Historic England research published

The Client Demand Task Group (CDTG), a working group set up by the Historic Environment Forum (HEF), instigated this research project, which was funded by Historic England (HE).

We worked closely with the CDTG and with Historic England to develop this qualitative research project, which included a series of in-depth interviews and focus groups with different stakeholders. A summary of the research project and it's findings is given below. 

You can download a PDF of the entire report. We have also include a summary below. 

Research summary

The CDTG’s aim is to investigate ways of stimulating demand for skilled / accredited historic environment trades and professions. The groups’ initial thought was that there is a lack of informed demand for specialist heritage skills and services and that this affects client behaviour regarding appropriate supplier procurement.

The project complements the work being undertaken by the HEF Heritage Skills Task Group, and a range of labour market intelligence report available at the Historic England website. This project also complements the Heritage Counts 2015 survey of listed residential building owners. The results of this project will feed in to the background data for Heritage Counts 2016/17.

This qualitative research project was designed to establish robust and reliable insight on present market conditions for specialist heritage skills and services. All views are those of the respondents.

Stage 1 involved a series of interviews with 38 respondents from professional, craft and trade bodies representing the supply side of the heritage skills landscape. These respondents are referred to as the “relevant bodies” throughout this report.

Stage 2 involved focus groups and depth interviews with 41 respondents representing different types of clients, including private homeowners. Summary reports for Stages 1 and 2 are included as annexes to this report on pages 28 and 49. The summary reports contain detailed commentary and a large number of direct quotes from respondents.

The insight gathered in Stages 1 and 2 was compared and conclusions were drawn (see pages 16 to 22) and a set of recommendations developed (see pages 23 to 27) to assist the CDTG and HEF to decide further courses of action.  

Introductory information, details of the research design and method and an overview of the respondents are given in the following pages. Our analysis and comparison of the insight gathered from both sets of respondents suggests:

• There is a lack of informed demand, but the client landscape is complex and therefore any approach to resolving this must take info account this complexity.
• Language and the use of certain terms and phrases do not help. Many clients are confused and many terms and phrases have little meaning.
• Clients do appear to appreciate the heritage assets in their care and their responsibilities and obligations. However, some private clients “have no idea what they have bought” and some commercial clients “simply don’t care”. Others use specialists “where necessary”.
• Asking trusted contacts for a recommendation is the main way most clients find specialist suppliers because they are unbiased. Searching websites is the next stage and the first stage where a recommendation is unavailable.
• Clients choose to work with a specialist supplier based on their previous work, a good personal connection, price, proximity and availability. Some clients then carry out due diligence that includes checking references, recommendations, qualification, memberships and accreditations. But, the level of due diligence depends upon the type of client, the size and complexity of the project.
• Clients feel that being compelled to use certain specialist suppliers, for example those who are accredited, would adversely affect “competitive tension” in the marketplace, restrict trade, create cartels and push up prices.
• Accreditation in some form is seen as a good thing.
• But, clients are unaware of many schemes and are confused by others. A perceived lack of consistency and uniformity, the plethora of schemes and the use of the word “accreditation”, do not help clients.
• There is an appetite for advice, but this must be independent and unbiased.

Recommendations are:

1. Collaboration: Pan-sector advocacy via deeper collaboration between professional, trade and craft bodies, heritage bodies and local authorities to drive awareness and understanding amongst clients.
2. Education: Message about the benefit of using specialist suppliers should be delivered through a series of marketing campaigns focussing on targeted personas including; private clients living in non-listed homes of merit, professionals and businesses involved in conveyancing, professionals and businesses involved in cost management, local authority officers in touch with clients.
3. Advice: This could be paid-for and could be offered digitally via a website and app, via telephone or via third existing parties. The advice needs to be independent and unbiased. It could suggest suppliers and also give more general advice to those less well-informed clients who are working on a “heritage” project.

It is critical in our view that the CDTG / HEF / HE also:

• Identify any knowledge gaps that would impede the recommendations.
• Identify any further research or supplementary research
• Decide if the scope expands to include the other home counties heritage bodies
• Agree the way(s) forward
• Agree who is to take this forward.
• Commit to intensive collaboration
• Commit resources