Lately, there’s a noticeable push from qualified project managers to secure official recognition akin to architects and other professionals. The Malta Chamber of Construction Management also seems to be championing this concept.
All what is needed is government approval, achieved either through the passage of a parliamentary act or a much simpler process involving the issuance of a legal notice, empowered by Article 17(2) of the Building and Construction Authority Act.
What requires clarity, however, are some aspects. Assuming, and I hope I’ve grasped this correctly, that the role of construction project managers involves facilitating planning, coordinating, and controlling projects from inception to completion, I view his role as a link between the client, the design team and the contractor or contractors. In other words, the adhesive that holds the entire site processes together. All well and good.
A couple of essential queries at this point:
Let’s begin by addressing the initial point: Is my interpretation accurate that those who support the implementation of this warrant system intend to prevent individuals without proper qualifications from assuming the role of a project manager for site oversight?
A question equally relevant: If only certified project managers are permitted on construction sites, what measures could be established to prevent individuals from casually involving themselves and offering assistance that is tangentially related to aiding in planning and coordination?
Shifting our focus to another aspect: Are we also implying that a warranted construction site manager should be involved in every project, regardless of its scale? If a project falls below the established threshold where a certified manager’s presence is legally mandated, does that mean the client has the freedom to enlist someone for coordination assistance without requiring a warrant?
