Richard Vann shares his thoughts as Past President of The IDE

I hold volumes of memories from my period (1996-1998) in office as President of the IDE.
Some of these not so pleasant, such as the well documented ‘on the brink’ financial situation,
but in the main they were good times working with good people. Many of these individuals,
leaders at the time in the demolition industry, are sadly no longer with us however, the legacies
of the few have helped form the Institute we have today. The reason I say a few is that, in my
experience with bodies such as this, or even charitable organisations, the pareto principle is
often in play where 20% of the members of a committee do 80% of the work but everyone
wants an equal share in the plaudits and status that comes with it.

As this is probably no different today, one of my main concerns as President was to increase
the membership and take it to as a minimum, a critical mass, so the continual worry of being
reliant subsidised funding was reduced and ultimately, removed.

The solution was to come up with some benefits that would attract more members and with
that fee income…easy said but how. For me the starting point was to decide what was our
purpose and function. To many the IDE had always been seen as an organ of the NFDC, in a
different guise. Part of the ‘problem’ was that the founder members, comprised largely if not
exclusively, directors and employees of established demolition contractors. I am sure they all
had the best intentions when establishing the IDE, however the lines between it and the NFDC
were extremely blurred, to the outside world in my view there was little distinction between the
two and to a degree a perception that may continue today. The IDE had to define itself and
demonstrate that it was a credible and professional body, with its own independent
engineering purpose, agenda and objectives, rather than an extension and tool of a trade
organisation.

Through my years on the Council of Management, through to VP and ultimately taking the
Jewel from Mary Bradley, we had the will to help the IDE come of age and build its own
independent identity. Initiatives such as obtaining funding to carry out research into the
recycling of concrete to be used as aggregates and taking a major role on the drafting
committee assigned to update British Standard 6187 were some of the proactive steps,
alongside setting more prescriptive criteria for entry to the IDE. Whilst some of those
requirements may seem crude by the rules in place today, it is perhaps important to remember
that the demolition industry 30-40 years ago was very different to the one we operate in today.

The current membership comprises individuals who have a connection in some way with the
demolition industry. The important word here is ‘individuals’ who collectively hold a wide range
of skills; it is not a trade body and in my opinion this distinction is an important one, if the IDE
is to be recognised as the go-to professional engineering organisation for the industry. There
are many elements associated with demolition engineering and not all of them require the
holder of the post-nominals MIDE to be able to run a demolition site, manage an asbestos
removal project or drive a 3060 excavator; and logically this should remove the entry
requirements for some of the certification associated with these activities. One wouldn’t insist
that the structural engineer that designs a building should have the skills and certifications to
lay bricks or erect scaffolding.

Going forward, in my view, the IDE should focus on gaining professional registration for all
grades of its members, which I know is something that is being pursued and having been
through the process with the IExpE, I am aware it is a slow and possibly frustrating road to
travel. Whilst working with trade associations including the NFDC and ARCA are undoubtedly
important in respect of being current with all aspects of the industry, the IDE should also clearly
demonstrate its independence of the thought and deed, build strong links with other
professional engineering organisations and continue to building a presence that is respected
as the world-class go-to body for the demolition engineering discipline.

The relevance of and the need for the IDE to establish itself as the centre of excellence in
demolition engineering, is becoming increasingly important to meet the challenges that will be
faced in the future. It has to attract individuals across many areas and disciplines within and
associated with the industry. I also understand and agree that there should be strict entry
criteria and standards to be met, however, it is also important to recognise that to contribute
and further the cause, it is time to acknowledge that to be a demolition engineer one doesn’t
necessarily have to know how to use burning gear.