ºÚ¶´ÉçÇø

Ultimately, power in any industry comes from the demand side and construction is no different – we respond and react to money and the people who spend it.

As global firms become more powerful, US companies in particular are standing out as the big contenders – especially in engineering. The turning-point was when Bechtel was brought in to solve construction problems on the Jubilee Line Extension. It opened doors to higher levels of government and now more Americans are being brought in.

But the status quo does shift. Middle-sized consultancies are losing out to the bigger firms such as EC Harris and WS Atkins at one end and niche firms at the other. It's because the top-end firms are so meaty and have lots of people, and the smaller ones look after their areas so well.

Suppliers have got more power than general contractors – with cladding, for instance, the number of installers has decreased, which means the demand for suppliers has gone up dramatically.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is very influential. It is involved in large projects and is being listened to; you ignore CABE at your peril.

All the power is with the clients and the agents they engage. The government is the biggest client with 40% of all work coming from it. The problem is that authority is divided up between governmental departments, schools, local authorities and so on. The government has no standards or key players, which makes it difficult because you have to start from scratch each time you work on a project.

At the moment the positioning of the industry means it lacks power. It doesn't seem to be able to influence the agenda because it is not perceived to be part of the new political paradigm. It is still seen as a producer at a time when the emphasis is on consumers. In terms of people, the reality is that there is no dominant figure in the industry – you can't identify anyone who has been an unequivocal success. There are people who are innovating, although I don't think you could say they're leading. Tony Pidgely is the stock market darling and has done work on the renewal agenda, and Tom Bloxham has power by being the most acceptable face of the industry to the government. Other figures are John Weir, design and marketing director of Wilcon Homes, who is trying to apply new ideas, and Alan Cherry, chairman of Countryside Properties, whose long-term vision has borne fruit at Greenwich.

Power across the industry fluctuates and at the moment the contractors are on top. PFI has been something that they have been able to mould for themselves. And on a basic level, sometimes we see project management that can be about petty power rather than real leadership.

It simply isn't the case that construction is led by single figures. It breaks down into several areas. The first is the government, with its enormous purchasing power. After Nick Raynsford's departure, I think it rests with people like John Hobson, the head of the DTI's construction directorate. He is persuasive and intelligent and makes things happen, especially on procurement.

Others having an effect are Defence Estates and NHS Estates. They do seem to be able to force parts of the industry to work in certain ways. But I am concerned about central government – we need an identifiable leader, otherwise we might lose momentum.

Clients are also powerful – Mike Roberts, group technical director for BAA is a prime example. There is more power with clients getting together and saying what they want. This is good – they need to speak with one voice so we can understand what's needed. But then again, clients don't always offer direction – look at Railtrack.

The switch of power from architects to project managers is something we do need to address so we can stay one step ahead of the competition. But it seems to be going the way of the motor car, with buildings being bought and sold too quickly and easily. If you don't have a name you're just a plan factory. We are looking at how to reposition ourselves to remain relevant to the industry.

Whoever has the money has the power. I think the developers and their financial backers call the tune. After them, it is the people who have access to whoever has the money. That means QSs and project managers; at the moment, they rank above architects and engineers, who seem to have lost power over the last generation. When I started I had to lick the architects' boots, but now that boot is on the other foot. And although they might be able to improve their status, it won't change the pecking order.

The real problem with the industry is that each interested party has its own leader, each has its own power structure and each is unwilling to release power without quid pro quos. This means that I can't see anyone offering clear leadership, and I fear the industry will rumble on in an unsatisfactory way.

The construction industry used to be the accelerator and the brake of the economy, but not any more. Power has shifted from builders to architects and technology has moved on so that builders are no longer a leading entrepreneurial force. I can't name any builders who move in political circles and broker power – the great families like the Laings and the Mowlems aren't there anymore. Ownership has moved out of the industry and it has no real power anymore.

Power is ultimately with the client – they call the shots. Look at Stanhope or Prudential, traditional companies willing to take a hands-on approach. But I think power is coming back to contractors, with PFI and design and build. At the same time, prime contracting means a shift towards the bigger contractors. Now you have to raise funds and run with a project rather than live off the client's money; a £100m project will eliminate 95% of contractors. It is good for the big firms, which is probably good for the industry – it means more money can filter down to training and research and development. For years the industry has been on a shoestring with hardly any investment.

The government is still at the top and it has the power to reverse this. If it can sort out things like the railways it would create stability for the big companies. Ian Andrews of Defence Estates is someone saying the right things and leading well. In the private sector, Peter Rogers at Stanhope is another example – he gets his clients deeply involved.

There's a balance of power. If you look across the industry, you see large developers who don't seem to be hugely dynamic and local authorities, whose power is diffuse. Contractors don't act as decisive players, despite their phenomenal size. Then there is the quangocracy of bodies such as English Heritage, which keeps Britain looking like Britain.

It seems that power rests with those who don't innovate, who smoothly move in, take on the good ideas and discard the rest. A more general approval for architecture has grown out of Britain's economic revival. I think public approval is giving architects a boost in terms of power. The trouble is work has to be filtered through local authorities who aren't in touch with the general zeitgeist of pro-modernity. But I do think the public is handing power back to architects and architects are no longer craven, on their knees and panic-stricken, when it comes to getting a building through planning.