Ethical Project Management in the Wake of Grenfell

IChemE past-president Nigel Hirst asks whether you really know your suppliers and what their true standards are

WHEN I started my career in the 1970s, the company I worked for was run by the most ferociously talented engineers I have ever met, who took safety both seriously and personally.

Safety reviews of plant designs would be individually scrutinised by very senior engineers who held manufacturers’ and suppliers’ claims in low regard. The polyethylene insulation that fuelled the Grenfell blaze would have been treated with deep suspicion, and the constant challenge of “prove it” would not have been satisfied by the reply “it meets the standard”.

The ultimate outcome of every project, including the ethical aspects, primarily lies with “the owner” (a contractual term referring to the party holding the project funds). They set the tone for the project in every way. Back in the 1990s, my company was part of a large conglomerate which operated as a main contractor in the automotive industry. An international car manufacturer appointed a head of purchasing who was focused entirely on cost reduction. His method was to invite say six contractors to make fixed price bids, knock 20% off the lowest and go out to rebid. The contractor who got closest to the new target won the project. Needless to say, it didn’t end well for the contactors (half of which no longer exist), nor the customers (I drove a car made by the manufacturer, I should know).

The diagram illustrates the way the parties involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower blamed others during the enquiry. No doubt there will be much legal wrangling over this, but I offer this analysis of where the project failed ethically.

Grenfell Enquiry