Standardisation versus ambition
For years, the industry has prioritised building structures in the cheapest and quickest way possible. As a result, many bridges and structures now follow a “copy and paste” model. This standardisation limits our ability to push the boundaries of what can be achieved with concrete and diminishes the architectural quality of the built environment.
In the UK, bridge spans are typically shorter, which further reduces opportunities to create landmark structures like those seen in the Americas or the Far East. I would like to see greater exploration of cable-tied structures and innovative spanning mechanisms—projects that the UK can be renowned for, not just operationally, but aesthetically.
The skills challenge behind construction choices
The shift towards precast and steel is not driven by cost alone. It also reflects a skills shortage that continues to challenge our industry.
With more work carried out offsite, less specialist skill is required onsite. Over time, this has created a vicious cycle: fewer opportunities to develop in-situ expertise, fewer skilled workers available, and an even greater reliance on standardised solutions. In turn, this limits our ability to deliver architecturally ambitious, in-situ concrete structures.
What we can learn from large workforce models
There are, however, positive lessons to be taken from major infrastructure programmes. On projects such as HS2 and Hinkley Point C, we are seeing a shift towards main contractors employing their own skilled teams, supported by experienced section managers, rather than relying entirely on subcontracted delivery.
These teams have the capability and confidence to work with in-situ concrete and complex temporary works systems. Crucially, supply chain partners like temporary works specialists also benefit from direct engagement with the client, which brings clarity, programme certainty and faster decision-making all round.
When information is not diluted through multiple contractual tiers, supply chain partners have a clearer understanding of sequencing and concurrent operations. This improves coordination, reduces clashes and allows changes to be resolved quickly on site.
That speed of decision-making creates something invaluable – time for innovation. It allows teams to propose alternative solutions that may be more efficient, more sustainable and more impactful—options that would otherwise never reach the table.
A window of opportunity for innovation
Despite the challenges we face—Gateway 2 planning constraints in the Buildings sector, or uncertainty around government funding for infrastructure—I believe this is an exciting time to be an engineer in the UK.
Today’s engineers are working on some of the most complex projects anywhere in the world. That experience should be a catalyst for innovation, not a reason to default to the status quo.
As supply chain partners, we have an opportunity—and a responsibility—to collaborate earlier and more openly with engineers, clients and contractors. Too often, project teams disband once delivery is complete, and without a steady pipeline of work, those skills are lost overseas. More direct collaboration with decision-makers can help retain expertise, improve productivity and deliver better outcomes.
This early engagement is also critical for sustainability. The industry’s transition to lower-carbon concrete is inevitable, but it must be planned properly. Slower curing times, for example, can be mitigated through smarter temporary works designs—anchoring into older, fully cured concrete rather than relying on the youngest sections to carry loads. Done correctly, sustainability does not have to come at the expense of programme.
However, without consistent early collaboration, there is little incentive to rethink sequencing or design—and the industry defaults to what it knows.
Re-evaluating in-situ concrete
When comparing construction methods, speed is often viewed in isolation. But when evaluating programme efficiency, we need to consider the full process, including lead-in times.
The Mineral Products Association notes that precast elements require longer lead-in periods to accommodate design development, coordination and manufacturing[1].
If changes are needed mid-construction—a common reality on large infrastructure projects—those lead-in times can quickly extend programmes.
In-situ concrete offers far greater flexibility. Design changes and sequencing adjustments can be managed more easily, particularly on large or architecturally complex projects. Even with precast or steel solutions, a degree of in-situ work is almost always required to connect everything together.
In the Buildings sector, Gateway 2 regulations amplify this challenge. A design change can mean starting again with precast, whereas in-situ solutions allow for more agile responses and reduced risk of delay.
With in-situ concrete, we can now take full advantage of advances in digital technology to achieve more accurate placement of wet concrete and improved efficiency. Sensor technology enables us to monitor concrete pressure and pouring speed, as well as assess concrete maturity, allowing temporary works to be struck at the optimal time rather than relying on assumptions and unnecessary waiting periods.
Space constraints, particularly on congested urban sites, are another factor. Through prefabricated formwork and just-in-time deliveries, in-situ construction can be highly adaptable, often outperforming precast solutions in constrained environments.
Building for purpose, not default
The challenges facing our industry give me confidence that in-situ concrete is here to stay—we simply need to be smarter in how we use it to maximise its value. With the right planning and collaboration, in-situ solutions can deliver the same outcomes as precast or steel, often with greater flexibility and at a reduced cost.
[1] MPA Concrete Centre (n.d), Performance and Sustainability – Cost and Programme, available at: https://www.concretecentre.com/Performance-Sustainability/Cost-Programme.aspx.