Monday, January 07, 2008
Lib Dem School building....... oh dear
The Fib Dems latest comments on their website about how effective they are at building schools is a bit worrying They boats that:
1/3rd of the buildings were complete within 2 weeks of the target completion date
2 were built under budget
1/2 were within 4% of the budget.
That's hardly amazing.. in fact look at it this way:
[b]2/3rds of the schools they commissioned and had built were more than 2 weeks late;
all but 2 went over budget
50% went over budget by more than 4%[/b]
Now I am responsible for a building programme worth about £1bn per year. If I delivered 2/3rds of my projects late I'd be shot!
Why are they going wrong? well for a number of reasons, but the starting point has to be poor management of the contrac tual design and build process. MK Council is one of the last places to use something called a "Partnering Contract" which were recommended by the Egan Report in the mid-90's. They prefer the old-fashioned "Design & Build" where the architect is the lead designer, the constructors lack any responsibility for the design process, and the net result is you get snags in the build process that can otherwise be easily overcome, but the process is long-winded and expensive. You also don't get cost certainty from the outset of the project, and so costs escalate.
How would I solve this problem?
1. Use a partnering contract that allocates both risk and financial responsibility for carrying that risk to the involved parties. Everyone signs up to working in partnership, so there is a collective responsibility to resolve deisgn or construction problems as everyone shares the financial risk. It gets away from the "not my problem mate" mentaility. It also sets out an Agreed Maximum Price for the project, so you go into it instages without having committed to the full cost until you know what it will be. the net result, you don't then exceed your budget.
2. use modular technology. There are a number of companies who manufacture component build systems in factories that then put them together on site. It means you can work 24/7 and are not subject to weather delays. your supply chain is certain, and your ability to control time and cost is greater. The buildings are in effect, made in units in a factory, fully fittted, and then assembled on-site. They have a life of between 60-100 years, and are cost effective. In fact you wouldn't even know you were standing inside one that was made off-site unless someone told you they are now that good. Ask local system build manufacturer terrapin. They are a world leader in the technology!
3. Have a better understanding of programme management and outsource it to the professionals. If you are manufacturing a system build design then you can utilise manufacturing processes such as Lean Six Sigma. It manages in quality and manages out cost redundancy.
4. On time = lower c ost. You don't need to find alternative accommodation, bus children all around MK, and pay support staff more to feed/look after more students than the schools mopping up the over-demand of students take, not to mention the hammering on maintenance and degradation costs on the acillary equipment needed to feed/warm/service the buildikngs that are over-utilised while the new supply of schools is late.
The fact is, it can be done. With the school building budget being squeezed the last thing MK needs is more incompetence from the Lib Dems in delivering 2/3rds of new schools late, and over-budget.
1/3rd of the buildings were complete within 2 weeks of the target completion date
2 were built under budget
1/2 were within 4% of the budget.
That's hardly amazing.. in fact look at it this way:
[b]2/3rds of the schools they commissioned and had built were more than 2 weeks late;
all but 2 went over budget
50% went over budget by more than 4%[/b]
Now I am responsible for a building programme worth about £1bn per year. If I delivered 2/3rds of my projects late I'd be shot!
Why are they going wrong? well for a number of reasons, but the starting point has to be poor management of the contrac tual design and build process. MK Council is one of the last places to use something called a "Partnering Contract" which were recommended by the Egan Report in the mid-90's. They prefer the old-fashioned "Design & Build" where the architect is the lead designer, the constructors lack any responsibility for the design process, and the net result is you get snags in the build process that can otherwise be easily overcome, but the process is long-winded and expensive. You also don't get cost certainty from the outset of the project, and so costs escalate.
How would I solve this problem?
1. Use a partnering contract that allocates both risk and financial responsibility for carrying that risk to the involved parties. Everyone signs up to working in partnership, so there is a collective responsibility to resolve deisgn or construction problems as everyone shares the financial risk. It gets away from the "not my problem mate" mentaility. It also sets out an Agreed Maximum Price for the project, so you go into it instages without having committed to the full cost until you know what it will be. the net result, you don't then exceed your budget.
2. use modular technology. There are a number of companies who manufacture component build systems in factories that then put them together on site. It means you can work 24/7 and are not subject to weather delays. your supply chain is certain, and your ability to control time and cost is greater. The buildings are in effect, made in units in a factory, fully fittted, and then assembled on-site. They have a life of between 60-100 years, and are cost effective. In fact you wouldn't even know you were standing inside one that was made off-site unless someone told you they are now that good. Ask local system build manufacturer terrapin. They are a world leader in the technology!
3. Have a better understanding of programme management and outsource it to the professionals. If you are manufacturing a system build design then you can utilise manufacturing processes such as Lean Six Sigma. It manages in quality and manages out cost redundancy.
4. On time = lower c ost. You don't need to find alternative accommodation, bus children all around MK, and pay support staff more to feed/look after more students than the schools mopping up the over-demand of students take, not to mention the hammering on maintenance and degradation costs on the acillary equipment needed to feed/warm/service the buildikngs that are over-utilised while the new supply of schools is late.
The fact is, it can be done. With the school building budget being squeezed the last thing MK needs is more incompetence from the Lib Dems in delivering 2/3rds of new schools late, and over-budget.
# posted by Sherington Tory @ 5:06 PM 
