Farewell and welcome

Citation

Birnie, J. (2012), "Farewell and welcome", Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 17 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmpc.2012.37617aaa.001

Farewell and welcome

Article Type: Farewell and welcome From: Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Volume 17, Issue 1

This issue marks my final contribution to the Editorial of the journal. This is thus a farewell message to the journal which I started in 1996. To all those who have supported the journal during those 16 years, as authors of papers, as referees of papers and as subscribers to the journal, I thank you. My comments that follow are a brief reflection on research in the subject area of financial management of property and construction. The brief comments I hope will be useful particularly to those of a younger generation, some who no doubt were still at school when the first issue of the journal appeared.

Whilst the subject of financial management of property and construction has diversified, both in subject area and geographical application, and this has been reflected in the nature of papers in the journal since its launch, the necessity to have good financial control of the core subject is more important than ever in the current economic climate. In this context, the closer integration of construction management as part of the life cycle of property, particularly in the developed countries, may present new research opportunities in areas such as change of use of existing buildings, more efficient life cycle designs to meet more stringent energy usage, health and safety, and fiscal and taxation requirements. Construction is an integral part of the life of every property and this journal provides a means for closer cooperation and understanding through published research in financial management of both property and construction.

It is equally important that researchers do not forget the academic base from which their subject has developed. The need for proper financial management of property and construction has always existed. In biblical times, the wisdom of ensuring one had enough finance to complete a building before starting to build is stressed. Until the formation of the surveying profession in the nineteenth century, ensuring fairness of cost outcomes of a project between the client and the contractor was not always achieved. Clients refusing to pay the proper price on completion, and equally contractors claiming extortionate amounts for additional works were common practices. Some may say this is sometimes still the case today! The establishment of an independent surveying profession and their introduction of standard methods of measurement (SMMs) was thus a major step forward by ensuring that the client knew the likely approximate cost of the building work before commencement of the works. What this did not show, however, was the efficiency of the design in terms of cost. Ivor Seeley with the introduction of elemental cost planning in the 1950s addressed this matter. The ability to control and manage the cost of the design, as well as through the contractor’s efficiency of the construction process, was a key step forward in the academic development of the subject.

On the property side, it enabled developers to obtain properties which were better investments in terms of rentals, saleable values, and lower taxation, etc. The introduction of cost planning could be considered as an example of pro active research. This can be contrasted with another major piece of practice development a decade later, namely the housing cost yardstick (HCY) (1960s). This whilst designed by quantity surveyors was introduced to enable government control of the cost of public housing in the UK. Although the HCY raised the status of the quantity surveying profession, particularly with architects who had to rely on the QS being able to predict the cost of proposed housing designs to ensure they met the HCY yardstick, the reactive rather than a proactive approach to it by the QS was perhaps a lost opportunity for subsequent development of the subject. The current need for more affordable housing could offer the need for new research in this area.

Since the launch of the journal, the nature and subject areas of papers has diversified, both into new fields but also by applying greater use of knowledge from other academic subjects. This is to be welcomed as it brings in academics from other disciplines. Closer cooperation between academia and work practice should also be encouraged. Practice can sew new, original and creative outlines of potential research development without themselves making a major collaborative involvement in the research.

Having looked back, it is now time to look to the future of the journal and to welcome Peadar Davis and Gary Holt, the two new Associate Editors of the journal. They have both considerable expertise and undertaken research in their respective fields of property and construction. They will, I am sure utilise these in their future development of the journal. I wish them well and trust that all those who have supported the journal in the past will continue to do so in the future.

Jim Birnie