One of the most powerful options is a mandated senior executive meeting (preferably CEO level) before the dispute is allowed to be moved to a more formal process such as mediation or arbitration.
The executives are nominated in the contract, and are required to meet within a limited period (adjustable by agreement between the CEOs). Knowing their position will be escalated to the top of an organisation places a very powerful constraint on the behaviours of middle level managers to be firm but reasonable and the CEOs tend to take a more pragmatic view of the waste of effort and cost in litigation than the more emotionally involved managers who are having the dispute.
The new CIOB Contract for Complex Projects due for publication later this year and the ‘Guide to the management of time in complex projects’ (see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Book_Sales.html#CIOB ) also have a lot of practical common sense built in.
Member for
19 years 2 months
Member for19 years2 months
Submitted by ashraf alawady on Fri, 2012-09-21 00:28
thanks for your initial comments but i think that the arbitral tribonal could one or three arbitators based on the amount of the dispute and the complexity of the dispute .
However, arbitration process to be agreed complety between the disputed parties under the guid lie of the related clauses i the condition of contract -if any.
i would to get your opinion o the question that i have raised as metioned above , this will help me a lot in my research.
You should consider the system whereby a panel of 3 experts are appointed at the beginning of the project to give an independent review of potential disputes as and when they happen.
You get a sort of mini arbitration for each situation.
This is very useful on joint venture projects.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
19 years 2 months
Member for19 years2 months
Submitted by ashraf alawady on Tue, 2012-09-18 23:05
Member for
24 years 9 monthsOne of the most powerful
One of the most powerful options is a mandated senior executive meeting (preferably CEO level) before the dispute is allowed to be moved to a more formal process such as mediation or arbitration.
The executives are nominated in the contract, and are required to meet within a limited period (adjustable by agreement between the CEOs). Knowing their position will be escalated to the top of an organisation places a very powerful constraint on the behaviours of middle level managers to be firm but reasonable and the CEOs tend to take a more pragmatic view of the waste of effort and cost in litigation than the more emotionally involved managers who are having the dispute.
The new CIOB Contract for Complex Projects due for publication later this year and the ‘Guide to the management of time in complex projects’ (see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Book_Sales.html#CIOB ) also have a lot of practical common sense built in.
Member for
19 years 2 monthsDear Mick thanks for your
Dear Mick
thanks for your initial comments but i think that the arbitral tribonal could one or three arbitators based on the amount of the dispute and the complexity of the dispute .
However, arbitration process to be agreed complety between the disputed parties under the guid lie of the related clauses i the condition of contract -if any.
i would to get your opinion o the question that i have raised as metioned above , this will help me a lot in my research.
Thanks
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Asraf You should consider
Hi Asraf
You should consider the system whereby a panel of 3 experts are appointed at the beginning of the project to give an independent review of potential disputes as and when they happen.
You get a sort of mini arbitration for each situation.
This is very useful on joint venture projects.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
19 years 2 monthsDear All, please help me and
Dear All,
please help me and send your reply/opinion/clarification into my earlier questions since it will help me a lot in the prepartation of my dissertaion .
Beast Regards