Who reports to whom, PMC or the supervisor?
Thread Content
For construction projects funded by the owner, who does not have the capacity to manage them themselves, a project management company (PMC) is hired to oversee the entire project execution. The owner is responsible for setting the project objectives and evaluating the performance of the PMC. After the project commenced, as per **the regulations**, the owner hired a supervision company to oversee the construction process. The owner is very conflicted about how to manage this situation Is it managed and supervised by PMC? Should PMC still be managed by a supervisor? Should it still be managed separately on both sides, with reports going to the owner in each case? Please analyze the advantages and disadvantages from different perspectives such as management processes, management efficiency, and scope of management to assist the owner in making a decision.
The last edit to this post was made by Franc on 2015-12-26 at 13:40. As the title suggests, it starts with an examination of the project construction management model. Generally, internationally, a PMC oversees the implementation of all tasks during the project’s construction phase on behalf of the owner. In international project execution, the supervisor is just one of the departments within PMC or the contractor that is responsible for managing the on-site construction phase ； In China, supervision agencies are primarily responsible for overseeing the construction phase, which has been the role assigned to them since the implementation of the supervision system in 1988. Given the current situation in China, projects are still mainly carried out according to this approach; of course, the general contractor can also issue a tender to select a supervision agency to provide construction management services for the general contractor. Secondly, check the terms of the project contract. Generally, domestic supervision is mainly responsible for oversight during the construction period (the building phase). Now that the engineering supervision system has been reformed, domestic supervision contracts allow for the specification of the scope and content of supervision services, which can also extend to project consulting and management. These two points are the basic principles. The specific way of operating will need to be adapted to local conditions. These are just my humble opinions, offered as a starting point to spark further discussion, hehe
From the perspective on the 2nd floor, in terms of project phases (preliminary stage, project execution stage, and commissioning stage) as well as the scope of project management (project organization, design, procurement, construction, HSE, quality, schedule, contracts, cost control, etc.), the scope of work for a PMC is much broader than that of a supervisor, especially when it comes to quality, HSE, and schedule management during the construction phase.
It’s better to have parallel management on both sides, with both reporting to the owner; after all, hearing multiple perspectives leads to clarity, haha； However, the analysis for the second and third floors is also quite reasonable; in terms of scope of work, PMC covers a much larger area than supervision
According to international practices, a PMC is used to represent the owner in managing contractors and supervisors. If there are concerns regarding excessive delegation of authority to the PMC or if trust is lacking, it is possible to manage the PMC through the assignment of a small number of owner’s representatives to key positions within the PMC’s management team, or by engaging third-party project management consulting firms to conduct regular audits. Managing the PMC in this way is akin to having professional engineers oversee the chief engineer, which inevitably leads to bias.
PMC is itself half an owner; essentially, it manages the project on behalf of the owners, so it is PMC that oversees the supervision； If there are concerns regarding the project process, additional process controls can be implemented; the normal procedures can be followed externally, while additional oversight measures can be put in place internally. Key decisions must be approved by the owner, and the supervisor is obligated to halt construction in such cases
PMC is the owner; since the owner lacks the personnel to carry out management or has weak management capabilities, they hire a PMC. Therefore, the correct approach is for the supervisor to report to the PMC, with the owner listening to the reports from the PMC.
The general meaning is correct. PMC acts as the \"agent for the owner\", managing the project on behalf of the owner, which includes overseeing supervisors and contractors as well as suppliers.
Supported. Generally, projects that hire a PMC company are large-scale ones; it should be the PMC company that manages and coordinates with the supervision company. The same is true in terms of capabilities; the competence of supervision companies still falls short compared to that of PMC companies. However, it is legally required to hire such supervision companies, as their signatures are necessary on the quality documents related to construction. If the owner wants to be more involved, they can form an IPMT, an integrated project management team, with the PMC company; I see this approach being used more and more these days.