SAICE Executive BoardSeptember 2011Matter for noting / approval:Admission Criteria for SAICE Adjudicators Ntsoli Maiketso PrEng MSAICE
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
Structure of Presentation • Literature Review • Research Methodology • Results • Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendation • Admission Criteria: key features
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)
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!
Results • Construction Law, • Conduct, lawyers • (11+4+5=19)
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
End… Ntsoli Maiketso PrEng MSAICE