I take this opportunity to share my views on famous recent English & Scottish cases where the method ( collapsed as built) was thoroughly
debunked. Take heart, it is not difficult to find judgements that have a go at all
the methods of analysis.
No, I stand corrected - what they have a go at is the way they were applied
by the experts (or not so expert experts). There are no problems with the methods providing they are applied correctly using the
correct data.
That includes the collapsed as-built method in the City Inn - I dont think the method was criticised but more the arbitrary, nonsensical and just plain wrong way in which it was applied. <
br />
A bit of research I undertook recently:
“Anecdotal evidence suggests that many who advise the parties in claims and more formal
tribunal do not have any recognised training in planning and programming. …
The surveys appear to substantiate the weak knowledge base of those involved in delay claims.
When contractors were asked where did you gain most of your knowledge about delay analysis techniques; 93 per cent said experience/self taught,
24 per cent short course/seminar and 17 per cent textbooks/journals/papers and other practitioners
-- respondents were asked to select all sources that applied and most had more than one.
Not so different, the specialists’ top sources were 100 per cent experience/self-taught,
73 per cent textbooks/journals/papers and 53 per cent other practitioners. In order
to refine these results, specialists were then asked to identify the principal source of their knowledge. For 68
per cent of specialists their principal source of knowledge about delay techniques is experience/self-taught,
followed by other practitioners (13 per cent) and textbooks/journals/papers and post-graduate course both
at 8 per cent.
Contractors are often the butt of complaints from experts and the like regarding their level of
skill and application of planning and programming techniques, but it is difficult to envisage that other
professions would find it acceptable for their experts to be predominantly self-taught. The SCL Protocol has
raised the level of debate; now that has to be followed by better education of practitioners
in planning and programming.”
You can find the full article ‘Delay analysis: attitudes
and practice’ (2007) 18 8 Cons.Law 20.
So, my opinion, for what it is worth is that the more formal training there is
the better (so long, of course, that the trainers know what they are talking about!)
