Market conditions for expert and specialist heritage ... · This report was funded by Historic England’s Heritage Protection Commissions programme, through a grant awarded to the

1© CIfA and Loud Marketing Stage 3 Final Report

Market conditions for expert and specialist heritage skills and services 2015 -16


ContentsPage

Executive summary 3

Introduction 5

Research design and method 7

Respondent overview 9

Results overview 14

Recommendations 21

Annex 1 – Summary report to Stage 1 24

Annex 2 – Summary report to Stage 2 40

This report was funded by Historic England’s Heritage Protection Commissionsprogramme, through a grant awarded to the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists(CIfA). Historic England does not necessarily endorse the opinions orrecommendations presented here.


Executive summary

The Client Demand Task Group (CDTG), aworking group set up by the HistoricEnvironment Forum (HEF), instigated thisresearch project, which was funded byHistoric England (HE).

The CDTG’s aim is to investigate ways ofstimulating demand for skilled /accredited historic environment tradesand professions. The groups’ initialthought was that there is a lack ofinformed demand for specialist heritageskills and services and that this affectsclient behaviour regarding appropriatesupplier procurement.

The project complements the work beingundertaken by the HEF Heritage SkillsTask Group, and a range of labour marketintelligence report available at the HistoricEngland website. This project alsocomplements the Heritage Counts 2015survey of listed residential buildingowners. The results of this project willfeed in to the background data forHeritage Counts 2016/17.

This qualitative research project wasdesigned to establish robust and reliableinsight on present market conditions forspecialist heritage skills and services. Allviews are those of the respondents.

Stage 1 involved a series of interviewswith 38 respondents from professional,craft and trade bodies representing thesupply side of the heritage skillslandscape. These respondents arereferred to as the “relevant bodies”throughout this report.

Stage 2 involved focus groups and depthinterviews with 41 respondentsrepresenting different types of clients,including private homeowners. Summaryreports for Stages 1 and 2 are includedas annexes to this report on pages 24and 40. The summary reports contain

detailed commentary and a large numberof direct quotes from respondents.

The insight gathered in Stages 1 and 2was compared and conclusions weredrawn (see pages 14 to 20) and a set ofrecommendations developed (see pages21 to 23) to assist the CDTG and HEF todecide further courses of action.

Introductory information, details of theresearch design and method and anoverview of the respondents are given inthe following pages. Our analysis andcomparison of the insight gathered fromboth sets of respondents suggests:

− There is a lack of informed demand,but the client landscape is complexand therefore any approach toresolving this must take info accountthis complexity.

− Language and the use of certain termsand phrases do not help. Many clientsare confused and many terms andphrases have little meaning.

− Clients do appear to appreciate theheritage assets in their care and theirresponsibilities and obligations.However, some private clients “have noidea what they have bought” and somecommercial clients “simply don’t care”.Others use specialists “wherenecessary”.

− Asking trusted contacts for arecommendation is the main way mostclients find specialist suppliers becausethey are unbiased. Searching websitesis the next stage and the first stagewhere a recommendation isunavailable.

− Clients choose to work with a specialistsupplier based on their previous work,a good personal connection, price,proximity and availability. Some clients


then carry out due diligence thatincludes checking references,recommendations, qualification,memberships and accreditations. But,the level of due diligence dependsupon the type of client, the size andcomplexity of the project.

− Clients feel that being compelled to usecertain specialist suppliers, for examplethose who are accredited, wouldadversely affect “competitive tension”in the marketplace, restrict trade,create cartels and push up prices.

− Accreditation in some form is seen as agood thing.

− But, clients are unaware of manyschemes and are confused by others.A perceived lack of consistency anduniformity, the plethora of schemes andthe use of the word “accreditation”, donot help clients.

− There is an appetite for advice, but thismust be independent and unbiased.

Recommendations are:

1. Collaboration: Pan-sector advocacyvia deeper collaboration betweenprofessional, trade and craft bodies,heritage bodies and local authorities todrive awareness and understandingamongst clients.

2. Education: Message about the benefitof using specialist suppliers should bedelivered through a series of marketingcampaigns focussing on targetedpersonas including; private clients livingin non-listed homes of merit,professionals and businesses involvedin conveyancing, professionals andbusinesses involved in costmanagement, local authority officers intouch with clients.

3. Advice: This could be paid-for andcould be offered digitally via a websiteand app, via telephone or via thirdexisting parties. The advice needs to beindependent and unbiased. It couldsuggest suppliers and also give moregeneral advice to those less well-informed clients who are working ona “heritage” project.

It is critical in our view that the CDTG /HEF / HE also:

− Identify any knowledge gaps thatwould impede the recommendations.

− Identify any further research orsupplementary research

− Decide if the scope expands to includethe other home counties heritagebodies

− Agree the way(s) forward

− Agree who is to take this forward.

− Commit to intensive collaboration

− Commit resources


About the authorLoud Marketing is an independentmarketing and business developmentagency working with professional andmembership associations, architectureand hospitality clients. We work with ourclients on market research, strategicplanning, brand identity, communications,engagement and external relationsprojects. Our aim is to help clients meettheir challenges and make the most oftheir opportunities. Loud Marketingprovides a flexible extension to clients'resources and often becomes a trustedadvisor and part of a client’s team.

BackgroundThe CDTG is a working group set up by theHistoric Environment Forum in May 2013 toinvestigate ways of stimulating demand forskilled / accredited historic environmenttrades and professions. To assist with thisaim, the CDTG identified the need formarket and stakeholder research in order toestablish a clearer understanding of thepresent market environment for theprovision of services by historic environmenttrades and professions.

The hypothesis, developed by the CDTG inconjunction with Loud Marketing, is thatthere is a lack of informed demand forspecialist heritage skills and services. Forexample, clients may not realise the breadthof skills and services available, or where andhow to find them. They may not appreciatethe importance of using appropriately skilled suppliers or know how to identifysuch suppliers.

About this project This is a qualitative research projectdesigned to establish robust and reliableinsight on present market conditions forspecialist heritage skills and services. Thisresearch is intended to provide a clear

perspective in place of the presentanecdotal information gathered from thesector and test the CDTG hypothesisdescribed above. There were three stages.Stage 1 involved a series of interviews withprofessional, craft and trade bodiesrepresenting the supply side of the heritageskills landscape. Stage 2 involved focusgroups and depth interviews with a rangeof clients including private homeowners.This final report draws Stages 1 and 2together, and recommends ways forward.Summary reports for Stages 1 and 2 areincluded in this document as annexes (seepages 24 and 40).

This project aims to gather insight toenable further decision making about howto address the perceived lack of “informeddemand” for accredited and competentheritage skills practitioners andprofessionals. The overall objective is tohelp us suggest ways of communicatingmore effectively with clients to stimulatedemand for specialist heritage skills. It doesnot attempt to pre-empt any decisions onnext steps; rather it seeks to inform thosedecisions based on qualitative evidence.

Project interfacesThe project complements the work beingundertaken by the HEF Heritage SkillsTask Group, which is mapping routes toskills across the historic environmentsector from a supply-side perspective. Italso complements a range of previouslabour market intelligence reports andbuilds upon them by broadening thescope to include professions. It will feedin to the background data for HeritageCounts 2016/17. This project alsocomplements the Heritage Counts 2015survey of listed residential buildingowners, and used data from that surveyto assist in recruiting privatehomeowners.

Introduction


It aims to provide information that willassist in meeting historic environmentskills capacity issues identified in HistoricEngland’s assessment of NationalInfrastructure Development for the next 15 years and it complements allother heritage capacity building and skills initiatives.

Project personnelResponsibility for the project within HElies with the Project Assurance Officer,who will sit on the Project Board and fulfilthe role of Project Assurance Officer forHE funding purposes.

An advisory board was composed ofmembers of the HEF CDTG – the keystakeholders in the project.

The Project Board comprised: Edmund Lee – Historic England ProjectAssurance; Bob Hook – Historic EnglandProduct QA; Peter Hinton – ProjectExecutive; David McDonald – CDTG andHEF representative; Stephen O’Reilly –Project Manager from research agencyLoud Marketing.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the followingpeople, listed in alphabetical order, fortheir invaluable help in developing andactivating this research project.

Andrew Dixon, Federation of MasterBuildersKatherine Pate, Katherine Pate LimitedPaul Crisp and Henry Ryde, Jones LangLaSallePete Hinton, Chartered Institute forArchaeologists Peter Moore, Dorset County CouncilRachel Campbell, British PropertyFederation Sheila McCusker, MSMR Architects

Research objectivesThe objectives of this research projectare:

− To provide up-to-date insight about thenature of market demand for skilledpractitioners in professions, trades andcrafts working in the historicenvironment sector.

− To provide up-to-date insight about thenature of market demand foraccreditation of this pool of skilledworkers.

− To supplement existing anecdotalinformation with an evidence-basedknowledge set from the client side.

− To survey relevant professional, tradeand craft bodies to ensure we includetheir current behaviours, programmesand actions to meet demand for skilledheritage practitioners.

− To map the insight gathered from thedemand and supply sides to establishwhere there are barriers to theemployment of trained / accreditedspecialists in the sector, what iscurrently being done and what could bedone to address these.

− To inform the work of the HEF CDTG,HE and partners in the wider sector, inimplementing solutions to problemsfaced by clients and suppliers alikeregarding the protection andunderstanding of the historicenvironment.

− To allow professional trade and craftbodies to develop strategies thatincrease public benefit from the historicenvironment and meet the needs of clients.


Research design and method

Method statement The methodology used a mix ofqualitative research techniques.

In Stage 1 a set of eight solo and dualface-to-face in-depth interviews tookplace. This simply means we met inperson with one or two respondents ateach interview. All respondents in Stage 1worked for a broad range of professional,trade and craft bodies representing thesupply side of the heritage skills andservices landscape.

Nineteen in-depth telephone interviewssupplemented the face-to-faceinterviews. The face-to-face in-depthinterviews took place at the offices of therespondents or other venue of their choice.

In-depth interviews – sometimes calleddepth interviews – are an intensive, semi-structured qualitative research techniqueusually lasting between 45 and 90minutes. Face-to-face research allows usto capture a rich set of insights, whiletelephone fieldwork allows us to captureinsights from those who are unable toattend a face-to-face interview.

A discussion guide was developed, whichis included in the annexed Stage 1summary report (page 37). A discussionguide allows qualitative researchers tocover a consistent set of key topics witheach respondent, without the need forstructured questionnaires. It acts asreference point for moderators.

In Stage 2 a set of seven focus groupsand three face-to-face in-depth interviewstook place. The interviews replaced aplanned eighth focus group. Therespondents in Stage 2 represented theclient side of the heritage skills andservices landscape, including publicsector clients, commercial clients and

private homeowners. The focus groupstook place in a variety of venues, chosenbecause of their convenience and cost-effectiveness. Fieldwork for Stage 2took place in Oxford, Bath andDorchester, as well as London. The face-to-face in-depth interviews took place atthe offices of the respondents.

A second discussion guide wasdeveloped, which is included in theannexed Stage 2 summary report (page 50).

We took a co-creation approach to thisresearch, especially the face-to-faceelements. This means we positioned theproject as a way of participating in thecreation of plans to help address heritageskills issues.

Respondent recruitment in Stage 1The recruitment strategy for Stage 1 wasto secure participation by a broad rangeof relevant professional, trade and craftbodies. These respondents arecollectively referred to throughout thisreport as the “relevant bodies”. As thiswas a qualitative research project, we didnot aim to capture insight from all relevantbodies. Rather, our aim was to recruit aset of relevant bodies to give a good mixof views, behaviours, programmes andactions to meet demand for skilledheritage practitioners.

We also made sure we includedprofessional, trade and craft bodiesrepresenting members who work on arange of project typologies, includingbuildings, landscapes and moveableheritage.

During research planning we worked withCDTG members to finalise a list ofrelevant bodies covering the desiredbroad range of professions, trades andcrafts. We developed a recruitment


questionnaire that included an element ofscreening, to ensure the people we spoke to at each body had anappropriate level of responsibility andauthority in areas such as policy,communications, qualifications, training,registrations and accreditation.

Respondent recruitment in Stage 2The recruitment strategy for Stage 2 wasto secure a mix of clients in each groupand to ensure that the “less well-informed”clients were recruited where applicable.For example, when researching whichcontractors, developers or consultants toadd to the potential respondent lists, wemade sure not to include too many“specialists” who worked solely onheritage projects. These respondents arecollectively referred to as “clients” throughthis report.

We also made sure the respondents wereinvolved in a range of projects from verylarge-scale projects involving masterplans, through to new builds and RMI(repair, maintenance and improvement).Landscapes and interiors were alsoincluded to balance the project typologies.For building projects, we specifically madeclear that the properties did not have tobe listed - they simply had to have somehistoric, architectural or cultural value.

With the local government group weconcentrated on Dorset, as this is a ruralcounty with multiple layers of localgovernment in county, district, boroughand town councils. We recruitedconservation officers as they could give adual view – client and supplier. We werenot able to recruit local governmentproperty or estates representatives, as noone was available or willing to participatewithin the timeframe.

The group representing large propertyowners in the public or third sector

comprised senior respondents from arange of well-known organisations.

Recruitment for the final group, largeproperty owners in the private sector, wasa challenge simply because of the targetrespondents’ availability and willingness toparticipate. We decided to break thisgroup up and carry out three face-to-face,one-to-one in-depth interviews in order tocapture what insights we could within the timetable.

Sources of contact data forrecruitment– Desk research by Loud Marketing – Personal networks of the LoudMarketing team

– The Client Demand Task Groupmembers

– The Federation of Master Builders e-newsletter promoting the research

– The British Property Federation e-newsletter promoting the research

– MSMR Architects – Dorset County Council – Historic England

Testing and piloting The discussion guides for Stages 1 and 2were tested internally at Loud Marketingto ensure the discussion topic flow waslogical, that plain English was used andjargon minimised, and to ensure ameaningful discussion could be carriedout within the target time of 45 minutes(in-depth interviews) and 90 minutes(focus groups).

While pilot studies are not usual inqualitative research, two test interviewswere conducted before fieldwork began,with volunteers rather than potentialrespondents. The data captured is notincluded in the results. It was used tofurther refine the discussion guides where necessary.


Respondent overview

About the respondents in Stage 1In total there were 38 respondents from27 relevant bodies. They included peopleworking in policy, public affairs, CPD,training, client services, projectmanagement, sales, marketing and insecretariat and head office functions.These included: two advisors, elevenmanagers, eight directors, six committeemembers or Chairs, nine Chief Executivesand two past Presidents.

The 27 organisations have over 350,000members. An individual or company maybe a member of two or more respondentorganisations, so there may be someduplication. Not all members of allorganisations represented work in the

heritage sector. However, this dependson how you define “heritage”. Mostprofessionals, trades and craftspeoplework on or in older buildings andlandscapes at least some of the time. Inthe case of builders, around half do so ona regular basis, but this is perhapsbecause of the large stock of pre-1919buildings in the country, rather than theirpreference or specialist skill set.

As mentioned under recruitment, we alsomade sure we included bodiesrepresenting professionals, trades andcrafts that work on a range of projecttypologies including buildings, landscapesand moveable heritage.

Stage 1 supply side respondent organisations Association of Professional LandscapersBritish Association of Landscape IndustriesBritish Woodworking FederationChartered Institute for ArchaeologistsChartered Institute of Architectural TechnologistsChartered Institute of Building Chartered Institution of Building ServicesEngineersConservation Accreditation Register for Engineers Ecclesiastical Architects & Surveyors AssociationFederation of Archaeological Managers & Employers Federation of Master Builders Glass & Glazing FederationGuild of Master CraftsmenHeritage Crafts AssociationInstitute of CarpentersInstitution of Civil EngineeringInstitute of Conservation Institute of Historic Building ConservationLandscape InstituteLead Contractors’ AssociationNational Federation of Roofing ContractorsNational Heritage Training GroupNational Society of Master ThatchersRoyal Institute of British Architects Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Royal Town Planning Institute The Stone Federation

Stage 2 client side respondent organisationsAlan Baxter Arque ConstructionBovey ConstructionCadogan EstateCanal & River TrustChester RowChristchurch & East Dorset CouncilsCity DesignerThe Crown EstateDAC BeachcroftDavid Lock Associates Donald Insall Associates Dorset County CouncilGerald Eve Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Historic Houses AssociationHistoric Royal Palaces JLLJohnston & MatherLendLeaseMSMR ArchitectsNational TrustNathaniel Lichfield & Partners North Dorset District Council NorthbeachRM Builders & Contractors The Church of EnglandU+I

GRAPHIC 1A GRAPHIC 1B


The 27 organisations that took part inStage 1 are:

– Association of ProfessionalLandscapers

– British Association of LandscapeIndustries

– British Woodworking Federation– Chartered Institute for Archaeologists– Chartered Institute of ArchitecturalTechnologists

– Chartered Institute of Building – Chartered Institution of BuildingServices Engineers

– Conservation Accreditation Register ofEngineers

– Ecclesiastical Architects & SurveyorsAssociation

– Federation of Archaeological Managers& Employers

– Federation of Master Builders

– Glass & Glazing Federation– Guild of Master Craftsmen– Heritage Crafts Association– Institute of Carpenters– Institution of Civil Engineering– Institute of Conservation – Institute of Historic BuildingConservation

– Landscape Institute– Lead Contractors’ Association– National Federation of RoofingContractors

– National Heritage Training Group– National Society of Master Thatchers– Royal Institute of British Architects – Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors– Royal Town Planning Institute – The Stone Federation

About the respondents in Stage 2The 41 client respondents includedemployees and business owners from 30 organisations working in heritage,planning, conservation, construction,property development, propertyinvestment, surveying, legal services,property management and variousadvisory roles. The respondent set alsoincluded six private individuals.

Respondents included: one architect, onesolicitor, three advisors, three officers, sixmanagers, two surveyors, two partners,one principal, eight directors, four MDs,one chairman and one senior volunteer.(see GRAPHIC 3 on page 11).

The respondents were involved in a widerange of project typologies from verylarge-scale projects that involved masterplans and new build developments thatinvolved a heritage element such asarchaeology, through to listed buildingrefurbishments and smaller-scale RMIand conservation work.

The respondents in Stage 1 had a range

of roles within their organisations including the following

Policy / Public affairs / CPD / Training /Client services / Project management /Sales / Marketing / Secretariat /

Membership /Senior management

The respondents in Stage 2 represented a broad

range of client and client advisory types including the following

Architecture / Conservation / Construction /Development management / Heritage

consultancy / Homeowners / Legal services /Planning / Property development /

Property investment /Property management /

Surveying

GRAPHIC 2A

GRAPHIC 2B


The private individuals had five propertiesbetween them:

1. Georgian town house in a northLondon conservation area

2. Grade II listed Georgian town house inHenley-on-Thames

3. 400-year-old farm on the outskirts ofCanterbury

4. Grade II listed house on the outskirts ofBath

5. Grade II listed house on the outskirts ofBath


Alan Baxter Associates Arque ConstructionBovey ConstructionCadogan EstateCanal & River TrustChester RowChristchurch & East Dorset DistrictCouncil City DesignerCrown EstateDAC Beachcroft

David Lock Associates Donald Insall Associates Dorset County CouncilGerald Eve Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Historic Houses AssociationHistoric Royal Palaces JLLJohnson & MatherLendLeaseMSMR ArchitectsNational TrustNLP Planning Senior North Dorset District Council NorthbeachRM ConstructionThe Church of EnglandU+I

Specialist heritage skills and servicesoffered and commissioned Not all members of respondent relevantbodies work on heritage projects or olderproperties. Those that do offer a range ofservices primarily concerned with therepair, maintenance and improvement ofthese buildings and sites: in other words,

Word cloud showing the breadth ofrespondent job roles in Stage 2

directorsMDs

managersChief Executives

committee members or chairs

chairman

partnersarchitects

officers

adviso

rs

surveyorssolicito

r

senior volunteer

past Presidentsprinciple

GRAPHIC 3


not new-build projects. The list below isnot exhaustive but gives an idea of thebreadth of specialist heritage skills andservices offered.

– Archaeology– Building design (by architects,architectural technologists andtechnicians)

– Building services engineering – Building surveying – Cabinetmaking– Carpentry– Civil engineering – Client advisor – Conservation architect services – Conservators

ArchaeologyBuilding designBuilding services engineering

Building surveying CabinetmakingCarpentryCivil engineering Dry stone walling services Quantity surveyingConservation architect services Conservators ConstructionRoofing services

Glazing

Heritage consultancyJoineryLandscape architecture

Landscaping LeadworkLecturers

Planning consultancy Planning services Project management Stonemasonry Structural engineering Thatchers Trainers

Client advisoryClient advisory

Client advisory

Client advisoryClient advisoryClient advisory

Client advisoryClient advisoryClient advisory

Client advisory

Client advisory

Client advisory

ArchaeologyArchitecture

Asbestos removal specialistsBronzeworkers Building surveyingQuantity surveyingSpecialist surveyors

Conservation architect servicesConservators

Metal conservatorsClock restorer Contractors

Cobb building specialists Environmental impact assessors

Glazing restorationLeaded glazing

Metal window repairers Heritage consultantsLandscape architects Landscape designersGarden designersGarden restoration

Landscape contractors Leadwork

Lime mortar analysis Lime plasterers Paint analysts

Planning consultants Expert witnessesProject managers Stonemasons

Structural engineersTechnicians

Timber decay/preservation contractors

Skills and servicesoffered

Skills and servicescommissioned

Skills and servicesoffered

Skills and services offered by members of respondents to Stage 1 and commissioned by respondents to Stage 2

GRAPHIC 4

This shows that 12 different professions, trades and crafts identified “client advisory” (or a very similarly phrased service) asone of the services they offer. Some clients find this choice confusing and are unclear where to turn for advice.


– Construction / contracting – Dry stone walling services – Glazing – Heritage consultancy – Joinery– Landscape architecture – Landscaping – Leadwork– Lecturers – Planning consultancy – Planning services – Project management – Quantity surveying– Roofing services – Stonemasonry– Structural engineering – Thatching– Training

In addition, a whole range of traditionalcraftspeople such as furniture restorers,blacksmiths and a whole range ofconservators such as specialists inarchives, stained glass and sculpture are represented.

Specialist heritage skills and servicescommissioned by Stage 2respondents Architectural services, including buildingdesign and client advisory/consultancyservices, are the most common servicesused by respondents, alongsidecontractors (referred to as maincontractor or builder depending on theclient). Contractors may or may not be specialists.

The complete list of specialist heritageskills and services used by clients:

– Archaeology– Architecture– Asbestos removal specialists– Bronzeworkers– Building surveying – Clock restorer

– Cobb building specialists – Conservation architect services– Conservators – Contractors – Environmental impact assessors– Expert witnesses– Garden designers– Garden restoration – Glazing restoration– Heritage consultants– Landscape architects – Landscape contractors – Landscape designers– Leaded glazing – Leadwork– Lime mortar analysis – Lime plasterers – Metal conservators– Metal window repairers – Paint analysts – Planning consultants – Project managers – Quantity surveying– Specialist surveyors– Stonemasons – Structural engineers – Technicians – Timber decay / preservation contractors


Results overview

Language – terms and phrases Throughout this research project, thelanguage used to describe heritage skillswas repeatedly raised as an issue. All theterms and phrases in GRAPHIC 5 appearto have ambiguous, confusing or in someother way misunderstood meanings.

At this stage we have not attempted todefine these terms and phrases for thebenefit of the respondents or readers ofthis report. The list is here simply tohighlight that inconsistent and ambiguousterminology and an apparent lack of clarityin the use of language do not help clientsmake the right decisions. This list is by nomeans complete and is illustrative only.

Defining “Specialist” – Stage 2 respondents

− “Best”− “Complex”− “Expensive”

Defining “Heritage” – Stage 2 respondents

−“Old”−“Architectural value” −“Importance”−“History” −“Expensive”−“Slower”

Defining the clientThroughout this report, by “client” we meanthe person who makes the decisions thataffect who works on the project. There isno such thing as an average client.

Sometimes this is a straightforwardrelationship. A homeowner engages theservices of thatcher and pays them fortheir work. In other examples, there maybe a chain of suppliers from architect tomain contractor to sub-contractors tospecialists. In other, usually more complexlarger projects, a client may engagedirectly with a team and be more active inproject management. This team couldinclude architect, planning consultant,heritage consultant and in some casesmain contractor.

So, the client/supplier landscape is notfixed, may be complex and may differdepending on who the ultimate client is,who is paying for the work to be done, thesize of the project and if there are anyother external factors at play, for exampleplanning applications, grant funding, etc.

We use the term client in this wide sense.It’s about who makes the decisions.Below is a short list of the types ofindividuals and organisations we meanwhen we use the term “client”:

– Architects– Charities and Trusts– Churches – including lay members– Contractors– Custodians – Domestic / private homeowners – Government departments / agencies – Heritage consultants – House builders – Housing associations – Landowners – Local authorities – National heritage bodies – Property developers / investors

?Words and phrases that arecommonly misunderstood

AccreditationAppropriate

Architectural conservator Architectural designer

Competent Conservation architect

HeritageHeritage consultant Heritage professional Heritage projectHeritage sector

Historic environment Historic property Older property

Traditionally built property

GRAPHIC 5


The informed / uninformed client From our discussions with respondentsfrom bodies representing suppliers ofspecialist heritage skills and services inStage 1 of this research and with clientrespondents in Stage 2, the generalconsensus is that there is a lack ofinformed demand amongst clients.

As noted in the summary report to Stage1, whether a client is informed oruninformed is more complex than abinary choice between those two terms.

We suggest breaking informed /uniformed into a more targeted list of fourclient knowledge levels based on their

appreciation for the heritage assets intheir care (including private homes), theirawareness and understanding ofresponsibilities, obligations, availability ofassistance, knowledge of specialist andso forth. The knowledge level would alsobe applied based on the client’s actions.

1. Educated client – acts appropriately.

2. Informed client – may act appropriately.

3. Knowledgeable client – they are awarebut may not always act.

4. Novice client – little or no appreciation,understanding, awareness or action.

Defining the client

Planningconsultant

Heritageconsultant

Surveyor

Projectmanager

Developmentmanager

Architect orConservation architect

Archaeologist

Other sub-contractorsand suppliers ofspecialist heritage skillsand services

Main contractor /Builder

Conservator

Ultimate client /owner / custodian

Landscapearchitect

Landscapecontractor

Specialistconservators

Engineer

GRAPHIC 6

This illustrates the complex nature of heritage projects and the relationships between clients and suppliers.


Client understanding of theirresponsibilities and their need forspecialists On the whole clients do appear toappreciate the heritage assets in theircare. They also have an understanding oftheir responsibilities and obligations, theavailability of and importance of usingappropriately skilled suppliers and tosome extent the existence of accreditationschemes. This does vary and somerespondents have personal experience ofprivate clients who “have no idea whatthey have bought”. Other respondentshave personal experience of developersand investors who “simply don’t care”about their responsibilities and for whomcost and profit are more important.

Most relevant bodies feel that a largeproportion of clients, perhaps the majority,do not fully appreciate their heritageassets, their responsibilities, the availability

of and need for appropriate specialistheritage skills and services.

Clients may have a greater understandingof their responsibilities and their need forspecialists than relevant bodies think. But,in any case, they do not fully understandthe breadth and depth of assistanceavailable, which different relevant bodiesexist and what they offer, what differentprofessions and trades can achieve forthem, etc.

There is a need to communicate moreeffectively to clients, and in an unbiasedmanner, the range of specialist heritageskills and services available. The supplierlandscape appears complex, confusingand competing. This affects clients’readiness, willingness and ability tonavigate the options and therefore howthey find and choose relevant skills and services.

Appreciation for the heritage asset in their care

Personal responsibility to the historicenvironment

Obligation to do the best for aparticular asset

Availability of suppliers of specialistheritage skills and services

The need to use suppliers ofspecialist heritage skills and services

Existence of specialist heritageaccreditation schemes

Usage of specialist heritageaccreditation schemes

Knowledgeable

Client

Novice

Client

Informed

Client

Educated

Client

Awareness

UnderstandingAction

Awareness

UnderstandingAction

Awareness

UnderstandingAction

Awareness

UnderstandingAction

�

*

*

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

*Only if the asset is listed and/orthere is compulsion through theplanning system

GRAPHIC 7

Knowledge levels amongstclients of specialistheritage skills and services


Level of demand for specialistheritage skills and services offered bymembers of relevant bodiesWe asked the relevant body respondentsin Stage 1 if they felt demand isincreasing, reducing or staying the same,for the specialist heritage skills andservices offered by their members. Therespondents did not particularly raise thelevel of demand as a current issue at timeof research mid 2016.

How relevant bodies promotemembers Relevant bodies primarily link clients tomembers through their websites, wherethey generally have a list of individuals orcompanies offering specialist heritageskills and services. They are keen to pointout that their member lists are notcommercial advertising services or the“check-a-trade” type. Social media,awards, chartered status and partneringwith other organisations were highlightedas useful “push” strategies (strategies toensure clients hear the message).

Most relevant bodies do not activelyemploy “pull” strategies (strategies thatdraw clients toward their members andattempt to link them to members offeringspecialist heritage skills and services). For those that do, these “pull” strategiesappear to be successful. Using bestpractice case studies, other relevantbodies could be encouraged toinvestigate how they could employ “pull”strategies to link clients with appropriate members.

Some professional bodies do not see it astheir role to link their members andclients, using either “push” or “pull”strategies. Even though their primary roleis to protect the public, we feel this is alost opportunity. “Promoting” their

members to clients could fit within the“public good” role as it would meanclients were more likely to choose asupplier who is a member of a particularprofessional body and so, presumably,would carry out the work in the mostprofessional manner.

How clients find suppliersOn the whole, relevant bodies’understanding of how clients findsuppliers is correct, but their views onwhether or not this is easy are mixed.Clients ask colleagues, friends and familyfor recommendations when looking forsuppliers, as it is quick and easy andseen as unbiased.

Some clients approach local authorityconservation officers to help them findsuppliers of specialist heritage skills andservices and on the whole these officersare willing to offer this help informally.However, the help conservation officerscan offer is severely constrained for anumber of reasons. Resource issues dueto budget cuts mean workloads arehigher and there is less time to helpinformally. Some local authoritiesencourage conservation officers to adviseclients to go down the pre-app adviceroute, as this may be a paid-for service. Insome cases historic environment advisorsto local authorities are being discouragedfrom recommending individualprofessionals or companies, for examplearchaeologists or archaeologicalcontractors. This is one example of a de-risking culture where “recommendations”may lead to possible liability issues. Insome cases the local authority willencourage the use of “accredited”professionals or companies, but onlywhere the conservation officer or otherhistoric environment advisors is aware ofsuch schemes.


Clients use “Google” if they do not have arecommendation, which may or may notdirect them to representative bodywebsites or other useful resources. Somerelevant bodies use Search EngineOptimisation (SEO) and Pay-per-click(PPC) search advertising to assist withthis. Other routes to finding suppliersinclude: visiting events, calling a technicalhelpline, asking a representative body andasking their architect or other professionaladvisor if they have one. Where clientshave a professional advisor they will oftende-risk the choice of supplier bydelegating it to the advisor. Maincontractors and others in the supplychain are also asked to managesuppliers, de-risking the ultimate client,for example the homeowner, developer,etc. In these cases a supplier may pivot

to become a client for those further downthe supply chain and therefore have adual role in that project.

The Ecclesiastical Architects & SurveyorsAssociation has an “approved lists” ofsuppliers and in this case many parisheswill use suppliers on this list. Otherorganisations have lists of “appropriatesuppliers”, for example the CharteredInstitute for Archaeologists. Where thereare list, they are not always well known.

Identifying appropriate suppliers In Stage 1 previous work, price, proximityand availability were the most importantcriteria for choosing a supplier ofspecialist heritage skills and services.Secondary items including qualifications,memberships and accreditations mayalso influence the decision.

Approved list(depending on clienttype and availability)

Google searchSupplier websiteorOther websitefeaturing the supplier

Ultimate client /owner / custodian

Decision criteria:1. Previous work2. Personal connection3. Price4. Proximity5. Availability6. Compliance7. Due diligence

Choice

Word of Mouth /Asking colleaguesand friends

Recommendation

Illustration of how clients find and choose suppliers of specialist heritage skills and services

Local Authority Officer(if informal advice isforthcoming)

GRAPHIC 8


In Stage 2 client commented thatprevious work, personal connection, priceand availability were the most importantfactors. In addition some clients wouldfollow compliance procedures and checkitems such as references,recommendations, qualifications,memberships and accreditations. Thelevel of due diligence depended on thetype of client and the type and size ofproject. The higher the project value andcomplexity, the more detailed the duediligence may be.

Availability and capacity may sometimesbe as important (but not more important)as the quality of previous work, becausethe work may need to be done to aparticular / tight schedule. And, there mayonly be a limited number of availablespecialist suppliers. This last pointhighlights the issues of capacityconstraints on the supply side for somespecialist heritage skills and services.Cost is always a factor when choosing asupplier, but a mentioned above, it is notthe necessarily the most important factor.However, sometimes clients feel that theyare “forced” or “obliged” to carry outworks. In this context the project issomething that has to be done, but notsomething anyone wants to do or pay forit. This can affect the choice of supplier.

The role of statutory heritage bodiesSome relevant bodies believe thatstatutory heritage bodies, includingHistoric England, should engage moreclosely with them to ensure that heritagebodies use their members on grant-funded projects. Heritage bodies shouldtake the lead regarding the use ofappropriate suppliers, meaning accreditedor in some other way specialised. There isalso a perception that statutory heritagebodies have an inconsistent approach to

working with different professions, tradesand crafts and their relevant bodies. Forexample, the perception is that someheritage bodies insist on using accreditedsuppliers and other do not.

Compulsion Some relevant bodies advocatecompulsion as a way of ensuring the mostappropriate suppliers of specialist heritageskills and services are used. Others arestrongly against any kind of compulsion orother form of regulation with regard tosupplier choice. Compulsion in thiscontext means that clients would have tochoose a supplier from a particular list orregister for a certain professional service,trade or craft.

The subject of compulsion was raised bya number of respondents and theirfeelings on the matter are strong. Thereappears to be some confusion overwhether compulsion currently operates inthe heritage landscape, the desire forcompulsion from different representativeand statutory bodies and whatcompulsion might mean in practice.

Compulsion would drive the use ofaccredited suppliers. But it would bedifficult to apply even an element ofcompulsion without affecting “competitivetension” in the marketplace. Clients feelthat would restrict trade, create cartelsand push up prices.

AccreditationAccreditation in some form is seen as agood thing, but it is not one of the maincriteria for choosing a supplier of specialistheritage skills and services.

Clients feel that not all accreditationschemes are the same, for example theydon’t use easily comparable entry criteria.They feel that too much jargon is used


and the word “accreditation” itself is notalways used or always helpful. Wherethere are two accreditation schemes forone profession, such as in architecturewith the RIBA Conservation Register andthe Register of Architects Accredited inBuilding Conservation, clients see theschemes as competing and notcomplementary.

None of this is helpful to clients when theyare attempting to choose the mostappropriate supplier.

The advantage to a professional, trades orcraftsperson of becoming “accredited” isonly apparent if clients are aware of thescheme, understand it and apply value toit, or if the use of accredited specialists isrequired under a condition or obligation ofplanning permission.

Many clients remain unclear regardingwhat accreditation is, its value andnecessity. They are confused because ofthe plethora of schemes and theinconsistency within them, e.g. entryrequirements, etc.


There are significant knowledge gapsamongst clients in the specialist heritageskills and services demand landscape.

While there is an appreciation for theassets in question – buildings,landscapes, interiors and moveableheritage – the level of understanding ofthe help available could be improved.

There is a need for education. There is anappetite for advice.

The priority is to signpost clients to placeswhere they can find a selection ofappropriate suppliers. In addition,perceived and apparent knowledge gapsshould be addresses by offering impartialand unbiased information and advice.

To do this the CDTG / HEF / HE will needto:

1. Identify any knowledge gaps thatwould mean the threerecommendations would be difficult toimplement

2. Identify any further research orsupplementary research

3. Decide if the scope expands to includethe other home countries heritagebodies

4. Agree the way(s) forward

5. Agree who is to take this forward, forexample HEF / CDTG / EdinburghGroup / other new body or group

6. Commit to intensive collaboration

7. Commit resources

Alongside the above list we suggest threebroad recommendations, each of whichhas a set of actions and outcomes. It isworth noting that further work will need tobe commissioned in order to fully workthese recommendations up intodeliverable projects.

We are more than happy to work with theHEF / CDTG and Historic England inorder to work up such project plans.

Recommendation 1 – Collaboration

1.1 Pan-sector advocacy via deepercollaboration There are many professionals andbusinesses offering a range of skills andservices to clients with older or listedassets. There isn’t a “heritage profession”– there are architects, contractors,conservation officers, heritageconsultants, surveyors, planners, agents,property managers, engineers and others.

Clients do not readily identify with“heritage” or “historic” (or similar wordsand phrases) in relation to their day-to-daypersonal and business lives. But they dounderstand heritage conceptually. Withdeeper collaboration, including thebreaking down of professional and traderivalries and misunderstandings for thebenefit of the client, there is anopportunity to shape the “heritage sector”so that it makes sense to the client.

This will drive awareness, understandingand action in the areas that are importantto members of the CDTG and HEF, butonly if it is done in a client-centric way. Ifthat is possible then pan-sector advocacyis also possible. That will result in:

− The relevant bodies taking partbecoming the go-to sources forinformation

− Influencing behaviour

− Effecting change

− Sharing best practice

− Thought leadership

Recommendations


1.2 Encourage relevant bodies tocollaborate with local authorityofficersLocal authority officers (including but notlimited to conservation, planning andarchaeological officers) are willing toreceive help from relevant bodies thatimproves their knowledge andunderstanding of the supply landscapefor specialist heritage skills and services.Improving the knowledge of localauthority officers would have a positiveeffect on demand. While conservationofficers’ time is very limited and they oftencannot “recommend” individual suppliers,they can “suggest” lists, registers,accreditation schemes, etc. if they knowthey exist.

1.3 Encourage relevant bodies tocollaborate with clientsWe suggest using best practice casestudies to encourage relevant bodies toemploy “pull” strategies to link clients withappropriate members. Relevant bodieshave a role to play in helping theirmembers’ clients make the mostinformed and appropriate choices. Thisdoes not conflict with any other objectivethey may have. Clients could simply bedirected to a register or other list, or anumber of members could be“suggested” based on criteria such asproximity, or size of project.

1.4 Encourage consistentcollaboration between heritagebodies and relevant bodiesHistoric England should consideradditional research with relevant bodiesinto their perception that statutory bodieshave an inconsistent way of working withdifferent professions, trades and crafts.The results of this research will improve

Historic England’s relationships with thesebodies.

Historic England should communicatewith relevant bodies to bring some clarityto the subject of compulsion.

Recommendation 2 – EducationAs previously mentioned there aresignificant knowledge gaps in thespecialist heritage skills and servicesdemand landscape. Getting people tounderstand what they are buying (privateclients and smaller developers) isimportant. It is also important that ownersand managers of heritage assetsunderstand opportunities and benefits aswell as obligations and responsibilities.There is also a need to improveknowledge in the marketplace about theavailability of and distinction of suppliersof specialist heritage skills and services.

Different client groups / audiences havedifferent needs and so we suggest thestarting point is to agree a set ofpersonas - generalised characters thatencompass the various needs, goals, andobserved behaviour patterns amongdifferent target audiences.

A campaign (by which we simply meanan organised marketing activity with adefined goal) could be devised for eachpersona. We suggest each campaignshould be measured and tested, refinedand improved. Our view is that this is nota “one-off” set of campaigns. Rather itwould be the start of sustained, targetedcommunication to clients.

Example personas include:

− Private clients living in non-listedproperties of merit (e.g. in conservationareas)


− Private clients living in listed properties

− Estate agents, solicitors and mortgagecompanies involved in theconveyancing process and who areadvising purchasers

− Companies offering buildings insurancewho lack unawareness

− Quantity surveyors, cost consultantsand others involved in budgeting forconstruction, development andinfrastructure

− Senior managers in contractors whovalue reputational benefit

− Local authority officers who need to bekept up to date

Calls to action and measurement ofsuccess criteria will need to be agreed.The campaigns would be activatedthrough digital media (web, email, social)and in print.

We also suggest disseminatingmessaging developed for the abovecampaigns through organisationsrepresenting relevant client groups.

Recommendation 3 – Advice There is an appetite for advice.Conservation officers have traditionallybeen a source of advice but are underpressure due to resource constraints andliability concerns.

Some private clients with older propertiesare also concerned about getting in touchwith conservation officers to ask foradvice. There appears to be a perceptionthat conservation officers will pick outissues and problems rather than behelpful and supportive. They will noticeworks, possibly carried out many yearsago, and if they weren’t done properlycould demand that they are re-done. All

clients, but particularly private owners,want unbiased, confidential advice.

Some clients have worked in differentparts of the country and have dealt withdifferent local authorities, planningauthorities, heritage bodies and a wholerange of consultants. There is a belief thatadvice can be inconsistent. This could befor a number of reasons includingknowledge gaps and particularapproaches by different advisors. Clientswant consistent advice.

An independent place or places whereclients of all kinds, including developersand contractors, can get consistent,unbiased and confidential advice abouttheir older properties or other heritageassets, would benefit clients and couldwork with conservation officers and notagainst them.

To make it worthwhile the scope foradvice given would probably have toexpand beyond simply procurement.There will be a cost associated with theprovision of this advice and we suggestthat further investigation takes place intofunding models, including paid-for advicemodels.

We have suggested below a number ofways that such advice could bedisseminated.

− Advice on finding and choosingsuppliers via telephone possibly paid viapremium rate number

− Online advice on finding and choosingsuppliers possibly with a pay wall

− Advice via third parties, e.g. CitizensAdvice Bureau

24© CIfA and Loud Marketing Stage 1 Summary Report

Annex 1 – Summary report to Stage 1


Project name HEF CDTG market conditions for expert and specialistheritage skills and services 2015-16

EH ref 7163

CIfA ref P126

Title Stage 1 Summary Report

Product No. Product 1

Author Stephen O'Reilly07931 [email protected]

Derivation N/A

Origination date 31 August 2016

Reviser Peter Hinton, Stephen O’Reilly

Date of last revision 14 December 2016

Version 1.3

Status Published

Summary of changes Minor changes to text

Circulation Peter Hinton, Edmund Lee, David McDonald, Bob Hook

Required action N/A


ContentsPage

About this project 27

About this summary report 27

About the respondents and their organisations 27

Specialist heritage skills and services offered 28

Language – terms and phrases 29

Defining the client 29

The informed / uninformed client 30

The level of demand for specialist heritage skills and services 30

Linking members with clients 30

Linking clients with members 31

How do clients find suppliers? 32

The ease of this search for suppliers 33

Identifying appropriate suppliers – what do clients value most? 33

Accreditation in respondent sectors 34

Client perceptions of accreditation schemes 35

Competitive advantage and increased market access via accreditation 36

Appendix – Stage 1 discussion guide 37


About this project This is a qualitative research projectdesigned to establish robust and reliableinsight on present market conditions forspecialist heritage skills and services.

The hypothesis, developed by the HistoricEnvironment Forum (HEF) Client DemandTask Group (CDTG), is that there is a lackof informed demand for specialistheritage skills and services. For example,clients may not realise the breadth ofskills and services available, or where andhow to find them. They may notappreciate the importance of usingappropriately skilled suppliers or knowhow to identify such suppliers.

This research is intended to provide aclear perspective in place of the presentanecdotal information gathered from thesector. It is divided into three stages.Stage 1 involved a series of interviewswith professional, craft and trade bodiesrepresenting the supply side of theheritage skills landscape. Stage 2involved focus groups and depthinterviews with clients. Stage 3 maps thefirst two stages, draws them together,and suggests ways forward in the finalreport. The overall objective is to help ussuggest ways of communicating moreeffectively with clients to stimulatedemand for specialist heritage skills.

About this summary reportThis Stage 1 Summary Report isdesigned to give the project board anoverview of the results from the fieldworkcarried out with a range of bodies thatrepresent those supplying a variety ofspecialist heritage skills and services.

In total there were 38 respondents from27 organisations. If there is time we willadd AABC to this list (please see HighlightReport dated 31 August for details).

We looked at their “pull” strategies - todraw clients toward their members - andtheir “push” strategies - to ensure clientshear the message that members of theseorganisations are the right people andbusinesses to use. We also looked athow these organisations view clientbehaviour in choosing suppliers ofspecialist heritage skills and services -how clients go about finding suppliers,whether or not this is easy, how clientsidentify appropriate suppliers and whatthey value most when choosing a supplierand procuring their services.

Accreditation is a key theme and wediscussed with the respondents theschemes relevant to their members, theirview of client perceptions of theseschemes, and whether accreditationdelivers competitive advantage andincreased market access.

About the respondents and theirorganisations The 38 respondents included peopleworking in policy, public affairs, CPD,training, client services, projectmanagement, sales, marketing and insecretariat and head office functions.These included: two advisors, elevenmanagers, eight directors, six committeemembers or Chairs, nine Chief Executivesand two past Presidents.

The 27 organisations have over 350,000members. An individual or company maybe a member of two or more respondentorganisations, so there is someduplication between them. Not all workon older properties or in the heritagesector; this depends, to some extent, onhow you define “heritage”. However, mostprofessionals, trades and craftspeoplework on traditionally built buildings and onolder properties at least some of the time.In the case of builders, around half do so


on a regular basis, but this is perhapsbecause of the large stock of pre-1919buildings in the country, rather than theirpreference or specialist skill set. In thecase of craftspeople, most work on olderproperties because that is the nature oftheir work.


– Association of ProfessionalLandscapers

– British Association of LandscapeIndustries

– British Woodworking Federation– Chartered Institute for Archaeologists– Chartered Institute of ArchitecturalTechnologists

– Chartered Institute of Building – Chartered Institution of BuildingServices Engineers

– Conservation Accreditation Register ofEngineers

– Ecclesiastical Architects & SurveyorsAssociation

– Federation of Archaeological Managers& Employers

– Federation of Master Builders – Glass & Glazing Federation– Guild of Master Craftsmen– Heritage Crafts Association– Institute of Carpenters– Institution of Civil Engineering– Institute of Conservation – Institute of Historic BuildingConservation

– Landscape Institute– Lead Contractors’ Association– National Federation of RoofingContractors

– National Heritage Training Group– National Society of Master Thatchers– Royal Institute of British Architects – Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors– Royal Town Planning Institute – The Stone Federation

Specialist heritage skills and servicesoffered Not all members of respondentorganisations work on heritage projectsor older properties. Those that do offer arange of services primarily concernedwith the repair, maintenance andimprovement of these buildings and sites:in other words, not new-build projects.The list below is not exhaustive but givesan idea of the breadth of specialistheritage skills and services offered.

– Archaeology– Building contracting / construction – Building design (by architects,architectural technologists andtechnicians)

– Cabinetmaking– Carpentry– Civil engineering – Client advisor – Conservation architect services – Conservators– Consultancy– Dry stone walling services – Glazing – Joinery– Landscape architecture – Landscaping – Leadwork– Lecturers – Planning consultancy – Planning services – Project management – Roofing services – Services engineering – Stonemasonry– Structural engineering – Surveying– Trainers

In addition, a whole range of traditionalcraftspeople such as furniture restorers,blacksmiths, and specialists in archives,stained glass and sculpture arerepresented.


Language – terms and phrases Throughout this research project, in Stage 1 when we spoke to relevantbodies of those supplying specialistheritage skills and services and in Stage 2when we spoke to clients, the languageused in describing heritage skills wasrepeatedly raised as an issue. All thewords and phrases in this list appear tohave ambiguous, confusing or in someother way misunderstood meanings.

AccreditationAppropriate Architectural conservator Architectural designer Competent Conservation architect Garden designer Heritage Heritage consultant Heritage professional Heritage projectHeritage sector Historic environment Historic property Older property Traditionally built property


Defining the clientAnother term that perhaps needs definingat this early stage is “client”. Throughoutthis summary report, when we refer to the“client” we mean the person who ismaking the decisions that affect whoworks on the project.

That person or business may or may notpay the bill. For example, an architectmay be the client of a stonemason butthe homeowner pays the bill. In thisexample the homeowner could also bethe client of the stonemason. Onerespondent commented that “It gets a bitmurky sometimes”, regarding who is theclient.

Some respondents had a narrowerdefinition of “client” than others. Somedon’t know who their members’ clientsare and some don’t appear to see this asimportant.

We use the term in the widest sense. It’sabout who makes the decisions. Below isa short list of the types of individuals andorganisations we mean when we use theterm “client”:

ArchitectsCharities and TrustsChurches – including lay membersContractorsCustodians Domestic / private homeowners Government departments / agencies Heritage consultants House builders Housing associations Landowners Local authorities National heritage bodies Property developers / investors

The informed / uninformed client From our discussions with therespondents in Stage 1 of the research –the relevant bodies – the generalconsensus is that there is a lack ofinformed demand amongst clients.

However, it is more complex than a binarychoice between informed and uninformedlevels.


Some clients start out with littleinformation but build their knowledge andbecome informed and educated. Butsome respondents asked, “Are theyinformed in the right way?” Clients mayfeel they are well informed, but whenchallenged they cannot alwaysdemonstrate this.

We suggest breaking informed /uniformed into a more targeted list of fourclient knowledge levels based on theirappreciation for the heritage assets intheir care (including private homes), theirawareness and understanding ofresponsibilities, obligations, availability ofassistance, knowledge of specialist andso forth. The knowledge level would alsobe applied based on the client’s actions.

1. Educated client – acts appropriately.2. Informed client – may act appropriately. 3. Knowledgeable client – they are awarebut may not always act.


The level of demand for specialistheritage skills and services When asked if demand for these serviceswas increasing, decreasing or staying thesame, most respondents said there arepositive signs.

There is some evidence of increasingdemand and in some professions, tradesand crafts demand is mixed or steady. Noone said demand is falling. Onerespondent commented, “Demand isgood but the projects are not alwaysprofitable.” Profitability is often linked tothe size of the project. Many heritageprojects are relatively small for theconstruction industry, but the workneeded to start, manage and completethese projects can be disproportionate totheir size.

Demand is closely linked to constructionindustry growth, house prices andeconomic growth generally, and so iscyclical. Demand for some specialistheritage skills and services also appearsto spike when there is a major nationalproject, for example the Olympics in2012, Crossrail over the last few yearsand now HS2 and the Thames TidewayTunnel. Demand in London and the SouthEast is stronger than elsewhere in the UK.One respondent commented,“Competition is increasing, esp. fromEastern Europe, but there is no shortageof work.”

Some major heritage refurbishmentprojects that were on hold after the creditcrunch are now coming back on streamand even local authorities are findingsmall amounts of money for themaintenance and repair of heritageproperties in their care (listed and non-listed).

Linking members with clients While it is not always a prime objective forrespondent organisations to promotetheir members, many do have a memberlist, register or other directory available tothe public online. Some present this as a“find a…” service with some, generallylimited, functionality such as distance,specialism filters, etc.

A number of respondents were very keento point out that their online register wasnot the same as a “check-a-trade” styleservice. Their view was that theseservices are “paid-for” and inclusion is notdependent on demonstrable skills orcompetences, and that these commercialsupplier registers (managed by a privatebusiness rather than a representativebody) are not helpful in directing clients toappropriate suppliers.


Generally, a respondent’s website is themain platform used to link members with clients.

A number of respondents were critical oftheir own organisation’s website, with onecommenting “It is notoriously difficult tofind anything on our website”. Anothersaid “It’s not a friendly site if you’relooking for a supplier”.

One respondent said, “To actively marketto the client would cost of lot of money”,but they do try. They also reply on theirmembers to do their own promotionalwork, supported by the organisation withlogos, stationery, etc.

A number of respondents attend eventsto raise their own profile and that of theirmembers. Others use PR including theirown and other publications and otherprinted material, including direct mail.Examples of direct mail include factsheetsabout heritage projects, procurementguides and a client guide explaining thebenefits of choosing accredited people.

Social media is becoming increasinglyimportant. Most respondents are usingTwitter and/or Facebook to reach out toclients and other audiences beyond theirmembership.

Awards are an important platform. Mostrespondents have an annual awardsceremony and many of these have aheritage category. Two respondentscommented that new members havejoined their organisations simply to beable to submit their heritage project intothe relevant category of their annualawards. “It’s about teaching people aboutthe register and giving advice about howto choose the right supplier,” commentedone respondent.

Another way of “promoting” members isthrough chartered status. This “adds

kudos and differentiates members toclients”, commented another respondent. Partnering with other organisations, eitherco- or pan-professionally or across asector, is another way that a number ofrespondents promote their members.This is about “increasing our voice” saidone respondent.

Some respondents want the statutorybodies to engage with their organisationmore fully to ensure they use “competent”people, i.e. their members. Somestatutory bodies do work with somerespondent organisations but not others,and this apparent inconsistency frustratesrespondents.

One respondent commented that theyfollow “an holistic approach to promotingtheir profession” rather than promotingparticular members. A number ofrespondents also noted that it is better topromote positive messages aboutchoosing appropriate / accreditedsuppliers (better quality work, quicker,commercial and public benefit) ratherthan talking about compulsion or negative messages (what happens ifthings go wrong).

Linking clients with membersWhen asked how they link clients withmembers – a “pull” strategy rather than“push” – some respondents were notsure how to do this or whether it is part oftheir role. This is in part dependent ofwhether the respondents’ organisation isa professional body or a trade association– all but two respondents were one or theother. “(We) are bit inward looking”, saidone respondent.

However, one respondent organisationhas a client advisory service which aimsto link clients with members. Another has


online advice for clients with the objectiveof drawing them to their website and onto their directory. One respondentorganisation prints and sends out a copyof its member list to over 20,000architects and surveyors. Anotherrespondent noted “We don’t promote ourmembers with historic conservationknowledge to the local authoritydatabase, but we could”. Their reason fornot having done this yet was “resourcesand priorities”.

A number of respondents have heritagegroups or some other way of bringingtogether members that work in heritage,or have expressed an interest in the field.Some make this information publicallyavailable and potential clients can get intouch directly with the group or other body.

How do clients find suppliers?One respondent commented, “They (theclient) may not be aware that they needprofessionals with specialist conservationexperience”. Another said, “Clients oftendon’t know what they’ve got, so theydon’t know what type of help they need.”

Most respondents had the view that manyclients do not fully understand their ownneeds until there is a trigger. This could bean event, such as a leak or other propertydamage, or it could be a planningapplication condition. In these cases thesearch for a supplier of a specialistheritage skill or service is reactive.

“Assuming the client has common sensethey would look for a person orassociation to point them in the rightdirection. If they don’t have the commonsense they are at the mercy of cowboysand there isn’t much more we can do.”commented one respondent.

In other cases, a client may approach the

search for a supplier of a specialistheritage skill or service in a more proactiveway, but they may not fully understand thebreadth and depth of help available. Forexample, they wouldn’t be able to saywhat a heritage professional does.

Most clients search online. “If they areunder 35 they will almost certainly useGoogle as their first and possibly onlymethod of finding suppliers”, commentedone respondent. Some respondents areactive in SEO (search engineoptimisation), using website contentstrategies to make sure they appear highup on a Google search page. Some usepaid search advertising via Google tomaximise visibility on a search page.

The most powerful way clients findsuppliers is thought to be word of mouth –asking colleagues, friends, etc. forrecommendations or ideas. This appearsto be true of professional clients as well asdomestic. A number of respondents feltthat older clients are most likely to use thisroute and more likely to choose it first.

The consensus amongst respondents isthat clients (especially domestichomeowners) will “do some onlineresearch, call some people, look atprevious work and testimonials orreferences, and then make a decision”.This appears to be true for all clientknowledge levels, from educated to novice.

Some respondents felt that some clientsfind potential suppliers at shows andexhibitions, but these are more likely to beinformed or educated clients.

Some respondents have a technicalhelpline, through which they can suggestusing a member to help with their project.However this does not appear to be aproactive strategy, more a reaction to


specific requests.

A number of respondents believed that aclient would go to their architect, or otherprofessional advisor, for advice onsupplier choice, assuming (a) the client isengaging with professional advisors and(b) they have not delegated supplierchoice to that professional. Some clientslook at their contractor / builder as aprofessional advisor and will ask them foradvice regarding supplier choice.

Only two respondents felt that clientswould go to a “federation”.

The average owner is “naive to all thesespeciality trades he needs to use on hisbuilding”, commented one respondent.

Some local authorities have lists ofsuppliers and are willing to pass oncontact details and a number ofrespondents know that their membershave been “recommended” in this way.But most local authorities appear to beless interested or unable to provide lists.Respondents believe this is due to acombination of factors, includingreductions in staff and other resources,potential liability risk and restraint of tradeaccusations.

In the Church of England, some DiocesanAdvisory Councils have a list of approvedsuppliers and will share this informationwith parishes.

The ease of this search for suppliers Respondents had mixed opinions whenasked how easy it is for clients to findappropriate suppliers. Some thought it isvery easy, while one said it is “completelybaffling”. This could be because of thebroad nature of “specialist heritage skillsand services”. For example, is it easier tofind an archaeologist or a thatcher?

Despite these possible differences, most

respondents believe it to be confusing forclients to find suppliers, or as onerespondent put it, “It’s easy to find aperson, but not necessarily the rightperson”. Another respondent commentedthat clients have to “wade through” theinformation available, as there is “nodefinitive guidance”.

Most respondents felt that how easy it isto search for suppliers depends onclients’ understanding of their own needsand the help available from professions,trades and crafts. “It’s a wider problem,it’s about what people understand anarchitect or a builder does.” noted one respondent.

Identifying appropriate suppliers –what do clients value most? A number of respondents asked, “What is‘appropriate’?”We raised the issue ofterminology and consistent use oflanguage under Language – terms andphrases on page 29. Again, the wordsand phrases commonly used whendiscussing the themes in this researchproject are not always fully understood oraccepted.

For the purposes of this question, we use“appropriate” to describe a supplier withthe necessary experience and skills tocarry out a specialist heritage project in acompetent manner.

Assuming a need has been defined, mostrespondents agreed that before clientsmeet a prospective supplier, they aremost interested in:

1. Previous work2. Price3. Proximity4. Availability

Evidence of previous work on similarprojects and for similar clients is probably


the most important factor. This is aboutquality as well as reassurance. Someclients will want to visit a project or site,while others will be content with lookingat images and words, on a website forexample.

Price is always a factor. “Some clients arevery financially driven and developers andmain contractors are completelyfinancially driven.” noted one respondent.Another said, “There are clients who think ‘Why should I pay extra forsomeone on that register?’” becauseothers say they can do the work morecheaply. Many clients will try and get as much freeadvice as possible, usually from theInternet or from colleagues and friends.Other clients appreciate the extraexperience, knowledge and skill andtherefore expect better advice. Overall,respondents believe that with heritageprojects, price is not necessarily the most important factor when choosing a supplier.

Proximity / localism to the clientrepeatedly came up in respondentdiscussions for two reasons. Clients mayfind it reassuring to use a local supplierbecause of their “visibility” and becausethey will be more readily available. Otherclients value proximity as they link it tocost, i.e. suppliers travelling considerabledistances will be more expensive. In bothcases, decision-making may be affected ifthere is a lack of supplier choice in aclient’s local area.

Availability is critical to certain clients,according to a number of respondents,especially commercial clients such asdevelopers and contractors. Generally,clients want someone who can do thework to their timetable, often quickly.

Meeting suppliers is about reassurance.

Clients want to meet suppliers and get onwith them and “see the whites of theireyes”, to see if their approach meets theclient’s expectations. Another respondentdescribed it as “buying into people, notjust buying a product or service”.

Clients will often have a checklist ofadditional items including qualifications,memberships, accreditation, etc. Forcertain clients this is more important andin fact essential, for example to get on atender list. For other clients, these itemsare “nice to haves”, as one respondentput it. In order to encourage clients towant to choose suppliers who areaccredited (or registered / qualified /competent by some other measure) onerespondent suggested promoting theconcept of using “Suitably Qualified &Experienced Personnel”, as is commonpractice in highly regulated industries.

Accreditation in respondent sectorsThere are a number of differentaccreditation schemes in the specialistheritage skills and services landscape,and a number of other approval andregistration, membership and otherschemes that seek to differentiateindividuals and businesses.

Some are professional accreditationschemes, such as those run by the RIBA,AABC, CARE and RICS and soon to bejoined by CIOB. These, alongside IHBC,CIAT and ICON follow COTAC (Council onTraining in Architectural Conservation)principles and work together on theEdinburgh Group.

Others are vetting and rating schemessuch as the Association of LandscapeProfessionals and the Lead ContractorsAssociation (LCA). The former uses theGovernment’s Trustmark endorsementscheme. The LCA vets its members using


its own criteria and that of relevant BritishStandards. It visits all members annuallyto reassess their work and grades themaccordingly. Other “accreditation”schemes do not visually or physicallyassess members’ work.

One respondent organisation used tohave a “hallmark” scheme, but theassociated costs were deemed tooexpensive in the recession and thescheme was dropped. Another explainedthat their members don't feel they needto be accredited as “they are alreadyproviding that service”. Some specialistregisters may have few membersbecause the specialists already getenough work.

In architecture there are two competingaccreditation schemes plus an additionalone for architectural technicians /technologists. Surveyors can beaccredited through the RICS BuildingConservation Accreditation scheme. Theycan also be a CIOB member andaccredited by their new conservationaccreditation scheme. Surveyors can alsobecome IHBC members and beaccredited by that organisation too.

Some respondent organisations, such asthe Federation of Master Builders, theGuild of Master Thatchers and the StoneFederation, have membership criteria(evidence of H&S, financial, skills, training,complaint investigation, visiting sites toview their work, etc.) that are similar toother organisations’ accreditation criteria – but they do not call it anaccreditation scheme.

There is also some concern over the useof the word “accreditation” as this hasspecific meaning in the academic sphere,i.e. the accreditation of courses. Anumber of respondents suggested this

might lead to some confusion.

Client perceptions of accreditationschemes Almost all respondents agree thataccreditation in some form is a good thing.It is about demonstrating experience,competence, knowledge and skill. Onerespondent commented, “Clients appear tobe far more educated than before”.

However, the majority of respondents alsofeel that “Clients are generally and genuinelyconfused”. Domestic clients don’t reallyunderstand the accreditation and somecommercial clients “make contractors ‘tickthe boxes’, but that doesn’t mean theythink much of the accreditation schemes.”The accreditation schemes are not all thesame and some respondents feel this ispart of the problem.

There appears to be a danger of usingjargon, as if everyone knows what “we” aretalking about. Another respondent felt that“There is cynicism about these schemes. Isan organisation with an accreditationscheme promoting best practice or justtheir members?”

A number of respondents raised theprospect of compulsion, whereby clientshave to use accredited suppliers. Other fearthis could lead to high prices.

Competitive advantage andincreased market access viaaccreditationThis is not the primary reason manyrespondent members become accredited.Some are simply enthusiastic andpassionate about conservation. Otherswant to be seen as a specialist and forother it is about personal professionaldevelopment. In this sense a professional(or business) becomes accredited out ofself-interest. They like to “test themselves


and feel confident they are at the top oftheir game” as one respondent put it. Forothers, however, it is about differentiationand business generation.

Some respondents see no link betweenaccreditation and an increase in businessfor their members. One commented,“They seem to be getting enough workwithout accreditation”.

But most respondents do see anadvantage, but only if the client is aware ofthe accreditation and thinks it important.On the one hand, from a memberviewpoint, accreditation schemes are agood idea because they differentiate andprovide a competitive advantage.However, at the client end there is afeeling that there may be too manyschemes and there is confusion andperhaps some cynicism.


IntroductionThis discussion guide contains a list of topics that will be covered by the moderator anddiscussed with the participants during the face-to-face and telephone in-depth interviews.

All interviews will use the same guide, covering the same topics. They will be presented ina general format, using open / probing questions for each. This allows us to makecomparisons between the responses.

The guide also introduces the research and reassures respondents about confidentialityand anonymity. However, we will avoid spending too much time on backgroundinformation and concentrate on the issues that you wish to cover.

Section 1 – Opening the discussion[Duration: 5 minutes]

Moderator notes: Open the interview with a personal introduction.

Explain the purpose of the discussion in very general terms:

Good afternoon, my name is X and I am moderating this research on behalf ofHistoric England. The research looks into the market conditions for specialist heritageskills and services.

Additional moderator notes: Indicate the length of the discussion – one and a half hours maximum.

Reassure respondents about confidentiality, privacy and anonymity.

Mention that the discussion will be recorded.

Explain in more depth the research project:

This is a qualitative research project designed to establish robust and reliable insighton present market conditions for specialist heritage skills and services. The hypothesisis that there is a lack of informed demand for specialist heritage skills and services.For example, clients may not realise the breadth of skills and services available, orwhere and how to find them. They may not appreciate the importance of usingappropriately skilled suppliers or how to identify such suppliers. It is intended toprovide a clear perspective in place of the present anecdotal information gatheredfrom the sector and from owners. It will be divided into two stages. The first stage willtake the form of a series of interviews with professional, craft and trade bodiesrepresenting the supply side of the heritage skills landscape. In the second stage wewill speak with clients.

Section 2 – About the respondents [Duration: 10 minutes]

Q1. Ask the respondent(s) to introduce themselves and mention their role.

Q2. Ask for a very brief “about your organisation”.

Appendix Stage 1 discussion guide


Q3. What specialist heritage skills and services do your members provide?

Q4. Who are their clients?

Q5. Do you feel demand is increasing, reducing or staying the same, for these skills andservices?

Section 3 – Current actions to meet demand for skilled heritage practitioners[Duration: 15 minutes]

Q6. How does your organisation promote members with specialist heritage skills andservices?

Q7. How do you help clients find suitable members?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for push [Q6] and pull [Q7] activities and programmes alongside moregeneral insight into the organisational priority attached to heritage.

Section 4 – The current nature of market demand for specialist heritage skillsand services[Duration: 20 minutes]

Introduction to this section: We want to know what you think about the nature of market demand for specialistheritage skills and services in general.

Q8. How do you think clients go about finding a supplier of specialist heritage skills andservices?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for knowledge of sources of information, etc.

Q9. How easy do you think it is for clients to find this kind of suppliers?

Q10. How do you think clients identify appropriate suppliers?

Q11. What do your members’ clients value most when procuring services?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for respondents’ understanding of “appropriate” in Q10 and theirreasoning behind the answers to Q11.

Section 5 – Accreditation [Duration: 20 minutes]

Introduction to this section: We now want to move on to talk about accreditation, gathering insight from your ownpoint of view and that of your organisation.

Q12. What accreditation schemes apply to your members providing specialist heritageskills and services?


Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for knowledge of third party accreditation schemes, if they exist.

Q13. What do you think are clients’ perceptions of such systems and frameworks?

Moderator notes: Assuming the organisation has an accreditation scheme or their members join a thirdparty scheme move on to Q14 and Q15.

Q14. Do accredited members have a commercial advantage over those who are notaccredited?

Q15. Do you think accreditation increase member’s access to the market?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for reasoning for answers to Q14 and Q15

Summing up and close [Duration: 5 minutes]

Moderator notes: Ask the respondents for their impression of the discussion.Ask if there are any further comments they wish to make. Offer contact details. Thank the respondents for their time.


Annex 2 – Summary report to Stage 2


Project name HEF CDTG market conditions for expert and specialistheritage skills and services 2015-16

EH ref 7163

CIfA ref P126

Title Stage 2 Summary Report

Product No. Product 2

Author Stephen O'Reilly07931 [email protected]

Derivation N/A

Origination date 31 August 2016

Reviser Peter Hinton, Stephen O’Reilly

Date of last revision 14 December 2016

Version 1.3

Status Published

Summary of changes Minor changes to text

Circulation Peter Hinton, Edmund Lee, David McDonald, Bob Hook

Required action N/A


ContentsPage

About this project 43

About this summary report 43

Recruiting the respondents 43

Sources of contact data for recruitment 44

About the respondents 44

Specialist heritage skills and services commissioned by respondents 45

Language – terms and phrases 45

Defining the client 46

The informed / uninformed client 46

Respondent understanding of their responsibilities to heritage 47

Respondent awareness of the need for help from specialist suppliers 47

How do you go about finding a specialist supplier? 47

How easy do you think it is to find a supplier? 48

Identifying appropriate suppliers – what do clients value most? 48

Defining “specialist” and “heritage” 49

How easy do you think it is to choose a supplier? 49

Which specialist heritage accreditation schemes are you aware of? 49

Do you consider accreditation when choosing specialist suppliers? 49

How easy do you think it is to find accredited suppliers? 49

Appendix – Stage 2 discussion guide 50


About this projectThis is a qualitative research projectdesigned to establish robust and reliableinsight on present market conditions forspecialist heritage skills and services.

The hypothesis, developed by the HistoricEnvironment Forum Client Demand TaskGroup, is that there is a lack of informeddemand for specialist heritage skills andservices. For example, clients may notrealise the breadth of skills and servicesavailable, or where and how to find them.They may not appreciate the importanceof using appropriately skilled suppliers orknow how to identify such suppliers.

This research is intended to provide aclear perspective in place of the presentanecdotal information gathered from thesector. It is divided into three stages.Stage 1 involved a series of interviewswith professional, craft and trade bodiesrepresenting the supply side of theheritage skills landscape. Stage 2involved focus groups and depthinterviews with clients. Stage 3 maps thefirst two stages, draws them together,and suggests ways forward in the finalreport. The overall objective is to help ussuggest ways of communicating moreeffectively with clients to stimulatedemand for specialist heritage skills.

About this summary reportThis report is not a Highlight Report,because it gives much more detail than abrief informative statement of progress. AHighlight Report is being issued at thesame time as this report. This is also notthe end-of-project report. That will beissued at the end of October. This Stage2 Summary Report is designed to givethe project board an overview of theresults from the fieldwork carried out witha range of clients for specialist heritageskills and services.

In total there were 39 respondents from30 organisations plus six privateindividuals.

We discussed the specialist heritage skillsand services they use, if they understandthe need for specialists, and theirresponsibilities and obligations regardingheritage projects.

We looked at how respondents go aboutfinding suppliers of specialist heritageskills and services, how they identifyappropriate suppliers and what they valuemost when choosing a supplier andprocuring their services.

Accreditation is a key theme and weasked respondents which schemes theywere aware of, if accreditation is animportant deciding factor when choosingsuppliers and if it’s easy to find accreditedsuppliers.

Recruiting the respondents The recruitment strategy for Stage 2 wasto secure a mix of people in each groupand to ensure that the “less well-informed” were recruited whereapplicable. For example, whenresearching which contractors,developers or consultants to add to thepotential respondent lists, we made surenot to include too many “specialists” whoworked solely on heritage projects.

We also made sure the respondents wereinvolved in a range of projects from verylarge-scale projects involving masterplans, through to new builds and RMI(refurbishment, maintenance andimprovement). Landscapes and interiorswere also included to balance the projecttypologies. Where building projects areconcerned, we specifically made clear theproperties did not have to be listed. Theysimply had to have some historic,architectural or cultural value.


With the local government group weconcentrated on Dorset, as this is a ruralcounty where there are multiple layers oflocal government including county,district, borough and town councils. Werecruited conservation officers as theycould give a dual view – client andsupplier. We were not able to recruit localgovernment property or estatesrepresentatives, as no one was availableor willing to participate within thetimeframe.

The group representing large propertyowners in the public or third sectorscomprised senior respondents from arange of well-known organisations.

Recruitment for the final group, largeproperty owners in the private sector, wasa challenge simply because of the targetrespondents’ availability and willingnessto participate. We decided to break thisgroup up and carry out three face-to-face, one-to-one in-depth interviews inorder to capture what insights we couldwithin the timetable.

Sources of contact data forrecruitmentWe used a number of sources of contactdata. As well as our own research,resources and personal network, wereceived valuable assistance from:

– Desk research by Loud Marketing – Personal networks of the LoudMarketing team

– The Client Demand Task Groupmembers

– The Federation of Master Builders e-newsletter promoting the research

– The British Property Federation e-newsletter promoting the research

– MSMR Architects – Dorset County Council – Historic England

About the respondents The 41 respondents included employeesand business owners from 30organisations working in heritage,planning, conservation, construction,property development, propertyinvestment, surveying, legal services,property management and variousadvisory roles. The respondent set alsoincluded six private individuals.

Respondents included: one architect, onesolicitor, three advisors, three officers, sixmanagers, two surveyors, two partners,one principal, eight directors, four MDs,one chairman and one senior volunteer.

The respondents were involved in a widerange of project typologies from verylarge-scale projects that involved masterplans and new build developments thatinvolved a heritage element such asarchaeology, through to listed buildingrefurbishments and smaller-scale RMIand conservation work.

The private individuals had five propertiesbetween them:

1. Georgian town house in a northLondon conservation area

2. Grade II listed Georgian town house inHenley-on-Thames

3. 400-year-old farm on the outskirts ofCanterbury

4. Grade II listed house on the outskirts of Bath

5. Grade II listed house on the outskirts of Bath with Grade I elements


Alan Baxter Associates Arque ConstructionBovey ConstructionCadogan EstateCanal & River TrustChester Row


Christchurch & East Dorset DistrictCouncil City DesignerCrown EstateDAC BeachcroftDavid Lock Associates Donald Insall Associates Dorset County CouncilGerald Eve Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Historic Houses AssociationHistoric Royal Palaces JLLJohnson & MatherLendLeaseMSMR ArchitectsNational TrustNLP Planning Senior North Dorset District Council NorthbeachRM ConstructionThe Church of EnglandU+I

Specialist heritage skills and servicescommissioned by respondentsArchitectural services, including buildingdesign and client advisory / consultancyservices, are the most common servicesused by respondents, alongsidecontractors (referred to as main contractoror builder depending on the client).Contractors may or may not be specialists.

The complete list of specialist heritageskills and services mentioned by clients:

ArchaeologyArchitectureAsbestos removal specialistsBronzeworkersBuilding surveying Clock restorer Cobb building specialists Conservation architect servicesConservators Contractors

Environmental impact assessorsExpert witnessesGarden designersGarden restoration Glazing restorationHeritage consultantsLandscape architects Landscape contractors Landscape designersLeaded glazing LeadworkLime mortar analysis Lime plasterers Metal conservatorsMetal window repairers Paint analysts Planning consultants Project managers Quantity surveyingSpecialist surveyorsStonemasons Structural engineers Technicians Timber decay / preservation contractors

Language – terms and phrasesThroughout this research project, in Stage1 when we spoke to relevant bodies ofthose supplying specialist heritage skillsand services and in Stage 2 where wespoke to clients, the language used indescribing heritage skills was repeatedlyraised as an issue. All the words andphrases in this list appear to haveambiguous, confusing or in some otherway misunderstood meanings.

AccreditationAppropriate Architectural conservator Architectural designer Competent Conservation architect Garden designer Heritage Heritage consultant


Heritage professional Heritage projectHeritage sector Historic environment Historic property Older property Traditionally built property


Defining the clientWe included this section in the summaryreport to Stage 1, but it is just as relevanthere. Throughout this summary report,when we refer to the “client” we mean theperson who is making the decisions thataffect who works on the project.

Sometimes this is a straightforwardrelationship. A homeowner engages theservices of a thatcher and pays them fortheir work. In other examples, there maybe a chain of suppliers from architect tomain contractor to sub-contractors tospecialists. In other, usually more complexlarger projects, a client may engagedirectly with a team and be more active inproject management. This team couldinclude architect, planning consultant,heritage consultant and in some casesmain contractor.

So, the client/supplier landscape is notfixed, may be complex and may differdepending on who the ultimate client is,who is paying for the work to be done,the size of the project and if there are anyother external factors at play, for exampleplanning applications, grant funding, etc.

We use the term client in this wide sense.It’s about who makes the decisions.Below is a short list of the types ofindividuals and organisations we meanwhen we use the term “client”:

ArchitectsCharities and TrustsChurches – including lay membersContractorsCustodians Domestic / private homeowners Government departments / agencies Heritage consultants House builders Housing associations Landowners Local authorities National heritage bodies Property developers / investors

The informed / uninformed client From our discussions with respondentsfrom bodies representing suppliers ofspecialist heritage skills and services inStage 1 of this research and with clientrespondents in this stage, the generalconsensus is that there is a lack ofinformed demand amongst clients.

As noted in the summary report to Stage1, whether a client is informed oruninformed is more complex than abinary choice between those two terms.

We suggest breaking informed /uniformed into a more targeted list of fourclient knowledge levels based on theirappreciation for the heritage assets intheir care (including private homes), theirawareness and understanding ofresponsibilities, obligations, availability ofassistance, knowledge of specialist andso forth. The knowledge level would alsobe applied based on the client’s actions.

1. Educated client – acts appropriately.2. Informed client – may act appropriately.


3. Knowledgeable client – they are awarebut may not always act.


Respondent understanding of theirresponsibilities to heritage All respondents felt a responsibility towardolder properties, including listed buildingsand other heritage assets. They alsounderstood their obligations toward thesebuildings. This does vary and somerespondents have personal experience ofprivate clients who “have no idea whatthey have bought”. Other respondentshave personal experience of developers and investors who “simplydon’t care” about their responsibilities andfor whom cost and profit are always moreimportant.

Some respondents, including thoserepresenting owners of large properties inthe commercial, public and third sectors,see themselves as custodians of suchbuildings. The theme of passing on to thenext generation – of the public at large orof shareholders – is strong.

Similarly, private owners feel that sense ofhistory and of responsibility. Some privateowners realise they have responsibilitiesand obligations but they are reticent toask for help. This may be because of theperceived cost of using professionaladvisors. Or it may be because there is aview that asking for help from the localconservation officer – still offered free ofcharge – will “Open Pandora’s box”. Insome cases private owners fear they willbe forced to carry out work to rectifymistakes made perhaps decades ago, byprevious generations.

Contractors and developers are alsoaware of their responsibilities andobligations. They are concerned primarily

with reputation. They can gain a goodreputation by treating older propertiesappropriately and sympathetically.Conversely there is a risk of reputationaldamage if they do not do so.

As main contractors and developers putwork out to sub-contractors andspecialists on a regular basis, they areaware that the work of these supplierscould reflect on their own businesses.Because of this they are conscious thattheir sub-contractors and suppliers alsounderstand the responsibilities andobligations that come with heritageprojects.

Respondent awareness of the needfor help from specialist suppliers All respondents indicated that they areaware of the need to use suppliers ofspecialist heritage skills and services,“where necessary”. That last phraseindicates that a value judgement is madeover the use, or not, of a specialist. Also,not all respondents are completely clearon what their needs are regardingspecialist heritage skills and services. Thismay be because the project is particularlychallenging or it may be because theyhave not worked with a particular material or trade before. This isparticularly true of private homeowners,but also true of smaller developers andcontractors and others who come upagainst something unusual. In thesecircumstances, larger clients are likely toengage the services of a professionalsuch as an architect, surveyor or heritageconsultant. Smaller clients may take theadvice of their contractor.

How do you go about finding aspecialist supplier? Asking trusted contacts for arecommendation is the main way most


respondents find suppliers. This couldinclude asking friends, family, colleagues,peers and in some cases competitors.Recommendations are seen as anunbiased tool. It is worth noting, however,that two respondents said that if theywere asked for a recommendation theywould not necessarily give the contactdetails of their “best supplier” in that field.They fear that if they did they might losethat supplier. Most respondents believethat suppliers of specialist heritage skillsand services, certainly the good ones, arebusy all the time and this adds to thesense of competitiveness.

If there are no recommendations thenmost respondents would search forsuppliers online, or many said they would“Google”. But, some respondents arereluctant to do this as they feel, “There isa load of rubbish out there” and it mightbe waste of time.

Contractor respondents noted that theyare often given a named or nominatedsub-contractor by an architect or otherprofessional. They are expected to usethis supplier and would almost always doso unless they had very strong negativefeelings toward that particular supplier.

How easy do you think it is to find asupplier? As one respondent put it, “It’s easy if youknow what you’re doing”. As mentionedabove, it is also seen as time consumingby a number of respondents and this isone reason why they tend to be loyal totheir chosen suppliers.

Identifying appropriate suppliers –what do clients value most? Cost is a major factor across allrespondent groups when choosingsuppliers. However, it is generally seen asimportant but not the most important

factor. Cost cannot be dismissed, but itcan be overcome if the other criteria are met.

Seeing examples of previous work ispossibly the most important factor. It wasmentioned by all respondents and wouldideally be done in person, so the clientcould visually inspect the work to see thatit was done to a satisfactory standard. Ifthis is not possible, then looking atexamples of previous work online or onpaper is sufficient. The client would wantto know details of project location, cost,the client and any other usefulinformation.

One advantage of visiting previousprojects is that the client would meet thespecialist face-to-face. This is veryimportant to many clients, especiallyprivate owners. They want to find out, “Ifthe supplier has the same approach andmind set”.

Measuring competence is important andmost respondents believe the best way todo this is to ask for a recommendationfrom a trusted contact. So,recommendations are as important whenchoosing a supplier as they are whenfinding a supplier.

Other ways of measuring competence areto see a reference from previous clients(not known to the respondent) and to findout if the supplier is a member of arelevant professional or trade body.

A small number of commercialrespondents carry out due diligence onnew suppliers, including those who offerspecialist heritage skills and services.Membership of a relevant body,accreditations, qualifications, proof ofsolvency, insurances, health and safetycompetence, and the training of staffwould be included in this process. But, it


is worth noting that other respondents,smaller businesses, consultants andprivate homeowners said that they do nothave time to carry out this type of duediligence, although they see its value.Contractor respondents agreed that it isimportant but that the lengths you wouldgo to check competence are oftencorrelated with the value of the project orthe contract. It is seen as time consumingand, “Not always cost-effective”.

This is where recommendation plays animportant role, as if you have one you, “Donot need to double-check everything”.

Another important factor when choosinga specialist supplier is whether they can fitin with the client’s timeframe. This can bea deciding factor for some clients,including contractors and developers.Others that are able to take a long-termview will plan in major projects perhapsyears in advance and make sure theirsupply chain is aware. They are then ableto plan and ensure they are available todo the work. For many smaller projects,that long-term planning is simplyimpossible and so supplier availabilitybecomes critical.

Defining “specialist” and “heritage”Throughout this research project,phraseology and use of language hasrepeatedly been raised as an issue. Aswell as including a list of often-misunderstood words and terms (seepage 45), we also asked clientrespondents what they thought twowords meant: “specialist” and “heritage”.

Specialist− “Best”− “Complex”− “Expensive”

Heritage − “Old”

− “Architectural value” − “Importance”− “History” − “Expensive”− “Slower”

How easy do you think it is to choosea supplier?Most respondents emphasised theimportance of recommendations whenfinding and choosing suppliers ofspecialist heritage skills and services. Itappears that if you can obtain arecommendation, then the process iseasy. But without a recommendation, theprocess can be time consuming andcomplex.

Which specialist heritage accreditationschemes are you aware of? Respondents were well aware of anumber of accreditation (or similar)schemes including:

“RIBA”“Master builder” “Master thatcher”“CIOB”“Master joiner”

Do you consider accreditation whenchoosing specialist suppliers? As noted previously, the main criteria forchoosing a specialist supplier are cost,seeing examples of previous work,availability and measuring competence.

Being accredited in some way issomething that a client looks at and looksfor, but it is not the most important or adeciding factor.

How easy do you think it is to findaccredited suppliers? For the respondents who look foraccreditation, it appears to be relativelyeasy to find suitably accredited suppliers.


Section 1 – Opening the discussion[Duration: 5 minutes]

Moderator notes: Open the interview with a personal introduction. Explain the purpose of the discussion in very general terms:

Good afternoon, my name is X and I am moderating this research on behalf of HistoricEngland. The research looks into the market conditions for specialist heritage skills and services.

Additional moderator notes: Indicate the length of the discussion – one and a half hours maximum. Reassure respondents about confidentiality, privacy and anonymity. Mention that the discussion will be recorded. Explain in more depth the research project:

This is a qualitative research project designed to establish robust and reliable insight onpresent market conditions for specialist heritage skills and services.

The hypothesis is that clients could be better informed about the availability of differenttypes of specialist heritage skills and services and that there is an opportunity to explainclearly the options available and how to find them. This research is intended to providea clear perspective in place of the present anecdotal information gathered from thesector and from owners. It will be divided into two stages. The first stage took the formof a series of interviews with professional, craft and trade bodies representing thesupply side of the heritage skills landscape. In the second stage we are speaking with clients

This research will help us suggest ways of stimulating demand for specialist heritage skills.

Section 2 – About the respondents [Duration: 10 minutes]

Q1. Ask the respondent(s) to introduce themselves and mention their role.

Q2. Ask for a very brief “about your organisation” [if applicable].

Q3. What specialist heritage skills and services do you / could you commission?

Moderator notes: In Q3 respondents may not have commissioned any work at this point but may need todo so in the future and therefore their insight is still valuable. Compare with Q3 in Stage 1.

Q4. What do you feel are your [organisation’s] obligations or responsibilities to heritage[as the owner of / manager of X]?

Moderator notes: In Q4 we are looking for a top line answer, not a major discussion. This question isdesigned to seed the idea of obligation and responsibility in the minds of therespondents.

Appendix Stage 2 discussion guide


Section 3 – Finding a supplier of specialist heritage skills and services[Duration: 20 minutes]

Introduction to this section: We want to know how you would go about finding a supplier.

Q5. Are you aware that you need the help of suppliers with specialist heritage skills?

Moderator notes: In Q5 neutrally probe to see if respondents understand their own needs.

Q6. How do you / would you go about finding a supplier?

Moderator notes: In Q6 neutrally probe for sources of information, etc.

Q7. How easy do you think it would be to find a supplier?

Section 4 – Choosing a supplier of specialist heritage skills and services[Duration: 20 minutes]

Introduction to this section: We want to know how you go about or would go about choosing between suppliers.

Q8. How would you go about choosing a supplier?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for criteria, etc.

Q9. What are your principal objectives / concerns when choosing a supplier?

Q10. What do you value most in a supplier?

Q11. How would you define: “expert”; “specialist”; heritage skills”.

Q12. How easy do you think it would be to choose a supplier of specialist heritage skillsand services?

Section 5 – Accreditation [Duration: 20 minutes]

Introduction to this section: We now want to move on to talk about accreditation of suppliers of specialist heritageskills and services.

Q13. Which specialist heritage skills and services accreditation schemes are you awareof?

Moderator notes: Prompt with names / stimulus if necessary


Q14. To what extent do you consider accreditation when choosing a supplier ofspecialist heritage skills and services?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, barriers, etc.

Q15. Do you consider using self-regulated (or non-accredited) suppliers?

Moderator notes: Neutrally probe for reasoning for answers to Q14

Q16. How easy is it / would it be to find accredited suppliers?

Summing up and close [Duration: 5 minutes]

Moderator notes: Ask the respondents for their impression of the discussion.Ask if there are any further comments they wish to make. Offer contact details. Thank the respondents for their time.

Documents

Market conditions for expert and specialist heritage ... · This report was funded by Historic England’s Heritage Protection Commissions programme, through a grant awarded to the