[Interview with Vice Chairman Kim Chan-joong] 29 Years After Introduction… Where Should Korea’s CM Go?
April 6, 2026
“Stop the confusion between CM and supervision—separate them.”
Supervision should serve as an independent verification function focused on quality,
while CM should take full responsibility across the entire project based on technical expertise.
A labor-cost–driven contract system will ultimately lead to obsolescence.
According to Kukto Ilbo reporter Kim Kwang-nyeon, Korea’s Construction Management (CM) system is approaching its 30th anniversary since its introduction. However, due to persistent confusion with the existing supervision system—both institutionally and in practice—the CM system has yet to fully establish itself in the domestic construction market.
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the equation “CM = supervision” still prevails.
To promote the activation of the CM system, Kukto Ilbo, which has consistently advocated for reform, has prepared a special series ahead of the 30th anniversary next year. The series gathers insights from leading experts in major domestic CM firms under the theme: “What are the problems with CM, and how can they be resolved?”
The following summarizes key points from an interview with Kim Chan-joong, Vice Chairman of MAP Architects and Head of the CM Division.
“The public sector is the biggest issue right now. Supervision—whose primary role should be quality control and construction inspection—is being treated as if it were CM. That is not acceptable. Frankly speaking, public supervision today is less about quality oversight and more about paperwork—it has become ‘document supervision.’”
“CM should manage the entire project lifecycle, but in Korea, the market has historically emphasized supervision. This has created a fundamental structural problem. Today’s CM is not acting as a manager, but merely as an assistant.”
Drawing on his experience as a Chartered Engineer accredited by the UK and his career in global CM firms, Vice Chairman Kim delivers a direct and critical assessment.
In essence, he argues that Korea lacks both the institutional environment and market maturity necessary for CM to function properly.
After a brief pause to reflect, the obvious question follows:
“Then what is the solution?”
“There is only one answer: completely separate supervision and CM in the public sector. Avoid ambiguity that creates risk. Supervision should remain an independent verification function, while CM should evolve into an organization that takes full responsibility for projects based on technical expertise.”
His message is straightforward. A system focused merely on deploying manpower and collecting labor costs will inevitably lead both supervision and CM toward decline.
“Under the current government contract system, which is centered on manpower and unit costs, it is impossible to expect technological competitiveness. The lowest-bid system must be abolished. We need a shift to a technology-driven evaluation—70% technical capability, 30% price.”
He emphasizes that without data, no organization can truly claim to possess technical capability.
“CM is a highly advanced project management methodology. Please create an environment where CM can grow. Project management expertise must be incorporated from the planning stage to generate high added value. Even construction itself can no longer compete on price, especially against low-cost competition from countries like China.”
This raises a critical question: what kind of systems and policies truly serve the national interest? The government’s insight and decisive action are being called for.
Source: Kukto Ilbo