Lets get together

Are you aware of the merger of Be with CE? Or, to add a few more letters of the alphabet, have you heard that Collaborating for the Built Environment is in the process of merging with Constructing Excellence? Before I say anything further, I should tell you that I’m in favour of this, even though I can see some of the concerns that others are raising.

To start with, CE is just coming out of a long and difficult consolidation of the Construction Best Practice Programme, the Movement for Innovation and Rethinking Construction. Further merger activity is unlikely to make this process any quicker and may well destabilise some of the companies that are doing their best to adopt the Constructing Excellence agenda just as they are getting back on their feet. On top of this, there is a certain amount of institutional thinking evident in CE. Most notable, and almost certainly a result of the fact that DTI funding is rapidly running out, is the organisation’s focus on securing its own future, rather than pushing ahead with the industry culture change it was created to effect. Not that both aren’t required, but CE needs to strike a more appropriate balance.

Be, on the other hand, has been clear of its merger of the Design Build Foundation and the Reading Construction Forum for two years and is making good progress on its own agenda. Be has a truly pan-industry membership, from commissioning clients to distributors and materials suppliers. Its success has been a result of the value it delivers to its members, who in return fund its continuation.

So what makes this merger such a good idea? Take a good look around the industry. Then count how many associations, trade and government bodies, institutions and the like there are. Question how many of these are interested in anything other than maintaining the status of their members – or, more often, the status quo of their organisation. There are simply too many bodies with far too much vested interest and myopic fragmentation to be good for an industry in desperate need of collaborative working. That’s why I support this merger. And by the way, it’s also why I support the efforts of CIBSE to maintain an agenda of wide inclusion and to follow a policy of actively pursing integration with other institutions.

The merger of Be and CE is good for the industry and good for integration. Despite their differences, both of these organisations are focused on advancing change across the whole industry. Be’s commitment does not have the outlets to make a real difference on its own (even though Be members account for some 10% of UK construction activity) and is far too London-centric to deliver the permanent changes needed. CE on the other hand has an extremely strong regional network of clubs and centres of excellence. Up and down the country there are real practitioners waiting to inhale new ideas and breathe out their own experiences for others to benefit from.

How many industry bodies are interested in anything other than maintaining the status of their members?

Yes, there may be problems; there may be some vested interests and egos that need to be overcome. But if we are going to change the industry to deliver superior outcomes, value, enjoyment and benefits for everybody, it’s in all our interests that the merger of Be and CE happens swiftly and is immediately followed by the next merger, consolidation or joint venture.

If, like me, you want to be a part of a world class construction industry and see integration as the route to that goal then you will probably also see such consolidation as an important and urgent step in that direction. Simply put, if we genuinely believe in integration, we have no choice but to go about it in a unified way.

Kevin Thomas is founder of Visionality, which specialises in procurement for the built environment.