Farmer Review: Telling it as it is

“Modernise or Die”, the dramatic ultimatum with which Mark Farmer opens his government-commissioned industry review, lays bare from the off its author’s belief that construction’s productivity levels are at crisis point.

The phrase is far more at the blockbuster end of the spectrum than the gently cerebral entreaties to “rethink construction” or “construct the team”; expressions coined by the forefathers of construction reviews, John Egan and Michael Latham, respectively.  

And while many of the problems Farmer outlines – low productivity, low investment in technology, and adversarial relationships – are well trodden complaints of those making the case for industry reform, the starkness and plain-speaking of Farmer’s review has already prompted a flurry of responses from industry, ranging from 5-star endorsement to cutting-room floor outrage – a diversity of views echoed by our readers.

Farmer’s pull-no-punches approach is, clearly, one feature of his report that is helping to get it noticed. But, as Farmer himself points out, there are two other major reasons why his review is crying out for swift attention: the skills crisis facing construction, and the unprecedented opportunity technology now presents for reform. Add to that a third – the scale of the UK’s housing needs – and both Farmer’s assessments, and his conclusions, quickly become compelling.

Based on Farmer’s analysis, the industry could see as much as a 25% decline in its available labour force within a decade, primarily due to the retirement of older workers. With housebuilders surveyed in a separate piece of research this week citing the availability of skilled workers as more of a threat to their business than Brexit, it’s easy to see how poorly placed the industry already is to cope with this crunch. And that’s without the likely impact of Brexit on the availability of migrant labour, which is set to render the situation in the early 2000s – when construction’s skills gaps were plugged by Eastern European labourers – unrepeatable.

Farmer’s solutions – set out as principles rather than detailed measures – of overhauling the CITB levy to provide funding for a broader range of training, including M&E and BIM skills, set a direction that is far more aligned to the industry’s future than the existing system. The current levy arrangements are already widely criticised within the sector for failing to deliver the skills needed, and failing to fairly share responsibility for training.

Farmer’s stance on increasing the use construction makes of technology – namely, through various offsite modern methods of construction that Farmer terms “pre-manufacture” – goes hand in hand with this skills strategy. Put simply, it’s not about choosing between traditional and non-traditional methods of construction – it’s about accepting that traditional methods cannot alone deliver the construction work that will be needed, and looking to offsite – and related skills – to deliver that expansion in capacity.

Farmer cuts through the perennial debate over whether (as the government likes to say) industry should lead this shift itself, or (as industry likes to counter) it takes client pressure to do so, with a swift appraisal of the facts. Construction has never changed itself “unilaterally at scale”; so on past evidence it will take client commissioning behaviours or government intervention to force its hand. That being the case, Farmer argues, the way to get things done is for clients, in particular the government, to lead.

Partly, as has been the case in the past, this can entail centres of excellence, new pre-manufacture protocols to aid uptake, and work with funders. But also it needs to involve directly favouring pre-manufacture methods in procurement, the way for which has been paved by the government’s pledge to link the £5bn of funds for housing announced at the Conservative Party conference to greater off-site construction.

Should Farmer’s suggestions, and the vivid urgency of the language he uses to make them, not prove compelling enough, however, he proposes one final “nuclear” option. That is to force clients to pay a levy if they do not commission work using progressive techniques such as pre-manufactured construction or BIM.

It is to be hoped that powerful words like Farmer’s can spark powerful change. But if the government is serious about propelling construction to a place where it can deliver answers to the UK’s built environment challenges, continue to benefit from construction’s sizeable contribution to GDP, and – crucially in a post-Brexit economy – hold its own as a leader in global markets … chances are, it may need to press that button.

Sarah Richardson, editor