Memorandum submitted by HR Wallingford
Ltd
1. HR Wallingford is a research and development
company operating in the area of impacts of the built environment
on the natural environment, and vice versa, in terms of water.
HR Wallingford has its roots in the Hydraulics Research Station,
a laboratory of the Department of the Environment, privatised
in 1982. We will focus on the aspect of research and innovation,
leaving others to deal with other issues.
2. We are keen to be part of a world leading
construction industry. However, at present we do not consider
Britain to be a leader in terms of setting standards in construction
process—that was what the Latham and Egan reports
addressed, and what all the subsequent process initiatives are
about. On the other hand, Britain is perceived to be a leader
in artefact, largely due to imaginative design. As we travel
the world it is the clear, innovative and holistic thinking of
British engineers which is widely valued. This is especially true
of those providing services into the infrastructure sector (energy,
communications and transport, water—domestic agricultural
and industrial, waste, societal protection and leisure). This
position enables our consultants and contractors to generate considerable
visible and invisible export earnings for Britain. But this position
is maintained only because of the quality of the research and
guidance which our research base provides. It is essential that
government support for this research is enhanced and not reduced,
to ensure that we remain at the forefront of developing technologies.
3. The contribution that the construction
industry makes to the economy is considerable placing it amongst
the key industrial contributors in Britain. However, the construction
industry is structured very differently from almost all other
industries, with very little vertical integration and considerable
fragmentation. When construction was the responsibility of DETR,
it was dealt with in a unique way, recognising the particular
idiosyncrasies of construction. However, since adoption by DTI
we see signs of construction being treated in just the same way
as any other industry—as may be desired for reasons of fairness
and transparency. This may lead to difficulties, with construction
struggling to compare favourably with other industries based on
the paradigms of those other industries. We are particularly concerned
that construction may suffer with regard to research funding if
`general' industry rules are made to apply. To improve construction
performance, a more planned and strategic approach to research
is necessary (as indicated by Fairclough). We ask you to consider
construction as a special case, not because it cannot fairly compete
with other industries, but because the nature and structure of
the industry exhibit special characteristics for which a modified
approach is probably necessary.
4. Within construction there are a considerable
number of RTO's (Research and Technology Organisations) undertaking
research, but perhaps more importantly, technology translation
and transfer. We are such an organisation. Our perception is that
the science and technology research drive of the present Government
focuses unnecessarily closely on universities and university/industry
linkages. This focus appears to work well in some industries,
such as pharmaceutical and aeronautical for example, where the
industry itself is research intensive and, through its vertical
integration, benefits directly from research gains. This is not
so clear in construction. Here the RTO's play a valuable role
in bringing their own, and others, research findings to the construction
industry. We believe that DTI should focus on the benefits arising
from a greater encouragement (and funding) for RTO's to play an
even more prominent role in research engagement with the deliverers
of construction.
4 May 2007
|
