League table to rank construction suppliers_2
19 July 2012
A league table rating the performance of suppliers is to follow the launch of new benchmarks for the construction industry, it has emerged.
A league table rating the performance of suppliers is to follow the launch of new benchmarks for the construction industry, it has emerged.
The key performance indicators, published by the Construction Industry Board (CIB), the government and other industry bodies, aim to provide clients, contractors, consultants and suppliers with a means of measuring and comparing their performance. The indicators will allow companies to rate themselves against industry norms. But CIB chief executive Don Ward conceded that, after developing a culture of comparison in construction, a desire to rank companies would naturally follow. “The next logical step is a named league table,” he told SM. “There are practical problems, not least the sheer numbers - more than 200,000 companies. What we want first is for clients to ask ‘what are your key performance indicators?’.” Will McKee, director-general of the British Property Federation, said league tables would have a major psychological effect on raising standards and encouraging openness. “The great thing about league tables, whether you have a deserved place or not, is that management will move to improve its position. No one wants to be bottom.” But other bodies were more cautious. Tony Pollington, executive secretary of the Construction Clients’ Forum, said: “It is not something many of us have considered, but I think a degree of resistance may emerge.” John Hesp, head of corporate contracts at Southampton City Council, said that although the development of performance indicators in construction fitted well with the best-value regime in local government, “the measurement and improvement achieved through contractors is more important for us than a league table”. The indicators are the product of last year’s Rethinking Construction report by Sir John Egan and mark the boldest attempt yet to drive up efficiency and quality within the industry. A survey for the Construction Clients’ Forum last year painted a confusing picture of performance. While 79 per cent pronounced themselves satisfied with what they got, 58 per cent said the project was delivered late, 32 per cent said it was over budget and 30 per cent reported significant defects. However, 78 per cent said they would return to the same supply chain. Alan Crane, chairman of government task force Movement for Innovation, vowed that performance indicators would be published every year. “Our view is simple,” he explained. “Those companies that deliver a better service will get better business. We will carry out annual reviews. This is not a static process.” Crane denied that contractors might be tempted to lie. “I think there is too much twaddle talked about commercial confidence,” he said. Other commentators expressed hope that contractors’ payment records would become one of the indicators. A boxed set of indicators is available for £19.95 from the Construction Best Practice Programme, tel: 0181 854 3722
The key performance indicators, published by the Construction Industry Board (CIB), the government and other industry bodies, aim to provide clients, contractors, consultants and suppliers with a means of measuring and comparing their performance. The indicators will allow companies to rate themselves against industry norms. But CIB chief executive Don Ward conceded that, after developing a culture of comparison in construction, a desire to rank companies would naturally follow. “The next logical step is a named league table,” he told SM. “There are practical problems, not least the sheer numbers - more than 200,000 companies. What we want first is for clients to ask ‘what are your key performance indicators?’.” Will McKee, director-general of the British Property Federation, said league tables would have a major psychological effect on raising standards and encouraging openness. “The great thing about league tables, whether you have a deserved place or not, is that management will move to improve its position. No one wants to be bottom.” But other bodies were more cautious. Tony Pollington, executive secretary of the Construction Clients’ Forum, said: “It is not something many of us have considered, but I think a degree of resistance may emerge.” John Hesp, head of corporate contracts at Southampton City Council, said that although the development of performance indicators in construction fitted well with the best-value regime in local government, “the measurement and improvement achieved through contractors is more important for us than a league table”. The indicators are the product of last year’s Rethinking Construction report by Sir John Egan and mark the boldest attempt yet to drive up efficiency and quality within the industry. A survey for the Construction Clients’ Forum last year painted a confusing picture of performance. While 79 per cent pronounced themselves satisfied with what they got, 58 per cent said the project was delivered late, 32 per cent said it was over budget and 30 per cent reported significant defects. However, 78 per cent said they would return to the same supply chain. Alan Crane, chairman of government task force Movement for Innovation, vowed that performance indicators would be published every year. “Our view is simple,” he explained. “Those companies that deliver a better service will get better business. We will carry out annual reviews. This is not a static process.” Crane denied that contractors might be tempted to lie. “I think there is too much twaddle talked about commercial confidence,” he said. Other commentators expressed hope that contractors’ payment records would become one of the indicators. A boxed set of indicators is available for £19.95 from the Construction Best Practice Programme, tel: 0181 854 3722
