Note: This Paper is unformatted. When it is formatted, it will replace the version here.
The opinions of scheduling experts along with their underlying analysis and work product remain a constant source of disagreement and contention in construction disputes. The arguments that arise out of the different methodologies adopted by opposing scheduling experts have the ability to consume enormous amounts of time and cost, which in turn causes parties to lose sight of the fundamental goal of proving or defending a case.
Various organisations (including CIOB, AACE and SCL) have attempted to set best practices, standards or protocols that either should or are recommended to be adopted by scheduling experts to avoid unnecessary fights and stay focused on the tasks required of an effective expert.
The authors discuss and debate whether these guides mitigate the grounds for argument between experts if consistently applied and adopted, and whether they ensure that scheduling experts properly exercise their duties and assist tribunals to better understand and properly decide the cases before them?