Talk:Construction 2025 - Revision history

88.98.240.202 at 12:36, 2 January 2021

2021-01-02T12:36:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 2 January 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:

	-----		-----
−	The list of government reports reciting all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, who will socialise the financial loss of any lack of productivity, delays~~, etc~~, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.	+	The list of government reports reciting all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, who will socialise the financial loss of any lack of productivity or delays, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.

	If efficiency, waste reduction and value-for-money is what the government is after, perhaps it should concede more of its functions to private enterprises, who would not be able to finance themselves indefinitely in a coercive way.		If efficiency, waste reduction and value-for-money is what the government is after, perhaps it should concede more of its functions to private enterprises, who would not be able to finance themselves indefinitely in a coercive way.

88.98.240.202 at 12:35, 2 January 2021

2021-01-02T12:35:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 2 January 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:

	-----		-----
−	The list of government reports reciting all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, ~~which~~ will socialise the financial loss of any lack of productivity, delays, etc, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.	+	The list of government reports reciting all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, who will socialise the financial loss of any lack of productivity, delays, etc, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.

−	If efficiency, waste reduction and value-for-money is what the government is after, perhaps it should concede more of its ~~reach~~ to private enterprises, ~~which~~ would not be able to finance ~~itself~~ indefinitely in a coercive way.	+	If efficiency, waste reduction and value-for-money is what the government is after, perhaps it should concede more of its functions to private enterprises, who would not be able to finance themselves indefinitely in a coercive way.

88.98.240.202 at 12:32, 2 January 2021

2021-01-02T12:32:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 2 January 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:

	-----		-----
−	The list of government reports ~~listing~~ all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, which will socialise the ~~losses~~ of any ~~loss~~ of productivity, delays, etc, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.	+	The list of government reports reciting all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, which will socialise the financial loss of any lack of productivity, delays, etc, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.
		+
		+	If efficiency, waste reduction and value-for-money is what the government is after, perhaps it should concede more of its reach to private enterprises, which would not be able to finance itself indefinitely in a coercive way.

88.98.240.202 at 12:26, 2 January 2021

2021-01-02T12:26:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 2 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−
	Is anyone else of the opinion that the Construction 2025 report is similar to the rubbish we have been reading in previous reports?		Is anyone else of the opinion that the Construction 2025 report is similar to the rubbish we have been reading in previous reports?

−	----	+	-----
−		+	If all of the savings projected in all the reports had actually been delivered, construction would now be free. There is a list of similar reports all the way back to 1934 at Construction Industry Reports.
−	If all of the savings projected in all the reports had actually been delivered, construction would now be free. There is a list of similar reports all the way back to 1934 at Construction Industry Reports.~~<br/>~~	+

	They all say similar things, but fail to resolve the contradiction between making substantial savings in construction costs whilst also delivering whole-life value. Whole life value requires recognition of the fact that the cost of construction is tiny compared to the cost of running a business through the life of a building - ie short term savings may run against long term interests.		They all say similar things, but fail to resolve the contradiction between making substantial savings in construction costs whilst also delivering whole-life value. Whole life value requires recognition of the fact that the cost of construction is tiny compared to the cost of running a business through the life of a building - ie short term savings may run against long term interests.

−	~~<br/>~~	+	-----
		+	The list of government reports listing all the ways in which the construction industry is wasteful and inefficient is long and old. Seeing as the government very rarely gets a good deal from public sector construction, perhaps it would be best to revise the incentives behind these projects, since there is no client other than the taxpayers, which will socialise the losses of any loss of productivity, delays, etc, with no power to pull out and withdraw investment.

Gregor Harvie at 10:37, 22 February 2014

2014-02-22T10:37:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:37, 22 February 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	----		----

−	If all of the savings projected in all the reports had actually been delivered, construction would now be free. There is a list of similar reports all the way back to 1934 at ~~[http://www~~.~~designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_industry_reports&nbsp http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_industry_reports]~~ <br/>	+	If all of the savings projected in all the reports had actually been delivered, construction would now be free. There is a list of similar reports all the way back to 1934 at Construction Industry Reports.<br/>

	They all say similar things, but fail to resolve the contradiction between making substantial savings in construction costs whilst also delivering whole-life value. Whole life value requires recognition of the fact that the cost of construction is tiny compared to the cost of running a business through the life of a building - ie short term savings may run against long term interests.		They all say similar things, but fail to resolve the contradiction between making substantial savings in construction costs whilst also delivering whole-life value. Whole life value requires recognition of the fact that the cost of construction is tiny compared to the cost of running a business through the life of a building - ie short term savings may run against long term interests.

	<br/>		<br/>

Gregor Harvie at 10:36, 22 February 2014

2014-02-22T10:36:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 22 February 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Is anyone else of the opinion that the Construction 2025 report is similar to the rubbish we have been reading in previous reports?		Is anyone else of the opinion that the Construction 2025 report is similar to the rubbish we have been reading in previous reports?

−	<br/>	+	----
		+
		+	If all of the savings projected in all the reports had actually been delivered, construction would now be free. There is a list of similar reports all the way back to 1934 at [http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_industry_reports&nbsp http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_industry_reports] <br/>
		+
		+	They all say similar things, but fail to resolve the contradiction between making substantial savings in construction costs whilst also delivering whole-life value. Whole life value requires recognition of the fact that the cost of construction is tiny compared to the cost of running a business through the life of a building - ie short term savings may run against long term interests.

	<br/>		<br/>

QS 1 at 14:43, 21 February 2014

2014-02-21T14:43:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 21 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	~~To start a discussion about this article, click 'Add to this discussion' above and add your thoughts to this page. Clicking~~ the ~~submit comment button will not start a discussion, it will just send a comment~~ to ~~our admin team.~~	+	Is anyone else of the opinion that the Construction 2025 report is similar to the rubbish we have been reading in previous reports?
		+
		+	<br/>

	<br/>		<br/>

Designing Buildings at 08:15, 8 December 2013

2013-12-08T08:15:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:15, 8 December 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	To start a discussion about this article, click '~~Edit~~' above and add your thoughts to this ~~discussion~~ page. Clicking the submit comment button will not start a discussion, it will just send a comment to our admin team.<br/>	+	To start a discussion about this article, click 'Add to this discussion' above and add your thoughts to this page. Clicking the submit comment button will not start a discussion, it will just send a comment to our admin team.
		+
		+	<br/>

Designing Buildings: Created page with " To start a discussion about this article, click 'Edit' above and add your thoughts to this discussion page. Clicking the submit comment button will not start a discussion, it wi..."

2013-07-11T09:18:04Z

Created page with " To start a discussion about this article, click 'Edit' above and add your thoughts to this discussion page. Clicking the submit comment button will not start a discussion, it wi..."

New page

To start a discussion about this article, click 'Edit' above and add your thoughts to this discussion page. Clicking the submit comment button will not start a discussion, it will just send a comment to our admin team.<br/>