Industry transformation is complex and needs to be treated as such

Publication of the long-awaited National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline by the Treasury and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) at the start of February landed with something of a damp squib. It failed to deliver the much anticipated and desired clarity and the hoped for certainty about future workloads was somewhat lacking too.

However, I can’t help but feel that, as an industry, we were placing too much expectation on the document to answer the many challenges we are facing currently. With the pending general election, the long-term certainty about projects and infrastructure investment was always going to be shaky.

Nonetheless, I do wonder whether we have a level of expectation around the ease of delivering industry transformation that is unrealistic. Just in the last few years there has been significant policy and guidance developed to enable the delivery of transformational change.

The Construction Playbook called for harmonised, digitised, and rationalised demand. The IPA’s Transforming Infrastructure Performance Roadmap to 2030 set out the action to implement a mandate for a platform approach. The Construction Innovation Hub has delivered reams of work to support transformation including a guide to implementing a platform approach, along with evidence demonstrating the value it could deliver.

The challenges we face in transforming the sector are reflected in the recent inquiry into modern methods of construction (MMC) by the House of Lords’ Built Environment Committee as well. Chair of the committee Lord Moylan told the secretary of state Michael Gove in a letter in late January that “the government’s approach to MMC is in disarray”.

Many articles I have read on the inquiry chose tasty headlines and quotes to create a stir. While I feel the terms of reference used for the inquiry were frustratingly narrow in focusing on limited aspects of MMC delivery, the disappointing negative rhetoric that followed has risked damaging support for the broader opportunities available for delivering industry transformation.

There was a feeling that MMC was demonised and labelled as failing, while extensive failings in “traditional” construction barely seem to raise an eyebrow

At an industry event that followed the publication, many MMC industry leaders also felt burnt by the inquiry from being “lumped in” with a few failed Category 1 MMC firms, despite their own success. There was a feeling that MMC was demonised and labelled as failing, while extensive failings in “traditional” construction barely seem to raise an eyebrow.

So, let’s call out a few truths here – and this really shouldn’t be news to anyone – MMC, whether it is Category 1 or more broadly, is not a silver bullet and nor does one size fit all when it comes to meeting our housing needs.

>> Also read: Everything you wanted to know about MMC but were afraid to ask

>> Building The Future Commission: Time to prepare for the next digital revolution

>> Faster, better and less disruptive: the next chapter in Mace’s manufacturing journey

The charring and negativity surrounding the House of Lords report aside, when I have spoken with people in more detail and reflected on the overall recommendations, there is much good that can come from this.

The reality is that construction faces numerous and interlinked challenges. And transforming construction is a complex, socio-technical challenge and needs to be treated as such.

We must move away from the default position of “engineering to order” and treating every project as unique

We must move away from the default position of “engineering to order” and treating every project as unique. By clarifying the questions, reducing variation in the relationships and processes and then understanding the appropriate range of solutions, we can shift to an “adapting to order” position. This change will better support those companies that are delivering through offsite – or traditional – methods and meet our societal needs more efficiently, affordably and sustainably.

There are some presumptions about such a shift that also need to be overcome. I regularly talk about focusing on value, engaging early and identifying opportunity for reducing unnecessary variance but there is then often a misconception that this means “make boring”. This is far from the case and existing guidance and policy supports this with a focus on balancing repetition with variance, while the IPA’s Value Toolkit, when published, will offer clear direction in making better value-based decisions.

The actions recommended by the House of Lords inquiry could – if taken with a wider view – enable better choices to be made about both what we deliver and how we deliver it, based on the best fit for the project.

So, while the upcoming election is creating uncertainty, we are also amid a much needed (r)evolution in how we deliver our built asset needs. Like it or not, in revolutions, some pioneers fail but that doesn’t mean we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In our pursuit of progress, we should learn all we can from the failures.

Despite the criticism laid out about industry transformation, I know from personal experience that there are many people across multiple departments that have long been striving to progress strategies and implement processes to better deliver our infrastructure needs. So I, for one, am looking forward to the response from government and stand ready to play my role in helping it in its endeavours.

Trudi Sully is Mott MacDonald’s UK and Europe Lead - Industrialised Design & Construction, and was previously impact director at the Construction Innovation Hub