slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SAICE Executive Board September 2011 Matter for noting / approval: Admission Criteria for SAICE Adjudicators PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SAICE Executive Board September 2011 Matter for noting / approval: Admission Criteria for SAICE Adjudicators

play fullscreen
1 / 10

SAICE Executive Board September 2011 Matter for noting / approval: Admission Criteria for SAICE Adjudicators

88 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

SAICE Executive Board September 2011 Matter for noting / approval: Admission Criteria for SAICE Adjudicators

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. SAICE Executive BoardSeptember 2011Matter for noting / approval:Admission Criteria for SAICE Adjudicators Ntsoli Maiketso PrEng MSAICE

  2. Overview / in a nutshell • SAICE recently introduced GCC 2010, which makes use of Adjudication, and provides for appointment of Adjudicators and Adjudication Boards • Parties to a contract can ask SAICE president to appoint Adjudicators • Therefore SAICE needed a panel of Adjudicators, to run similar to its panels of Arbitrators and Mediators • Questions to be answered included skills & training, from educational to professional including specialist knowledge, to form basis of admission criteria • Author serves on SAICE PMCD committee as portfolio co-ordinator on dispute resolution

  3. Structure of Presentation • Literature Review • Research Methodology • Results • Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendation • Admission Criteria: key features

  4. Literature Review • Relied mainly on ICE and CIDB criteria / guidelines • Other references: CIArb, DRBF, CIC, Queensland, FIDIC, etc • Others x-ref one another, e.g. RICS, RIBA, CIOB • Maritz @ RICS 2007 findings • Lows levels of knowledge and use of adjudication in SA • Adjudicators need an “adjudication qualification” • Maiketso and Maritz @ RICS 2009 findings • Not enough adjudicators in SA • No established framework for skills and training • Further findings and recommendations • Need to better organize adjudication and accredit adjudicators • General agreement reached on relevant skills, useful techniques and desirable attributes • Unpacking of “adjudication qualification” revealed general agreement on knowledge & experience requirements • Author submitted article for publication in SAICE journal in 2009 on this, which may be published in next issue (Oct-11)

  5. Literature Review (cont.)typical requirements from selected institutions

  6. Research Methodology • Purposeful sampling • theoretical sampling at start • discriminant sampling to close • 1st draft based on CIDB and ICE, then sourced comment from: • SAICE PMCD internal Jan & Sep 2009, AA(SA) Oct 2009, DRBF local chapter Nov 2009, SAFCEC Feb 2010, CESA Apr 2010, CIDB Jun 2010 • Final draft included separately, key features summarised at end • Research ethics observed: confidentiality, privacy • Data handling: content analysis • classification, synthesis, patterns, to enable conclusions • Bias acknowledged, author had direct interest in outcome!

  7. Results • Construction Law, • Conduct, lawyers • (11+4+5=19)

  8. Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendation • Discussion: key points per Results diagram • Most supported: objectivity, formal assessment • Least questioned: experience technical & disputes • Least supported: include lawyers et al jurisdiction • Conclusion: • more objectivity required, formal assessment can address, therefore criteria cannot be regarded as final • Recommendation: • SAICE adopts criteria as interim, whilst developing long term solution, publicise and invite interested parties to participate in charting way forward

  9. Key features of SAICE Adjudicator Admission Criteria

  10. End… Ntsoli Maiketso PrEng MSAICE