Buildings in need of parental care

Construction firms love a "christening" but it's toddlers, teenagers and old-timers that grab the FM's attention

by Alan Soper

17 April 2008

To the public the roles of construction and FM fit together well. But this different focus, combined with different cultures, training, buying trends and approach means that the reality of the relationship is a little less integrated.

A potential pitfall is the popular assumption in the construction industry that there can be the one-stop shop ideal and 'design it, build it, look after it' can all come under the same umbrella.

The problem with this approach is that the underlying supply side corporate skills are different and ultimately real customers don't buy like this. And with design and build funded by capital, and FM funded by revenue, we're sharing the same currency but a completely different language and approach. For the construction firm typically no in-situ customer exists but the best FM organisations have customer care down to a fine art.

Another critical difference is in market dynamics: FM companies focus on looking after buildings, so market demand is derived from the existing built estate. New build demand is driven by redevelopment, growth and transformation. FM requires something which is consistent, but construction relies on change. Task versus service orientation, one-off project attitude versus ongoing relationships mentality and material versus labour focus, only adds to the chances of a strained partnership.

However, as FM companies move into different financing agreements, such as long-term client partnerships and PFIs, some of this traditional market separation is being blown away. So, if the intention is to make the relationships work better and for a one-stop-shop to open the door to receptive clients, whole-life management is one tool to force the overlap. 'A building is for life not just for christening' that's the key message.

The one-stop-shop approach certainly attracts, and the public agenda towards sustainability and regeneration is certainly pressing towards an integrationist approach. But before this can work, a fundamental question needs to be answered about how the new financing and sustainability models of the built environment can be supported by the different behaviours of the contracting companies involved. For example, what is a building for? Is the intention to create a beautiful thing of intrinsic value or a temporary 'packaging' for temporary human activity?

If a building is to be seen as a fixed asset, as with the property market and most of the private sector, then, frankly, the integrated approach much beloved of contracting theorists is pretty much unnecessary. On the other hand, if a building is to be seen as a space for corporate or public activity, the single, integrated approach is the appropriate model. But here, construction and FM companies must work harder to provide a whole life supply chain in which the allocation of tasks and risks is less a matter of contract and more a matter of common sense.

If FM and construction stand together at the font for the christening, continue their relationship as the building ages and fund the graduation, then we can and will grow together – and the building will be nurtured for life.

Alan Soper is MD of building, maintenance and refurbishment firm Ian Williams