Answer extracted from the Pegasus Radio podcast — listen to the full episode below.
Why does Australia's QS profession struggle to evolve beyond traditional cost planning?
Australian QS firms face two interconnected structural barriers: the construction industry is heavily unionized with all trade contractors belonging to a single union, creating fundamentally different dynamics than the non-unionized UK, and many local firms show reluctance to expand their service offerings or move closer to client relationships, preferring to stay within the traditional 50-70 year old cost planning and tender analysis model.
The unionized environment in Australia creates constraints that don't exist in the UK market. When labor is collectively organized and standardized, the flexibility for QS firms to reposition themselves—taking on greater responsibility or diversifying their service lines—becomes significantly limited. Matthew Mackey explores this distinction in detail in the Pegasus Radio episode, drawing on 16 years of firsthand experience navigating these market differences as head of cost management at Arcadis in Brisbane.
Why local QS firms resist service expansion
Beyond the structural constraint of unionization lies a cultural resistance within the Australian QS profession itself. Many firms choose to operate within a narrow, decades-old model rather than stepping into broader advisory or strategic roles that would position them closer to the client decision-making table. This conservatism—whether driven by risk aversion, lack of market demand, or established business model inertia—means the profession remains locked in transactional cost planning rather than evolving into integrated delivery partnerships.
This self-imposed boundary stands in stark contrast to how QS consultants in the UK have progressively repositioned their role. The absence of such systemic unionization in the UK construction industry has allowed QS firms greater autonomy to experiment, expand, and claim strategic territory. In Australia, Mackey notes the challenge of advocating for broader QS responsibilities against this dual resistance—external labor market constraints and internal professional conservatism.
"You've got to have a relationship and be so embedded with that client. If you were to walk out the door, that's going to be a hole in the company's bottom line."
Matthew Mackey — Director at Contolo Group, former Head of Cost Management at Arcadis Brisbane. After 16 years building cost management services in Australia, where he made more job moves in five years than in his first 15 years in Manchester, Mackey returned to the UK in late 2024 with deep insight into both markets. During his time in Brisbane, he ran a podcast, managed a major networking group, and appeared on Australian financial television, building a distinctive personal brand within the construction consultancy sector.
For QS professionals frustrated by these structural limitations, the full episode of Pegasus Radio with Mackey goes deeper into how career trajectories diverge between these two markets, including why relocating from the UK to Australia often means stepping back in responsibility—and what that reveals about how differently the two industries value the QS role.
See also
How does career progression differ for professionals relocating from the UK to Australia?
Relocating professionals typically experience a significant step backward in responsibility level. Mackey moved from director level in Manchester to senior cost manager in a small local Australian firm of 30-40 people, making multiple job moves over five years as he navigated the different Australian market structure.
What are the key differences between the QS role in the UK versus Australian construction markets?
In Australia, the QS role is diminished compared to the UK—QSs can be appointed as sub-consultants to architects, excluded from design team meetings, and constrained by unionized labor structures that limit professional autonomy and service expansion.
How does Accaloft ensure that strategies are deliverable in practice?
Accaloft tests strategies in-house from multiple stakeholder perspectives using a technique similar to Amazon's practice of having a spare chair to represent the customer's voice in decision-making processes.
Key takeaways
- Australia's unionized construction industry enforces labor standardization that constrains QS firms' ability to diversify services or reposition toward higher-value advisory roles.
- Many Australian QS firms voluntarily remain within a narrow, traditional 50-70 year-old cost planning and tender analysis model despite market opportunities for expansion.
- The non-unionized UK construction market has enabled QS professionals greater freedom to evolve their role into strategic advisory and integrated delivery partnerships.
- Professional resistance within Australia—both systemic and cultural—creates a dual barrier to QS profession development not present in the UK.