Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The good client
The bad client
The typical consequence of the bad client
knows what it wants, or is prepared
does not know what it wants
client procrastinates and becomes unable to sign-off
■
■
■
to explore what this is with the
design team while paying them
properly for their help
design stages
communicates its wishes clearly
does not or cannot communicate clearly especially
cannot tell the difference between a good engineer
■
■
■
with technical disciplines who might expose their
shortcomings
and a bad one and, as a result, treats them all the
same both intellectually and in terms of design fees
makes intelligent decisions based
makes decisions first and looks for justification
unbalanced project decisions as design team is
■
■
■
upon the advice given
afterwards
unmakes decisions again and again as more
forced to fit its solution into a poorly conceived pot.
This is particularly bad where a naive initial cost plan
becomes the principal instrument by which design
proposals are judged
■
information becomes understood
respects the value of consultants'
has little or no idea what its consultants are trying to
client exhibits fight or flight behaviour at meetings
■
■
■
advice
do for it
is open-minded and able to listen to
doesn't welcome advice and therefore perpetuates
hinders technological development as client exhibits
■
■
■
advice especially in areas away from
its core business expertise
out-of-date practices and behaviours
risk-averse behaviour. Classic examples of the result
are BCO offices, and 'Wimpey' homes
treats its project collaborators as
treats its project collaborators as servants
expects to issue instructions and have them followed
■
■
■
equals
without question, whether rational or not
chooses a balanced project team
chooses a named and perhaps talented, opinionated
too much power vested in architect. In today's
■
■
■
with good chemistry
and expensive architect, who may then be surrounded
with less talented consultants who have to ensure the
architect's designs can be built
technologically challenging environment, this often
leads to wilful, extravagant designs, rather than
sustainable ones
rewards compliant engineers
■
penalises independent-minded engineers
■
chooses a team on the basis of
chooses a team on the basis of price
design team spend more time protecting their
■
■
■
quality
financial position than designing a really appropriate
project
chooses a project team after
chooses a team by open design competition
wastes design resources doing required early stage
■
■
■
shortlisting on the basis of
experience and recommendation, or
by limited competition
design work on losing competitions. Often there are
100 unpaid teams going for a single commission
industry-wide design fees increase, or salaries reduce
■
pays fairly and on time,
pays very little at the start of a project even though it
reinforces the notion that you can buy engineering
■
■
■
commensurate with the value of the
professional advice
is here that really good ideas are worth their weight in
gold and instead expects the design team to subsidise
the early stages of the project itself (especially before
planning consent is granted)
will not pay for redesign work caused by the
advice as a commodity by the pound, or by the can
of beans
rewards those who do the minimum
■
rewards those who keep quiet about poor design
■
■
makes it hard for emerging practices to compete as
performance failings, or by the actions of one strong
member of the team acting unilaterally
■
they are unable to subsidise unpaid early stage work
working in a field which increases
is trying to maximise short-term financial profit
best designers seek commissions from the richest
■
■
■
the overall benefit to society
without worrying about the future
clients at the expense of the rest of society
practises what it preaches
says one thing publicly and does the opposite in
greenwash: many public clients preach sustainability
■
■
■
private
but make decisions on a capital cost basis, ignoring
whole-life costs and consequences
asks for professional insurance
cannot be bothered and asks for blanket insurance
smaller projects are over-insured; larger projects are
■
■
■
■
appropriate to the risk
regardless of project size, commission value, or
design risk
under-insured; every member of design team carries
same level of insurance regardless of their specialism;
overall, design fees higher than they need to be
wants the useful fruits of its projects
places a blanket of commercial and intellectual
the wheel is continually being re-invented
■
■
■
to be used by others
property protectionism over its projects
Table 2.1 The influence of the good and the bad client
