are relevant for other public infrastructure sectors.

Leading the way

So, we should be proud that the UK continues to lead the way globally on industry thinking.

However, if we are to meet the rapidly growing challenges facing the nation, we now need to move confidently from thinking to action.

The CMA report shines a glaring light on everything we already know needs improvement and offers clarity on what, specifically, needs to happen.

The recommendation to mandate existing guidance (the Construction Playbook) shows that we’re already on the right path. Procrastination is no longer an option.

Of course, reports, studies, and commissions are all very well, as are their recommendations. But I can’t help feeling like there’s something missing from this conversation.

Something important and very individual: personal responsibility.

How can you make a difference?

As civil and infrastructure engineers, we’re custodians of a noble profession, and it’s our duty to deliver better value to society.

It’s easy to forget this in our daily routine of project delivery. However, whether we work for clients, contractors, or consultants, we must work together to ensure our industry remains relevant to the future needs of society.

Change will only succeed with the support of those who lead and deliver every day.

Ask yourself and your team: what practical changes can you make on your project? How can you improve productivity? How can you support the CMA’s recommendations? How can you adopt relevant parts of the Construction Playbook?

At the recent ICE Reviewer’s Conference, following an impassioned talk by former president Ed McCann on the challenges facing the industry, someone asked the question that I think embodies the situation perfectly:

“Are we brave enough?”

*The ICE welcomes guests to share their views about infrastructure policy issues on the Infrastructure Blog. These views are the views of the individual.

If you're interested in writing for the Infrastructure Blog, please email [email protected]. The ICE reserves the right not to publish articles that have been submitted.