Definitely agree with the sentiment of this article, bigger is not always better and my passed experience of working with larger firms means a lot more constriction with red tape.

Smaller firms such as Thomas & Adamson are able to maintain senior involvement throughout and adapt the service provided to suit the demands of the project and market. I know from personal experience that we have specifically won work because we were the only ones at the interviews to disagree with the clients procurement perspective. We were just being flexible with our approach but that project led to a further 3 more schemes (thus far) with that particular client.

We understand that certain clients / institutions will want to see a large “brand” attached to their project either to “manage” the risk of such a project or simply because it is what is required by their investors / funders but, does that necessarily mean that you are getting the best service? I’ll leave that up to individuals to decide.

However, the tailored approach with people that will have a vested interest in the project, surely that’s got to be the key to a more cohesive team and ultimately successful project?

Independent, straightforward cost management is here to stay!!


Full article: