Since the last issue of the Digest, we have seen the publication of the Latham Report by Sir Michael Latham following his research into the construction industry. A number of the recommendations of Sir Michael have already been put in place and I trust that the on-going efforts will result in the implementation of further recommendations. This to a certain extent relies on the ability of somebody to drive them - and Sir Michael's contract expires at the end of the year! I do not propose to set out in this introduction specific recommendations of the report, as this has already been done on numerous occasions by very qualified personnel. However, the essence of Sir Michael's report is of co-operation and not confrontation.

Another facet of the report is that we should seek a 30% reduction in costs by the end of the century. I can hear the contractors whine from here (and I am writing this in the States), but such reductions can only arise from improved productivity, which in turn can only arise from improved planning of a project from initial design through to construction. Sir Michael cites the Japanese on planning the project for four years and completing construction in one year, where our industry seems to plan for one year, construct for four years and litigate for four years!

Until the adversarial nature of the construction industry is changed at the very root, I have my doubts as to whether the Latham report will have any effect upon the industry. Until there is a common goal recognised by employers, contractors and subcontractors, that is, for the employer to have his project completed on time and within budget and for the contractors to make a reasonable profit, then confrontation will continue.
You may say "but that is the common goal". I agree in theory but in practice it isn't. The employer wants his project for the minimum amount of money, thus making project times and prices reduced from what they really should be. The contractor therefore fights for every penny that he can get, plus more! So instead of having a situation that when a problem arises it is resolved, the employer and contractor and subcontractor blame each other. This exacerbates problems, not solves them! We have to train from ground roots that the object is to resolve problems, not prolong them.

A great deal of criticism has been made of experts, lawyers and barristers in the construction industry, (a natural reaction when vast amounts are spent in arbitration and litigation), but it is worthy of note that at one of our recent seminars, over a period of two days where Trett personnel were talking together with some of our solicitor and barrister colleagues, at no time did anybody say 'come to us and bring us your fees". Without exception, everybody said "do not get involved in arbitration or litigation if at all possible".

In other words, we were all advising people not to use our services if they could possibly avoid them. What this means is that the experts, solicitors and barristers are not the instigators of disputes but the last resort in resolution. This identifies, without doubt , that the disputes are started at a much earlier point in the construction process. If a concerted attempt was made to achieve that theoretical common goal at the earlier stage then perhaps the views of Sir Michael might take hold. On a cynical note however, if everybody listened to us we would be out of business!