Phase 2 attachments – Client or contractor side? Which offers more value?
Greetings everybody from North East Scotland!
The relative utility of taking on a client-side role during phase 2 was a subject that I broached in my most recent AER. Following on from this, I’m keen to stimulate a discussion amongst my wider peer group, past and present, as well as academic and military staff, as to the merits (or otherwise) of taking on such a role when compared to the more “traditional” phase 2 experience of working for a principal contractor.
As a basis for discussion, I’ve included below what I believe to be some key pros and cons of working in such a role, based partly on my experiences to date at BP. My intention here is not to launch a scathing indictment of client-side roles, more to enable a forum for people to share their lived experiences.
Pros
Risk Management Exposure – As the client’s representative, it is highly likely that risk management and mitigation will feature very highly on your list of priorities, due to the accountability that you have to the end user. In BP speak, you are the ambassador for ensuring that the business priorities (read design philosophy) are adhered to and are empowered to hold the contractor accountable. This in turn gives you more license to “steer the ship” in the name of ensuring that business priorities are met and ultimately that the benefits are realised by the end user.
Refinement of Engineering Vision – On the client side, the production of a fit-for-purpose Statement of Requirement (SoR) is arguably the most critical responsibility. Even the slightest ambiguity over the course of a complex project could lead to significant divergence from the initial vision. Being on the client side offers the opportunity to practice the art form of being specific but not prescriptive in your needs. This in turn forces you to practice using engineering judgment to get to the core of the problem and articulate this in a simple, easy to understand way.
Comparatively Slower Day to Day – As the principal contractor is likely to be shouldering the majority of the day to day management of a project, this could enable the opportunity for a PET student to diversify his/her range of responsibilities, with a view to ticking off some of the more niche areas of the UK SPEC/ICE competency requirements. This could, for example, take the form of leading a design review (if, like me, your phase 2 and 3 is combined), taking on a sustainability initiative and chairing a business ethics working group.
Cons
Costing/Scheduling – In many cases, the exposure on the client side to costing and scheduling for one particular project is confined to setting the initial goal posts, followed by scrutinising and responding to any requests for change. This then limits a students learning potential by not having the opportunity to experience the complexities of day-to-day project management, the pressure of operating under financial headroom and the engineering challenge of using the resources and subcontractors at your disposal to complete a project before a deadline.
Construction Practicalities – Whilst refraining from using any ivory tower analogies, the argument that not having day to day site management experience is a disadvantage is a valid one. A client-side attachment limits exposure to the complexities of getting a project off the ground in the real world. This is particularly relevant when considering our future roles within 170 Gp; not having a depth off on-site experience could lead to the setting of unrealistic targets (scheduling, buildability) for MCFs or other contractors.
Implementation of Relevant Legislation – A client side attachment limits a student’s experience of actually implementing pertinent legislation – HSWA, CDM Regulations, IET Wiring Regulation etc, alongside secondary or locally produced standards (JSPs, BP ETPs etc). This blind spot in competence could limit a student’s pragmatism in the future, for example insisting on implementation of British Standards in construction activities on operations, despite the practical constraints of doing so or the irrevelance or certain guidelines to the situation at hand.
If you’ve made it this far, well done and thank you! I’m very interested to hear what other people’s experiences have been, on both sides of the fence. Feel free to let me know if you think I’m way off the mark!
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
I wouldn’t worry too much. I honestly don’t think it matters whether you’re on the Client or Contractor side for Ph 2. The technical and managerial issues you’ll be exposed to will be the same, and the onus is on the individual to dive into the detail and understand the issue regardless of whether they are writing/delivering/endorsing/assuring etc.
However, the analysis you’ve done in considering the question will be useful in completing your personal development plan as it highlights the competencies you’ll need to work harder to tick off.
An interesting perspective. For wider awareness I am working directly for Heathrow Airport Limited (client-side).
I agree with and can echo the points of; slower day to day and risk management exposure.
On the flipside, some of my work is intimately involved with relevant legislation (compliance issues surrounding older engineering installations) and construction practicalities (even client-side there are oodles of different stakeholders around the Heathrow estate fighting for space, and funding, to carry out jobs).
Due to the recent pandemic and slash is demand in airline industry, what would have been likely a ‘good’ placement with contractor (MACE/Atkins etc.) at Heathrow is now probably less ideal than being client-side.
It’ll be interesting to see how things pan-out in the next 12 months though.