Construction management (CM) has been out of favour in recent years with only a select group of commercial clients continuing to adopt the route.With the Fraser enquiry into the Scottish Parliament delays and highprofile court cases highlighting the risks of CM, it is not surprising that use of this form of procurement has fallen. However, as the continuing Wembley Stadium saga illustrates, no procurement route, even with as low a client riskprofile as design-and-build, can guarantee a successful outcome.

CM’s reputation has shifted from its high point in the 1980s, when it was almost exclusively associated with well-managed and well resourced commercial projects such as Broadgate and Canary Wharf. Since then it has been adopted, typically for speed or flexibility reasons, on a wider range of projects, including schemes from the arts, leisure and public administration sectors. In some cases, the client and CM have not collectively been able to impose discipline on design development, coordination and timely decision-making – and, although there have been resounding successes such as Tate Modern, there have also been disappointing results.Whether these projects would have fared better following other procurement strategies is a moot point, but it is clear that the use of CM can in some circumstances expose existing weaknesses in project management capability.

So, given the higher risk exposure that follows that adoption of a  construction management strategy, what additional benefits should the client be seeking as compensation? Opportunities for enhanced performance include:

• Acceleration of the overall project programme;
• Enhanced ability to incorporate change into the design;
• Delayed completion of design elements, such as retail fit-out or hotel fixtures and fittings, that can be finished later without affecting the overall programme;
• Involvement of specialist trade contractors in design and construction;
• Creation of a less adversarial, problem-solving project culture.

Clients should always devise their procurement strategy on the basis of their project priorities, management capability and the extent of risk that they are prepared to accept. Clients in arts organisations, a sector that used CM extensively during the lottery boom, might not, for example, be best-equipped to take on the increased risk exposure and additional administrative role associated with CM – and might not now be given funding without the security of a lump-sum contract.

However, beyond the glare of publicity, a small but significant group of clients continue to use CM to their advantage, using, for example, the cultivation of direct, long-term relationships with trade contractors to secure many of the benefits more often associated with partnering. Furthermore, by employing a construction manager who is able to focus on the interests of the project, rather than on its own risk management, the client can be confident that its project objectives will be shared by the rest of the team.

This article summarises current best practice with respect to construction management. It will look at advantages and disadvantages of the route and in particular at what steps can be taken to address the client’s higher risk profile associated with CM. A case study based on the Peter Jones refurbishment identifies many of the key ingredients of the successful application of CM and also demonstrates how modifications to the general approach can work to the client’s advantage.