In a message dated 9/12/00 10:20:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>  Do you mean to imply that CM's as a group are somehow less astute than
>  contractors in terms of understanding market forces?

Not exactly. There are intelligent & not so intelligent CM's and contractors,
both. I am thinking that the risk reduction structure of a CM relationship on
a project makes it too easy for a CM to distance themselves from close
involvement with resources. As a contractor has to deal much more intimate w/
resource allocation than a CM I do feel that a contractor will tend to have a
sharper perception of the market situation as it pertains to labor and
materials availability. I think there is a difference in intensity of feeling
about labor as a resource between the person that has to provide the paycheck
at the end of the week and the person who has to review payroll reports.

If a CM wants to know what is going on with resources then they have to work
harder to figure it out, or ask somebody that knows and will talk straight to
them... as long as there is a plentiful number of contractors wanting to do
whatever work the CM throws out to be done there is less need for the CM to
work to build relationships with contractors. When work is scarce then the CM
can as easily consider that there will always be another contractor behind
the next one if the current one does not work out. Nowdays, a CM runs the
risk of having contractors shake their heads and saying, "I don't need this
headache." This work glut won't last and in time it will turn back to
contractors needing to struggle to procure work.

I also imagine, as I have seen in the past, that what is going on in the NYC
regional market may not be going on outside of the area. I think it is like
the ocean tides showing up in different places at different times.

>  What market force drove the client to think he/she needs the CM for
protection from that nasty old contractor?

Reduction of the historic role of the architect in the management of the
construction process, insurance and liability issues. A logical progression
past the 19th century move from master builder to professional architect. The
assumption on the part of property owners that all contractors are usurous
and predatory, not always undeserved. Therefore make a role that has has no
direct responsibility to do anything, therefore less insurance risk, no
assets beyond a phone, a computer and a bank account. Fill the role with
holders of construction project management certificates who wear suits and
ties and like to recline in leather executive chairs,and put these knowledge
technicians in the middle of the mix with the responsibility to make a mess
of paperwork. An over assumption of the value of literate technology?

Actually, I think the CM concept is a good one and serves an important role,
just like some folks once thought communism was a good idea and would save
humanity from itself. I've worked with some really great CM's, and a few
lousy ones. I will work with the good ones again, and will recommend them,
and will share my views, because there is a trust relationship. I will avoid
the lousy ones at all cost.

>  Could it be that the market forces drove the owner to downsize
>  his/her construction knowledge right out into the street and to create a
>  void for the CM to fill?

Works for me.

>  You cannot reduce risk by contracting out knowledge.

Nice,
][<en