The RICS鈥� Agenda for Change took a year and 750 000 pieces of paper to formulate. President Simon Kolesar says it鈥檒l make the institution a better servant of its members. Why, then, do QSs want the heads of their own organisation impaled on spikes at Great George Street?
On 6 October, Quantity Surveyors delivered a devastating blow to their own organisation. The institution鈥檚 QS division, which represents more than 30 000 of the institution鈥檚 100 000 members, voted to reject Agenda for Change, the radical restructuring proposed by the General Council. Even an emergency appearance at the divisional council meeting by RICS president Simon Kolesar, himself a QS, was not enough to quell the rebellion.

The QSs鈥� main complaint is that the plan will marginalise them. Their existing division is one of seven, but if the new regime is implemented, their natural home would be in the construction faculty, which will have to compete for influence with no less than 15 other faculties.

And now, building surveyors, too, are threatening to reject the proposals. The topic was debated at their divisional meeting last week, and in the opinion of former divisional president Alan Fulford, 鈥渋t is highly likely that the BSs will do the same as the QSs鈥�.

Agenda for Change is now hanging by a thread. The combined objections of the QSs and building surveyors means that the RICS may be unable to pass it at its emergency general meeting, scheduled for spring. A process that has taken a year and generated 750 000 pieces of paper would then be defunct.

Fulford is calling for the heads of the RICS top brass. He says: 鈥淕iven the massive amount of members鈥� money that has been wasted on this dog鈥檚 dinner, will they now do the honourable thing and resign, having first of all abandoned the EGM that obviously hasn鈥檛 a hope of getting the necessary level of member support?鈥�

Given the amount of money that has been wasted, will they now do the honourable thing and resign?

Alan Fulford, Former RICS Divisional President

The RICS鈥� response is that it is backing its plan to the hilt. Kolesar says: 鈥淲e have asked them [members] to think outside of the box. Given enough time, we could convince everyone.鈥� The leadership鈥檚 argument is that more small faculties will serve members better. They will be able to keep a closer eye on more areas of business and inform members through e-mails. And because the groups will have fewer members, information supplied is likely to be relevant to all recipients.

Kolesar responds to the marginalisation charge by pointing out that, although construction is one of 16 faculties, its sizeable membership means it will have a louder voice than, say, the art and antiques faculty. And in any case, members can join four faculties for a single fee, which increases their voice and means they will not miss information by being tied to one faculty.

Kolesar even plays down the idea that QSs are fighting their marginalisation at all. 鈥淭he danger is that there is confusion out there. I emphasise that this is not a power struggle about voices being heard in the governing body,鈥� he says.

But if confusion has played a role in bringing about the revolt, then the leadership has played a part in creating it. The consultation process was dogged by rumours that RICS chief executive Louis Armstrong banned The Right Formula (the QS division鈥檚 July 1999 response to Agenda for Change that proposes the institution be split into only three groups) from being circulated to the RICS General Council.

This is not a power struggle about voices being heard

Simon Kolesar, President, RICS

Armstrong admits that the council was not shown the document, but he explains that it would have been too bureaucratic to show its 80 members the full responses from each of the divisions, and that this was agreed at the outset.

The QSs鈥� second line of attack is the increased cost of the new organisation. A copy of The Right Formula obtained by 黑洞社区 says: 鈥淭here should be time allowed for the preparation of a proper business plan for the proposals 鈥� In any event, before proposals are put to a vote of the membership they must be costed.鈥�

Kolesar claims that he has costed the proposals. He says the RICS鈥� annual budget will increase from 拢20m to 拢26m, partly funded by a hike in subscriptions 鈥� fellows鈥� subscriptions will rise from 拢232 to 拢295 鈥� and partly by publishing more books and other commercial ventures. The QSs say they want more details.

What is Agenda for Change?

Ask the UK鈥檚 100 000 chartered surveyors what they think of the RICS and you are likely to get one of two replies. The most common is a disaffected shrug of the shoulders, the other is a tirade along the lines of 鈥渨hy don鈥檛 I get more for my membership fee?鈥� The RICS has been accused of not moving with the times by not adapting its structure as QSs add new skills such as facilities management and management consultancy to their portfolios. So, in July 1998, the RICS launched a plan to revamp the institution called Agenda for Change. The General Council recognised that members wanted to change the way the institution was run to make it more relevant to them. It produced a consultation paper in June 1999 on how this could be done. The main thrust of the paper was a proposal to overhaul the existing structure. Under the current set-up, there are seven divisions representing seven professional skills within surveying. These include divisions for quantity surveying, building surveying, general practice and rural practice. At a local level, county branches set up meetings and tackle local issues. These branches report to the 80-strong RICS General Council, the decision-making board of the RICS. The Agenda for Change consultation document proposes that the existing structure be changed in the following way:
  • Replace the seven divisions with 16 faculties: antiques and fine arts, building surveying, commercial property, construction, dispute resolution, environment, facilities management, geomatics, management consultancy, minerals and waste management, planning and development, plant and machinery, project management, residential property, rural, and valuation.
  • Abolish regional branches, currently dictated by county boundaries, and replace them with branches wherever there are enough surveyors gathered together. These branches would report to regional boards that would shadow the seven regional development agencies. There would also be national agencies for Scotland, Northern Ireland and England/Wales above the regional boards.

Why I can鈥檛 support Agenda for Change

Martin Bishop, chairman of Franklin + Andrews, sets out his opposition to the RICS鈥� current proposals. About a year ago, I was asked to chair a working party called Rethinking Quantity Surveying. I concluded that, until the vision and objectives of the RICS had been clarified, and the future role of the chartered surveyor and the structure of the RICS settled, there would be little purpose in addressing the future of the QS. That being the case, it seemed to me that the starting-point for reorganising the RICS should be to gain a full understanding of the entire process in which we are engaged. Only by understanding the process can we begin to understand what adds value to a client鈥檚 business: then we can start to think about how we should organise ourselves to deliver that value. But instead of looking outwards to our clients, we have done the complete opposite and looked inward. We are told that our vision is that 鈥渕embers will be recognised by business and society as the best providers of land, property and construction services and hence deserving of the highest rewards鈥�. If this is indeed our vision, it is flawed, incomplete and clearly based on a historical paradigm rather than any real understanding of the process in which we or our clients are engaged. Our vision must be based on our clients鈥� needs and must define our purpose, objectives and values. For each objective and value, we need to identify who the stakeholders are: the organisations, groups or even individuals that can influence or have a degree of power over whether we achieve our objectives. For the RICS, stakeholders would include the members, the executive, organisations employing surveyors, clients, academic institutions and the government. We would then need to identify stakeholders鈥� expectations: if they are to help in achieving the objectives, then it is self-evident that their expectations must be met. It is processes that deliver stakeholders鈥� expectations. Each expectation would need to be attached to a process until the entire list of expectations was exhausted. Finally, we would need to design each process and determine which activities need to be integrated so that the stakeholders鈥� expectations are fulfilled rather than being an arbitrary collection of tasks. To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done. It is little wonder then that there is discontent among the members about a proposed reorganisation that fails to satisfy anyone, least of all our clients.