Share
The Secret Engineer
Our anonymous blogger casts his (or her) eye over the day-to-day issues that face engineers in the office and on the shop floor, where she (or he) plies his (or her) trade
Why can't the UK do government-led projects?
As one flicks through copies of The Engineer, the general dearth of large, successful government-led projects is notable. This is a shame. Not only do such projects help the man on the Clapham bendy-bus understand what we poor, maligned souls who call ourselves engineers do, but they also raise the profile of our beleaguered profession. This in turn brings far-reaching benefits.
There are potentially iconic projects about, but these appear to be either of questionable validity or prone to vacillation, almost inevitably leading to emaciation or cancellation.
I need only mention High Speed 2 (HS2) or the incoherent multitude of power-generating technologies to hear vast swathes of The Engineer’s readership gnashing their teeth and furiously scribbling pamphlets calling for the disbanding of the government, or the opposition… or both. Would it be too simplistic to suggest that there are no statesmen or experts in the Mother of Parliaments anymore? Merely professional politicians with neither vision nor commitment?
Perhaps the fault lies in the potential of only having a short-term tenure rent free at Number 10? When you are trying to balance the books to a sufficient point that you at least have a chance of extending your stay, and only have the prospect of seeing your rival taking the plaudits as your grand scheme comes to fruition if you fail, what incentive is there to be bold in these matters?
Perhaps the fault lies in only having a short term tenure rent free at Number 10?
Equally, inherited projects seem to be modified or cancelled by new incoming governments who are keen to be seen as clearing the decks (apparently of aircraft as much as anything else going by the fate of our new carriers) or as stamping their own personal vision on the country.
Of course, we engineers are above such sordid trifles - or are we? There are those within our community (the vast majority, by the response to The Engineer’s articles) who decry HS2 as just being about shaving a few minutes off one particular journey. Some of those among us even seek to question the engineering icon that is Concorde, having the gall to point out that they had to be given away once built.
Yet all of these projects must have an engineering input at the start and an engineering input before they are changed or culled. Are our brothers and sisters involved weak willed and easily led or do they too fall prey to blinkered vision and personal agendas? Perhaps engineers and politicians aren’t so different after all.
Readers' comments (13)
chriseaglen | 17 Apr 2012 12:12 pm
Several issues are:
The unwillingness to review complex projects with critical peer to peer arrangements.
The vested interests of building empires and groups with too little technical planning and engineering competences across all areas.
The lack of balanced budgetted authorities as up to the late 80s.
The separation of incremental improvements and bit sized progress from over sized multiple aspirations.
Clearly HS2 has become very different from the original intent to capture the Virgin and London Midland fare box revenues or to develop extensive old spaces with new property developments in Euston, Old Oak Common and Birmingham. No longer about transportation but about securing the next 'carrier and Concord' on rails.
Lack of discipline in controlling design and planning briefs with no realistic budget limitations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F Heron | 17 Apr 2012 2:34 pm
Agree with Chris Eagles totallly. He is totally correct in saying that the three stations mentioned are indeed more about land acquisition than travel. Euston is a classic case of totally unneccesary land grab.
Additionally, I feel MPs do not scrutinise documentation, just assume 'fast, efficient network' equals glossy PR material and efficient.
Independent scrutiny must separate validity of projects rather than rely on the views of clearly vested interests.
Fran
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Apr 2012 5:46 pm
There is insufficient long term view in Government Policy and Planning.
This inability to think and act long term is further aggravated by a lack of interest in anything outside a Parliamentary Term which in turn drives cost returns on any project.
Commercial/Contract Management effectively contributes to the destruction of technical capability as after all its way too risky and we end up making bits for large multi nationals.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Innes | 17 Apr 2012 6:07 pm
There is no mention of where the MPs get their advice. Much is from Civil Servants, very clever ones who have first class degrees in Greek or Roman history (the classics). It is their complete technical ignorance that leads to failure to make any critical analysis of government lead projects. That in turn leads to the enormous wasted expenditure such as the Nimrod scandal.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Apr 2012 2:26 pm
I would say that the government’s lack of success with large scale projects stems from an ideological problem. Successive governments have espoused the benefited of a free market. The free market does work well if there is sufficient competition and a regular opportunity to compete and enough work to support all companies in the market. However with large scale projects, the government is the only customer in this country. This means that the free market does not work. The government stop and start projects with years of delay in-between. Good examples are the new generation of nuclear power stations and power station builds in general that have been stopped for years. Now the government want some more power stations they find that the companies and skills they need are not there. The companies needed long since went bust. The rail network is a similar story. If the government does not OK projects every few years then the supply compares run out of work. People are laid off. If the government wants large scale infrastructre projects to work then there needs to be a continuous stream of them to keep the skills and companies going. Due to the short term of government it would be better if the plan was agreed by a cross party group for the coming years. That way whoever got into government would not stop all the projects. I think this is another advantage the Germans have as their governments tend to be cross party coalitions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 18 Apr 2012 6:56 pm
What have Euston, OOC, or Curzon St got to do with development? Underground HSL stations would be prohibitively expensive so HS2 needs brownfield land alongside existing transport infrastructure to build stations, which makes Old Oak Common and Curzon St the only practical options for a station serving Heathrow Express & Crossrail, and an interchange with Birmingham New St and Moor St.
Euston on the other hand is the only suitable London Terminus that can be rebuilt to accomodate extra, longer platforms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Helen | 21 Apr 2012 3:05 pm
Re: 'inherited projects'...Even in the private sector, if the project sponsor (or factory manager) changes mid-project, you can get scope change/project cancellation/lack of commitment because 'it wasn't 'my idea'. It's not surprising that an incoming government will put the brakes on a project that they don't believe meets their political ambitions or their electorate's expectations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 24 Apr 2012 12:58 pm
Because Politicians are Idiots? True entrepeneurs like Sir William Lyons, Dyson, Virgin and Amstrad make things happen. They don't sit around drinking bubby and preening their egos.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mathias Hulse | 24 Apr 2012 2:26 pm
What about the Olympics as an example for a failed government project. On time - yes, but on budget? According to latest estimates it is about 10 Billion over budget and rising. I wouldn't call that a success. I dare say, it wouldn't happen in the private sector where a project regardless of size has to adhere to strict budget guidelines.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Basil Knight | 25 Apr 2012 2:01 pm
One can go on for hours about why things do not get done by governments; partly due to their lack of experienced individuals in the required areas, but to look what we are producing in terms of proficient engineers should be a good starting point.
I am in a position where I meet new graduates with their engineering qualifications fresh from university who have never cut metal, never have been taught to read a drawing and who have no idea what various materials get used for. they can do calculations, but so could I from my 35 year ago HNC ; but I had a fantastic grounding in REAL engineering and have enjoyed being classed as being on an equal par by degreeladen individuals who rely on my experience to help them get their answers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter T | 1 May 2012 8:59 pm
I agree with most of the comments above. Politicians despite their protestations are primarily interested in just one thing, getting re-elected!
There was a long term plan to invest in the railways just after WW2, which was stopped almost before it started, the network had existed on a shoestring budget all through the war, at the end of the war it was essentially worn out, the investment plan sought to redress that, but once it was stopped we were left with a legacy that we are still dealing with today.
Another example is T5 at Heathrow, a friend I was at school with did his degree in transport planning and then worked on a little project for the BAA, namely what became T5.
He wryly observed that, firstly he was on the verge of retiring when T5 finally happened and that the public enquiry alone into T5 cost about 4 times as much as the whole project was budgeted for in '74, let alone the £8Bn (?) it finally cost to construct.
Our recent history is littered with examples of this short sighted short termism, Nimrod, TSR2, Aircraft carriers with no planes, the refurbishment of DERA at Farnborough by the taxpayer for the benefit of private enterprise.
We were once leaders in what I seem to remember was called fluidised bed coal fired technology for power stations, to be more efficient and presumably less polluting, and our nuclear industry with AGRs and fast breeder reactors, but with no long term government planning most of those industries have disappeared or been bought up by foreign competitors ready to be sold back to us at a huge profit once our dithering has pushed us to the edge of disaster on energy supply.
We have the best engineers and innovators in the world, period, let down by a group of self serving people who run this great country of ours in a completely arbitrary and random fashion to benefit themselves and their cronies in the City.
Sometime ago in the Engineer there was an article about the financial sector and its exposure to the world of engineering and manufacturing, I don't remember the figures but the percentage of their investments in this field was jaw droppingly tiny.
The only thing you can say in their defence is that it is we the voters who put these people in charge........
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nigel Roberts | 24 May 2012 1:27 pm
Most Politicians and Civil Servants are not leaders, they are sheep. Big projects need experienced big project managers who have both the technical skills and the management skills. MPs and their Civil Servants usually have neither - when did you last come across an MP - the leaders of our Nation - with any leadership training ( military or civilian)? How many senior Civil Servants have 25 years of commercial or industrial experience?
Large Government departments should have a balanced Management Board that has the equivalent of industry's Non-Executive Directors who can without fear investigate, question and hold to account Ministers and their servants. These board members must not be appointed by politicians and civil servants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Reeves | 24 May 2012 4:07 pm
Dare I even try to defend politicians? Yes our current lot in the UK are poor imitations of those of the past – generally being ‘professional’ politicians ‘grown’ in think tanks. However, I don’t see huge numbers of engineers or scientists and other numerate & technically literate people queuing up to either from their own new party or get selected to stand for parliament by an existing one.
My admittedly half boiled theory is that there is an issue whereby engineers are trained or naturally tend to solve problems that are either straightforward (even if complex) or amenable to straightforward rules and logic. They are usually completely out of their comfort zones when in a position whereby quick witted thinking on their feet in public situations where maybe all the facts are not known or available. This means that they may actually get things wrong, bend the stick etc. to get a point or policy across and be prepared to be part of a controversial collective endevour. Being judged by their engineering peers, any engineer in this situation would (unfairly) lose some credibility and would (as do all politicians) need a thick skin and be prepared to pick themselves up and move on.
The’ fuzzy front end’ of politics is like that, emotions are involved and not everything is simple or logical especially if principles are involved – and it would help if we had more principled politicians – engineers or not. We techno folks need to both put ourselves forward as politicians (which means speaking on subjects we are not expert on) and stop some of the grandstanding of politicians and their ideas. Other people are far more likely to listen to us if we do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment