Debate 8 - Paper 2

Ageing workforce and declining impact – where are tomorrow’s engineers?

Professor John Bale, Wilmot Dixon Professor of Construction Management

Leeds Metropolitan University

I am pleased to have been invited to participate in this debate, but I am afraid I am going to repay your hospitality by suggesting that the question you are asking is really rather narrow.

It is 35 years since the Banwell report asserted that changes in practice within the Construction Industry would be “of no avail until those engaged in the industry themselves think and act together”. If your memory is even longer you may recall that Banwell came two years after the Emmerson report which said that “in no other important industry is the responsibility for design so far removed from the responsibility for production”.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since those reports; but, to pursue that analogy, it still does seem to be separate streams flowing under separate bridges - and that is what concerns me about the topic for this evening’s debate.

I am not a civil engineer, although my industrial experience before I entered academia was spent largely in civil engineering–oriented organisations, and I have been responsible for the work of chartered engineers, as an academic manager, for nearly twenty years. Nor am I an architect, although I (since London University regard Construction Economics and Management as a branch of architecture – and who am I to disagree) I am the possessor of a Masters Degree in Architecture. Forgive those rather self-centered statements, but they do at least exemplify the ways in which the streams of our industry can and do inter-mingle. Having said what I am not, what I am (and proud to be) is a construction manager – a Chartered Builder.

It is legitimate to ask “where are tomorrow’s engineers”? - or tomorrow’s architects, tomorrow’s surveyors, tomorrow’s construction managers, tomorrow’s planners - provided we ask the question in the context of an industry which really needs, in Banwell’s words, to “think and act together”. But if we ask those questions in the belief that the role of any one profession can be seen in isolation from the whole, we are deluding ourselves and, what is more, we are hastening the end of the very professionalism we claim to represent.

My plea, therefore, is that we should look at the needs of the construction industry as a whole and ask what contribution each professional discipline should make to meeting those needs – and what that implies in terms of the numbers and skills required. If we fail to do that there is a risk that we will fall into one of two possible traps. The first trap is to seek to preserve a profession, as if in aspic, in terms of its traditional role and expertise, regardless of the fact that the demands of clients and the community, and the changing nature of knowledge and expertise, make that a futile exercise. The second trap is that we seek to expand the domain of each of the professions and end up quarrelling like dogs over a bone. We can do better than that, if we recognise that each of our professions can provide a distinctive contribution to the total task of planning, designing, producing, maintaining and renewing the built environment, but that it is the totality that matters – good buildings, good infrastructure, an efficient construction process, and an industry that nurtures and develops its own resources. My concern as Chair of Education and Professional Development at CIC, is to present the case for the higher education needs of the whole built environment sector. That whole sector is small by comparison with other areas of higher education (too small I believe, accounting perhaps for only 5% of total graduate output compared with our 8 or 9% contribution to GDP) and it is most certainly more fragmented than any other comparably small subject area.

My other quarrel with tonight’s topic arises from my perceptions (which may be wrong, in which case you will tell me) about the current pre-occupations of the engineering profession in relation to education and workforce planning. One of those perceptions is that you are excessively concerned about the academic calibre of those entering engineering courses. I know from experience how foolish it can be to focus too narrowly on the ability which people exhibit when they enter higher education. Higher education can work miracles for people who have not previously found the right motivation for study, and some apparently very bright entrants fail to live up to our expectations. As with any “system”, it is the output that really matters.

My second perception is that you are too narrowly concerned with particular sorts of ability, for example in science and mathematics. We know (particularly from the work of people such as Daniel Goleman) that the attributes which people bring to their jobs can be classified under three headings; cognitive intelligence, skill and expertise, and emotional intelligence (soft skills, people skills). We also have strong research evidence that it is the latter of these three sets of characteristics that most determine success in any occupation. There is I think a danger that your view of education for Engineering is focussing much too much on the first set of characteristics, and a lot too little on the third. I’m sure you have the second one about right!

I know that in asking the question “where are tomorrow’s engineers?” You are thinking of engineers at a variety of levels – chartered and incorporated engineers. And I understand your motivation when you seek to draw parallels with professions such as medicine in identifying the importance of different levels of expertise and trying to raise the status of the highest stratum. But, again, I think there is a danger that you are getting it wrong. Teamwork within a particular profession will be as damaged by an artificial horizontal divide, as teamwork across the range of our Built Environment professions is damaged by vertical, inter-professional divides. Other industries, (from automobiles to health care), are doing better than us in finding integrated ways of operating that break down the barriers between disciplines, and the barriers between perceived levels of contribution. You sometimes suggest that you want the Chartered Engineer to have the status accorded to the hospital Consultant. All well and good - but keep an eye on the inroads being made by nurses into leadership within the health service. You may learn something from that.

As Senior Vice President of the Chartered Institute of Building, I believe passionately in the value of professionalism. And, certainly, the professionalism of my Institute, in construction management, has a vital role to play if we are to continue to improve the industry’s performance. But modern professionalism must increasingly be inter-professionalism, characterised by flexibility, co-operation, customer-orientation and continuous improvement. What it most certainly must not be is the status-ridden “brass-plate” professionalism of a bygone era.

I am sorry that I have approached the question you set for me with such a long list of caveats. But, when they have been applied, your question deserves a straightforward answer. I believe that tomorrow’s built environment professionals, tomorrow’s designers and constructors, are out there waiting - if only we can convince them that our industry is part of the tomorrow to which they want to belong. To do that we need to respond to the idealism of young people, to emphasise our positive contribution to social cohesion, economic prosperity, a sustainable environment and the quality of life. Instead, all too often, we tell them about our arcane internal practices and do nothing to challenge their preconception that construction is a despoiler of the environment, rather than the means of its preservation, enhancement and civilising development.