The ruck at the RICS

Construction consultants are not known for their unbridled aggression, but over the past fortnight a rebellion has broken out among the country’s QSs. Howls of fury have been heard from London to Manchester, echoing in the digital pages of Building’s website. The object of their ire? Their own professional institution, the RICS.

Three matters have provoked the QS community. The most recent is the RICS’ decision to pull out of the Construction Industry Council (CIC). Rather than lobby the government through the consultants’ umbrella group, the RICS wants do it alone. Another is the introduction of the Assoc RICS, a qualification that will allow people without degrees to work towards chartered status. Many QSs see this as dumbing down – especially those who underwent years of academic training to get their MRICS.

Finally, QSs are concerned about the distribution of power: there is talk of more officials being appointed rather than elected; the RICS governing council was due to meet to debate this on Tuesday.

Although these developments have triggered the present row, QSs’ unhappiness with the RICS is not new. As a senior partner at a big firm put it, the anger has been “building up over many years”. Ten, to be precise: ever since the QS division was closed in 1999, and fees were raised 32% in 2004.

In or out?

Although many QSs have little to do with the RICS on a day-to-day basis, most still recognise the value of having the right letters after their names. “As senior members of global practices, we all ask what the point of the RICS is,” says one industry figure. “And with the recession we all looked at the membership fee and wondered if it was worth it. But at the end of the day everyone is paying it because you don’t want to end up with less qualified staff on board. Being an MRICS is still shorthand for competency.”

At the same time, there is some indication that QSs may be looking elsewhere for their day-to-day support. The Consultant QS Association, a group of 20 or so senior managers, meets monthly to debate industry issues and there is discussion (as there was in 1999) about groups such as the CIOB mopping up disaffected RICS members and providing specific representation for surveyors in construction management.

The CIC has also said it will continue to speak for surveyors, even if the RICS is no longer involved. “We will continue to represent the surveying profession but it would be better to have the representation though the RICS,” says CIC chief executive Graham Watts. “We have considerable interaction with the QS and building surveying profession, and this will continue.”

The RICS has resigned from several industry bodies other than the CIC, including property group PISCES and the European Group of Valuers, saying it feels it is strong enough to represent members alone.

Anything an individual body says to the government will be seen as self-interest and will be referred to the umbrella bodies

Graham Watts, CIC

Watts is sceptical. He says: “Anything each individual body says to the government will inevitably be seen as self-interest and will be referred to the umbrella bodies and the Strategic Forum for a consensus view.”

Jack Pringle, the former RIBA president, agrees. “In my view, the CIC does a huge amount on a small budget and gets the ear of ministers,” he says. “It’s the RICS’ loss as well as the whole industry’s. We need that co-ordinated voice.”

Open door policy

The matter of opening up the profession to non-graduates has provoked a violent reaction. Since the news of the Assoc RICS emerged on 10 November there have been dozens of complaints on Building’s website.

Academics and QSs are concerned the new qualification would undermine professional integrity. The RICS argues that it will help the industry cope with skills shortages, and create fairer access – Rob Mahoney, chair of the RICS’ Knowledge Board, calls it “an opportunity for many technically competent individuals who’ve been denied access to a professional qualification”.

It is a laudable aim, but Angela Kilby, surveying lecturer at Birmingham City university, argues that academic courses are integral to the profession’s standing. “More and more clients pay us only to hold the purse strings, with little merit attributed to our measuring skills,” she says. “We need to diversify, but we also need to stay unique and there is a real threat to the profession if we continue to allow clients to de-skill us.”

Power struggle

Meanwhile, in the upper echelons, the body is going through a restructure – a reduction in the number of elected representatives on RICS boards is on the cards. The stated aim is to make it function more efficiently, but many opponents have signed an online petition set up by Charles Fifield, director of Fifield Glyn, calling for it to be dropped.

Some members want to take this a step further. For example, Brendan Dooley, managing director of Dooley Associates and former chair of a RICS networking group in Manchester, wants to create a body of members that could prevent the governing council taking action that the members do not agree with. “We’d like to have a members’ voice that, by committee, could block proposals when they come out,” he says. “It would be almost like a union.”

Of course we need to diversify, but we also need to stay unique and there is a real threat to the profession if we
de-skill

Angela Kilby, Birmingham City University

On the last point, he is joking. But perhaps a grass roots revolution is what the RICS needs – especially if the feelings of one old hand is an indication of the general mood: “Even the building feels like it’s there for the staff, not the members. I wouldn’t take a client there and tell them ‘this is our club’.”

The chair of the RICS QS and construction faculty has robustly defended the institution in the face of an onslaught of criticism and said the body will remain a “members organisation”.

Michael Sullivan, who is also a partner in Rider Hunt, said proposals to make the 141-year-old body more “businesslike” would not stop it from fulfilling its primary function, namely supporting the interests of members.

He said: “There is no point existing if we don’t concentrate on doing what a professional institution should do, which is delivery of knowledge and delivery of standards. And the only way we can do that is if we represent the collective view of our profession. The RICS is still a members organisation – there is no point if it isn’t.” He urged members to get in touch about specific concerns.

Sullivan hit out at last week’s claims that the RICS was undermining its democratic credentials by proposing a system where more people are appointed, rather than elected, to its boards and specialist groups. The RICS governing council was due to meet on Tuesday to debate the issue and no final decisions had yet been made about the exact form of the changes as Building went to press. But, come what may, the body aims to have a different system in place by the summer.

“The RICS is streamlining itself to run in a more businesslike manner. As part of that we’re sorting out the hundreds and hundreds of levels of groups. I believe strongly in democracy at the RICS but we also need to make sure we have the right specialists in place.”

He emphasised that running the RICS in a “businesslike manner” was different to running it “as a business”. He said: “Businesses are obsessed with profit and loss – we’re obsessed with representing members’ interests. It’s nice not to make a loss but members come first.”

Sullivan also defended the body’s move to withdraw from the Construction Industry Council (CIC) – a decision that has been widely criticised for causing further fragmentation in the sector. He said: “In these times, we are looking at where we spend our money. We feel we cover a very broad ground and can have stronger links with the government alone; our views sometimes get lost in the CIC.”

However, he insisted the parting was not necessarily permanent and said the bodies could still collaborate. “If the CIC wants to take some positive actions on things, we will join in with them on a case by case basis. We want to be supportive on specific things.”

Finally, Sullivan stood up for the launch of the Assoc RICS, which will allow non-graduates a chance to gain chartered status. “The way to think of it is that there is a fast track and a slow track,” he said. “That allows us to bring on people who are more technically minded. Some people say we are dumbing down but that isn’t true. We’re simply having a lower level to get the people we would miss.”