Following the Grenfell Tower disaster, Marc Vlessing, CEO of London residential developer Pocket, was speaking at a NLA Sounding Board meeting. Dutch-born Vlessing stated that for an objective view of such issues he often turned to the European press. Newspapers in Germany and the Netherlands, he said, immediately suggested that the cause of the tragic fire lay in the tendency of the UK construction industry to continually sub-contract risk.

In the coming months and years there will be numerous inquiries into the cause of the fire and its effect. There will be investigations to ascertain blame - corporate, personal and institutional. All to ensure that nothing similar happens again. While the results of forensic analysis and judicial process will potentially take years to publish, it is appropriate that attention is paid to key concerns that have emerged in the immediate aftermath. The testing of cladding materials and their context is the most publicised of these, but the issues highlighted by Vlessing have subsequently been picked up by many professionals and by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The institute's recent statement points out that current building procurement methods mean that the lead designer (architect or engineer) is frequently not responsible throughout the project for the design and the specification of materials or the inspection of their installation. The RIBA also commented on the disappearance of the clerk of works who would traditionally inspect  the work of contractors and report non-compliance to the client.

Architects have argued for some time that not having the authority to insist on specific products being used in design build contracts allows contractors to change specifications to cheaper materials, without understanding the knock-on effect.

In some cases architects are discouraged from going to site, but when they do manage to influence the process they are often seen as adding cost. Which of course is frequently the case if they are stopping the contractor from using the less expensive and possibly inappropriate spec.

Architects have argued for some time that not having the authority to insist on specific products being used in design build contracts allows contractors to change specifications to cheaper materials, without understanding the knock-on effect.

Because the architect is employed by the contractor, rather than the client as in the traditional form of procurement, they lack their previous independence. Member of RIBA Council and University of Liverpool professor Alan Dunlop has been quoted as saying architects have been ‘marginalised as part of the design team. They no longer have a responsibility they used to have under a traditional form of building contract … where they had the responsibility to manage the contract and were working for both the contractor and the client when the building was being built.’

I remember back in the 70s sitting in RIBA Council as it debated the pros and cons of design and build. The concept was not universally welcomed by those who believed that as leader of the team, the architect should control the process from start to finish. At one meeting there was a motion that the most successful architect of his day, Richard Seifert, should be disciplined because he got his sub-contractors to do his working drawings. But not long afterwards, Foster Associates - with ex RIBA President Gordon Graham as CEO - embraced the idea of design/build for the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank by taking on the management role of the entire delivery with a collaborative process Fosters called their 'design development methodology' which involved sub-contractors from around the globe. 

As the construction industry discusses the aftermath of Grenfell and the changes that need to take place in the procurement of buildings it should ensure that there is greater consistency of quality control throughout the process.

The methodology was highly successful in delivering an innovative and well constructed building; it was less so in containing costs and has not been used since. A paper on the procurement of the bank by GSD Harvard's Center for Design Informatics, written in association with Foster+Partner in 2003  suggested that architects "should not forget Foster’s daring spirit, which took economic risks and all possible measures to ensure the success of this project."

As the construction industry discusses the aftermath of Grenfell and the changes that need to take place in the procurement of buildings it should ensure that there is greater consistency of quality control throughout the process. In the era of BIM, VR, MMC and an industry that is committed to collaboration, perhaps we should look again at the master builder role that Fosters carried out in Hong Kong. The idea of the architect as master builder was described by Paul Morrell when he was Government Construction Advisor as a'role that many still romantically profess an ambition for'. But however romantic it may be and whether it is an architect or other professional, the industry which has discussed collaboration for so long but has ended up with buck passing, needs a new mechanism for delivering a fully integrated end product.