Paul Hyett (aj 20/27.8.98) is concerned about inferences _ doth he protest too much? Perhaps not . . . I thought we were discussing adjudication. My reference to cdm was that at its outset and in continuum ad nauseam certain elements of the construction industry (indeed those 'parasites with clipboards' - and Armani suits?) attempt to create a whole new layer of the industry on its back without addressing the principal issues. Notwithstanding this, it is clear that there are those (albeit a minority) who are getting it right and are beginning to generate some influence in a positive manner.
My fear is that adjudication is about to follow a similar route and be suborned by its up-springing 'academies' and 'institutes' to be pressurised in the same manner as cdm. What I advocate is the premise that if we are managing our projects professionally at both the detailed and generic (holistic) levels, then the correct procedures, duties and responsibilities should be second nature to us and we should be leading the way in establishing appropriate (ie socially acceptable) benchmarks in the methodologies of building procurement. If any improvement in health and safety or other related matters is to be made for the long-term benefit of the industry, the education and training of architects in such matters as project management, risk management, change control, health and safety and dispute resolution must be addressed more robustly and at an earlier stage in the curricula of our architectural school,s rather than leaving it up to the ground forces of practice to pick up the pieces via cpd etc at a later (too late?) date.
One final point, most of the standard forms of contract I have come across include a clause(s) enabling the ca, so and/or architect to instruct the exclusion of persons from site. How often is this applied in respect of the blatant breaches in health and safety such as Paul Hyett suggests we witness on a daily basis? Do we? - Does he?
Who is kidding who?