Modernise or Die: Unpacking the Enduring Legacy of the Farmer Review

Remember 2016? It feels like a lifetime ago, doesn’t it? The UK construction industry, however, can’t easily forget that year, especially with the release of Mark Farmer’s seismic report, ‘Modernise or Die.’ Farmer, a seasoned industry expert with years spent on the ground and in the boardroom, didn’t just write a report; he delivered a stinging indictment, a wake-up call so loud it rattled foundations across the nation.

His comprehensive review of the UK’s construction labour model wasn’t just another dry government paper, not by a long shot. It painted a stark, almost brutal, picture of an industry grappling with stagnation, crippling inefficiency, and a stubborn reluctance to change. You know, the kind of situation where everyone sees the problems, but no one quite wants to be the one to shout about them. Farmer, bless him, had no such compunctions. He identified several pressing issues, each a gaping wound slowing the industry’s progress, really holding us back from what we could be.

Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.

The Cracks in the Foundation: Farmer’s Key Findings Explored

The report’s core message wasn’t subtle, and its findings resonated deeply because, frankly, many of us working in construction felt them every single day. Let’s delve a bit deeper into what Farmer really unearthed.

A Productivity Puzzle We Couldn’t Solve

First up, and arguably the most damning finding, was low productivity. The construction sector’s output per worker was alarmingly, embarrassingly low, trailing behind almost every other major industry in the UK. This wasn’t just an academic metric; it was a tangible barrier, hindering our collective ability to meet the nation’s ever-growing infrastructure and housing demands. Think about it: how can we build hundreds of thousands of homes, or deliver vital transport links, when we’re effectively operating with one hand tied behind our backs? It meant projects ran over schedule, budgets ballooned, and the overall economic contribution of the sector just wasn’t where it ought to be. We were working hard, sure, but not always smart. It was almost as if we were stuck in a time warp, building things much the same way our grandparents did, while other sectors embraced automation and digital workflows. That simply wasn’t sustainable.

The Looming Skills Chasm

Then there was the lack of skilled workers, a problem that felt less like a looming threat and more like an immediate crisis on many sites. A significant, persistent shortage of skilled labourers threatened the industry’s capacity to deliver projects on time, to standard, and most importantly, safely. It wasn’t just about a lack of numbers; it was about an ageing workforce, with experienced hands retiring faster than new talent could be trained or attracted. Apprenticeship schemes, while valuable, weren’t scaling fast enough. Plus, the skills required were evolving. We needed digital skills, off-site manufacturing expertise, and a deeper understanding of sustainable practices, but the pipeline simply wasn’t delivering. How can you expect to build smart cities when you can’t even find enough bricklayers, electricians, or project managers with modern capabilities? It felt, for many, like we were heading for a demographic cliff edge, and no one quite knew how to hit the brakes.

A Drought of Innovation: Minimal Research and Development

Moving on, Farmer highlighted the industry’s bafflingly minimal investment in Research and Development. Virtually nonexistent, he declared. This was, perhaps, one of the most disheartening observations. While sectors like automotive, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals were pouring billions into innovation, pushing boundaries with cutting-edge materials and revolutionary processes, construction seemed content to cling to its trusty trowel and spirit level. This stifled innovation, sure, but it also meant a critical failure to adopt new technologies. Digital tools like Building Information Modelling (BIM) were gaining traction, but not at the pace required. Robotics, automation, advanced materials – these were buzzwords in other industries, but often met with a shrug and a ‘we’ve always done it this way’ attitude in construction. Without R&D, how could we ever truly ‘modernise’ or compete on a global stage? It seemed we were missing the forest for the trees, focusing on individual project delivery without investing in the future of the entire industry.

The Fragmented Web of the Supply Chain

Finally, Farmer dissected the fragmented supply chain, a characteristic of construction that has long been both its strength and its Achilles’ heel. The industry’s supply chain was disjointed, a chaotic tangle of main contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, and suppliers, often brought together for a single project with little prior relationship or trust. This led to pervasive inefficiencies, including duplicated efforts, poor communication, a ‘blame game’ culture when things went wrong, and, inevitably, increased costs. Imagine trying to build a complex machine where each part is designed by a different team, ordered from a different supplier, and assembled by yet another, with minimal oversight or shared vision. That was, and in some areas still is, the reality for many construction projects. The adversarial nature of traditional contracting, where risk is pushed down the chain, didn’t exactly foster collaboration, did it? It often felt like everyone was looking out for number one, rather than working towards a common, collective goal.

A Blueprint for Change: Farmer’s Ten Recommendations Unpacked

To address these deep-seated challenges, Mark Farmer didn’t just point out the problems; he offered a clear, actionable roadmap for reform. His ten strategic recommendations were not revolutionary in isolation, but together, they formed a powerful, interconnected vision for a more efficient, resilient, and attractive construction sector. Let’s dig into each one, because understanding these isn’t just about history, it’s about the future of our industry.

1. Reforming the Construction Leadership Council (CLC)

Farmer recommended enhancing the Construction Leadership Council’s (CLC) role, pushing for it to better represent the industry’s incredibly diverse stakeholders. Prior to Farmer’s intervention, the CLC, whilst existing, often struggled for clear authority and a unified voice. It often felt, you might say, a bit too much like a talking shop, rather than a driving force for change. Farmer envisioned a CLC with real teeth, a body that could genuinely steer policy, foster collaboration, and articulate a clear strategy for the entire sector, from large main contractors down to the smallest specialist sub-contractors and consultants. He wanted it to be the strategic nerve centre, driving the agenda, holding stakeholders accountable, and providing a cohesive vision for the future. You can’t lead effectively if you’re not representative, can you?

2. Overhauling the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)

Next, a significant recommendation was to overhaul the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), aiming to improve its training effectiveness and efficiency. The CITB, funded by a levy on construction companies, had long been criticised for its bureaucracy, for not always providing training that was truly relevant to modern industry needs, and for its perceived disconnect from the day-to-day realities on site. Farmer argued for a radical revamp, ensuring that the substantial funds collected actually translated into high-quality, targeted training that equipped individuals with the skills the industry desperately needed, especially in areas like digital construction and off-site manufacturing. It wasn’t about scrapping it, but about making it work, really work, for the industry it served. Frankly, a lot of us felt our levy payments weren’t always delivering tangible benefits, and Farmer shone a light on that.

3. Fostering Collaboration Across the Supply Chain

Perhaps one of the most critical cultural shifts Farmer called for was to foster greater collaboration across the supply chain. As we discussed, the industry’s traditional adversarial nature, often driven by lowest-price procurement and a fear of risk, led to inefficiencies and disputes. Farmer argued for moving beyond this, encouraging greater cooperation among clients, consultants, main contractors, and sub-contractors. This would involve shared risks and rewards, early contractor involvement in design, and a move towards more integrated project delivery models. Imagine a world where everyone on a project is genuinely pulling in the same direction, sharing information openly, and solving problems together rather than pointing fingers. It sounds utopian, doesn’t it, but it’s essential for achieving true efficiency.

4. Promoting Off-Site Construction Techniques

This was a big one: promoting off-site construction techniques. Farmer saw modular construction, prefabrication, and Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) as key levers to pull the industry out of its low-productivity rut. By manufacturing components in controlled factory environments, we could achieve superior quality, reduce waste, improve health and safety conditions, and dramatically accelerate project timelines. Think about it, producing modules indoors, protected from the unpredictable British weather, with assembly-line precision. This isn’t just about building faster; it’s about building better, with consistent quality that’s hard to achieve on a muddy, open site. He wasn’t talking about low-quality prefabs of yesteryear, but advanced, high-tech manufacturing.

5. Aligning Training with Industry Needs

Farmer’s fifth recommendation reiterated the need to align training programs more closely with future industry demands. This wasn’t just about filling current vacancies; it was about anticipating the skills needed for a digitised, sustainable, and modern construction sector. It meant shifting focus from traditional, often repetitive tasks, to digital competencies, skills for off-site manufacturing, data analysis, and green construction techniques. Education providers, from colleges to universities, needed to work hand-in-glove with employers to ensure graduates and apprentices emerged with practical, relevant skills that were immediately valuable. It’s no good teaching someone how to use a plumb bob if what the industry really needs is someone proficient in BIM software, is it?

6. Enhancing the Industry’s Public Image

A perennial challenge for construction has been its public perception, which Farmer addressed by recommending initiatives to enhance the industry’s public image. For too long, construction has been viewed as a ‘dirty, dangerous, and difficult’ sector, unattractive to young talent, particularly women and those from diverse backgrounds. Farmer argued for a concerted effort to showcase the industry’s potential: its innovation, its technological advancements, its role in creating communities, and its increasingly diverse and rewarding career opportunities. We needed to highlight the cool tech, the sophisticated engineering, the massive impact we have on people’s lives. It was about making construction an aspirational choice, not a last resort.

7. Implementing Government Interventions

Farmer called for government interventions to streamline planning processes and reform tax systems to support industry growth. Government, as a major client and regulator, has immense power to shape the market. By simplifying notoriously complex and slow planning applications, or by offering targeted tax incentives for adopting modern methods of construction or investing in R&D, the government could create an environment where modernisation wasn’t just encouraged, but actively incentivised. Procurement policies, too, could favour companies demonstrating innovation and sustainable practices, using the power of public spending to drive change. It’s about setting the stage, really, for the industry to perform at its best.

8. Encouraging Prefabrication

While overlapping with off-site construction, this recommendation specifically focused on providing incentives for the adoption of prefabricated components. This wasn’t just about general promotion, but about concrete actions like financial grants, favourable tax treatment, or dedicated funding streams to help companies overcome the initial capital investment required for factory setup and new machinery. Prefabrication, when scaled, offers significant advantages in terms of cost reduction and efficiency gains, but it requires upfront commitment. Incentives would help derisk that initial leap, making it more attractive for firms to embrace these methods, especially smaller and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who might be hesitant.

9. Establishing a Housing Pipeline

One of the most practical recommendations, especially for the residential sector, was to establish a clear, consistent housing pipeline. The stop-start nature of housing development, often driven by political cycles and economic fluctuations, created immense instability for builders. A visible, long-term pipeline of housing projects would provide much-needed certainty. This certainty would allow firms to invest confidently in training, R&D, and the scaling up of off-site manufacturing facilities, knowing there would be consistent demand for their output. It would smooth out the notorious boom-bust cycle, fostering a more stable, predictable environment essential for strategic long-term planning. You can’t plan for tomorrow if you don’t know what you’re building next year, can you?

10. Introducing a Compliance Tax

Finally, Farmer proposed a rather controversial, yet perhaps pragmatic, measure: introducing a 0.5% compliance tax on clients who did not adhere to the recommended reforms, with the funds reinvested into technological development. This was Farmer’s ‘stick’ to complement the numerous ‘carrots.’ He believed that without a financial incentive or disincentive, some clients, particularly those focused purely on short-term costs, wouldn’t embrace the necessary changes. The tax would provide a direct financial driver for adoption, whilst simultaneously creating a self-sustaining fund for the very innovation the industry needed. It was a bold idea, certainly, and one that sparked a lot of debate.

The Government’s Stance: A Mixed Reception

In July 2017, the UK government officially responded to the Farmer Review, and the mood was largely positive, a clear sign they recognised the urgency of the issues at hand. They agreed, commendably, to implement most of the recommendations, signalling a strong commitment to modernising the construction industry. This was a crucial step, affirming the government’s role as a facilitator of change, and a recognition that the status quo simply wasn’t working. You can find the full response on gov.uk, and it’s worth a read if you want the precise details.

However, there was one notable exception, a point of contention that many in the industry watched closely: the government rejected Farmer’s proposed 0.5% compliance tax on non-compliant clients. Their reasoning? They expressed concerns that such a tax might deter investment in an already sensitive sector. The argument was that adding another financial burden, even one aimed at driving good behaviour, could scare off potential developers and clients, ultimately slowing down progress rather than accelerating it. Was this a missed opportunity to create a powerful incentive, or a pragmatic decision to avoid stifling growth? That’s a debate that still crops up occasionally, even today, especially when we talk about how to fund industry innovation.

Despite this rejection, the government’s commitment included significant reforms to the CITB, promising a more efficient and relevant training body. They also threw their weight behind off-site manufacturing, offering support and encouragement for its wider adoption. This alignment with Farmer’s vision for a modernised construction industry was, and remains, a significant driver for change.

Seven Years On: The Enduring Impact and Ongoing Evolution

The Farmer Review has had a profound, lasting impact on the UK’s construction sector, serving not just as a report, but as a critical catalyst for change. It really shifted the conversation, didn’t it? From boardrooms to building sites, people started talking seriously about productivity, skills, and innovation in a way they hadn’t before. It spurred ongoing discussions about industry modernisation and, critically, the urgent need for a skilled, future-ready workforce.

The Rise of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)

One of the most tangible outcomes has been the increased emphasis on off-site construction techniques, leading to a noticeable surge in the adoption of prefabrication and modular methods. You see it everywhere now, from housing developments where entire modules arrive on site, to commercial projects using pre-assembled service risers. The government’s backing, coupled with increasing pressures to build faster and more sustainably, has pushed many firms to embrace these approaches. We’ve seen significant investments in new factories and technologies, creating a whole new segment of the industry focused on advanced manufacturing. It’s not just about speed; it’s about better quality control, reduced waste, and improved site safety. However, the journey isn’t without its bumps; standardisation, supply chain integration, and cultural resistance still present challenges, but the momentum is undeniable.

A Renewed Focus on Skills and Training

The skills agenda, too, received a much-needed shot in the arm. While the CITB’s transformation has been a slower, more iterative process than some might have hoped, there’s a clearer mandate now to ensure training aligns with industry needs. We’ve seen the introduction of T-levels, a greater push for apprenticeships in new specialisms like digital construction, and a broader recognition of the need for lifelong learning. Industry bodies and educational institutions are collaborating more closely to design curricula that equip individuals with skills for modern methods of construction, data analytics, and sustainability. However, the sheer scale of the skills gap means it’s a marathon, not a sprint, and we’re still some way from closing it completely. You can’t just magic up thousands of skilled workers overnight, can you?

Digital Transformation: Beyond BIM

Farmer’s call for innovation inadvertently accelerated the industry’s digital transformation. While BIM (Building Information Modelling) was already gaining traction, the review underscored the urgency of adopting digital tools across the board. Today, we’re talking about digital twins, artificial intelligence for project optimisation, drones for site surveys, and advanced analytics for predictive maintenance. These technologies are slowly, but surely, moving construction from a paper-heavy, often reactive industry, to one that is data-driven and proactive. It’s exciting to see, and it’s attracting a new kind of talent too, which is fantastic for our image.

Sustainability Takes Centre Stage

Though not explicitly the primary focus of ‘Modernise or Die,’ the recommendations, particularly those around off-site construction and R&D, have had a significant ripple effect on the industry’s sustainability efforts. Off-site manufacturing, with its inherent waste reduction and precision, inherently supports greener building practices. The push for innovation has also led to greater exploration of sustainable materials, energy-efficient designs, and circular economy principles. With the UK’s ambitious net-zero targets and evolving building regulations (like the Future Homes Standard), the groundwork laid by Farmer has become even more critical. You see how these things connect, how one recommendation creates a domino effect?

The CLC’s Evolving Role

The Construction Leadership Council itself has certainly found its voice and its purpose since 2016. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, the CLC played a vital role in coordinating the industry’s response, communicating with government, and ensuring continuity of work where safe. It has become a more influential body, actively shaping policy and driving initiatives around skills, net-zero, and digital transformation. It feels, I think, much more like the strategic, representative body Farmer had envisioned.

Navigating Economic Headwinds

Of course, the journey since 2016 hasn’t been smooth sailing. The industry has had to contend with significant economic headwinds: Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, soaring material costs, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary pressures. These external factors have, at times, slowed the pace of reform, diverting attention and resources to immediate crises. Yet, paradoxically, these very challenges have also highlighted the robustness and adaptability that Farmer advocated for. Those firms that had started their modernisation journeys found themselves better equipped to weather the storms. It’s almost like the Farmer Review was preparing us for a future we didn’t even know was coming.

The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

So, where do we stand today? Seven years on, the Farmer Review remains a critical reference point, its core tenets more relevant than ever. We’ve certainly made progress, no one can deny that, but significant challenges persist. Cultural resistance to change, particularly among smaller firms and traditional practitioners, hasn’t evaporated. The upfront investment required for adopting MMC or digital tools can still be a barrier, especially for those with tight margins. And while government has been supportive, consistency in policy and procurement can always be improved.

Furthermore, the regulatory landscape is continually evolving. The Building Safety Act, for instance, brings a renewed focus on competence and accountability, dovetailing neatly with Farmer’s call for a more skilled and professional workforce. New building regulations pushing for greater energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions also mean that ‘modernise or die’ isn’t just about productivity; it’s about environmental survival and regulatory compliance too.

Clients, both public and private, have a crucial role to play. By demanding higher standards, embracing innovation in their procurement strategies, and committing to longer-term pipelines, they can be powerful drivers of the change Farmer advocated. It’s not just the contractors, you know, the whole ecosystem needs to play ball.

Conclusion: A Blueprint Still Guiding Our Way

Mark Farmer’s ‘Modernise or Die’ wasn’t just a report; it was a watershed moment for the UK construction industry. It pulled back the curtain on deep-seated inefficiencies and issued a clear, urgent challenge: evolve or face obsolescence. By addressing fundamental issues such as low productivity, chronic skills shortages, and a lack of innovation, it laid the groundwork for a more efficient, resilient, and forward-looking sector.

While the industry hasn’t transformed overnight – such shifts rarely do, especially in a sector as complex and traditional as construction – the review’s recommendations continue to guide our efforts. We’ve seen genuine, tangible progress in the adoption of modern methods, a revitalised focus on skills, and a growing recognition of the power of digital transformation. Challenges remain, absolutely, and the road ahead is still long, but Farmer’s vision provides a clear compass. It encourages us to keep pushing, to keep innovating, and to continually adapt so that our construction industry can truly meet the nation’s infrastructure and housing needs, not just for today, but for generations to come. It’s a journey we’re all on together, and frankly, we can’t afford to stop.