‘Why?’ is the question we should be asking in 2025 – and here is the answer

As an industry we lament the short termism that often accompanies the election cycle and are more critical still of the revolving door of construction ministers within Whitehall. We run a keen eye over the Budget and big policies. But where does the responsibility really lie? Surely, as an industry, we need to look to ourselves first?

Although we are familiar with the famous Einstein saying that continuing to do the same thing over again and over is the definition of insanity, much of the industry still stumbles from project to project with often haphazard learnings that keep needing to be relearnt.

Project teams are often transient and organisations not always willing to learn – or capable of learning. And, although we are committed to doing so, as a sector we still underinvest in both innovation and training.

When we do have big industry game-changing reports – Latham, Egan and Farmer – they effectively say the same thing. Mark Farmer used the word “collaboration” 40 times, Egan “partnering” 32 times and John Latham used “trust” 53 times. While the big-picture stuff of these reports is consistent, the consistency arguably demonstrates a lack of progress.

But the new year is a time for hope, so let’s seek it out. We have a collective change in vocabulary that has stuck – describing what we do by way of outcomes. Now, to accompany this change, we need a change in behaviours.

The big industry reports were focused on the “how”. Farmer looked at how we tackle industry skills shortages; Egan at how we improve quality and efficiency; Latham at how to reduce conflicts and increase productivity.

Embracing diversity of thinking is collaboration in action. Given that we have been talking about collaboration for over 30 years, we may have forgotten how powerful it can be

Perhaps instead of the “how” we should focus on the “why” and place that at the centre of our thinking. The beneficiaries of our output do not care about our skills shortages, our efficiency or our productivity. They care about better homes, improved health outcomes and increased educational attainment.

If we placed these outcomes first, perhaps the “how” and the “what” would follow more easily.

It strikes me that our industry has two big “whys” to address when looking into 2025: to deliver valuable outcomes for our beneficiaries and to do so in a way that minimises our impact on the environment or, better still, leaves a positive change.

Delivering valuable outcomes 

Outcomes should inspire us all: better schools, creative and productive workplaces, homes that allow people to flourish. We don’t spend months and years working for the completion certificate, we do it for the outcomes.

So how can we deliver better outcomes? Perhaps by being more productive, and by plugging some skills gaps, but firstly by following good design processes.

Despite the popularist rhetoric of politicians, our beneficiaries are rarely homogeneous. Good design needs to deliver effectively to diverse groups.

So, it stands to reason that diversity of thinking within the project team (and beyond) should be encouraged. As an industry that struggles with diversity, we should not overlook cognitive diversity in our teams and their decision making. And we need to represent the diversity of building users into our meetings.

Embracing diversity of thinking is collaboration in action. Given that we have been talking about collaboration for over 30 years, we may have forgotten how powerful it can be.

We should consider it not as a process of compromise but as a process of net gain. Sharing an idea, prioritising importance or simply respecting opposing views is likely to result in better outcomes, not just for the beneficiaries of our work but for all of us in the industry participating in the process.

Minimising our impact on the planet 

The industry’s second big “why” is in order to minimise our impact on the environment, or, better still, leave a positive change. This too can be about good design, but it requires investment – investment in innovation and investment in skills. We have a looming skills shortage that is compounded into an immediate green skills shortage.

Farmer, Egan and Latham may have looked at the “what” but may have skipped some of the “how”. Last year was another in which input costs outstripped tender price increases. The sustainability of our contracting models was called into question and big players disappeared or retreated from parts of the market. It is evident that we need investment up and down the supply chain.

We are not so much sleepwalking into a skills crisis, but more striding purposefully towards it. We know that Gen Z want purpose in their work, so we should celebrate the outcomes that our projects achieve and use those incredible achievements to entice and encourage the replenishment of skills.

It will take investment, and that investment should be seen by clients as something that provides a return to them in the long term. We should consider it an industry-wide collective investment. Sustainability for the planet needs to start with the sustainability of our industry.

Outcomes are our big picture

Our politicians are coming back to work with their new year resolutions and full agendas that will keep the industry’s attention on their plans – from spending reviews to planning reform. But perhaps we should ask not what our politicians can do for our industry but what our industry can do for our country.

Perhaps a focus on outcomes will produce the agency for industry change. We need the politicians, but we don’t need to wait for them.

Paul Beeston is RLB’s head of industry and service insight