Fourteen years after the Society of Construction Law published its first Delay and Disruption Protocol there鈥檚 a draft second edition. So what鈥檚 changed since 2002?
The Society of Construction Law has issued a draft second edition of the Delay and Disruption Protocol, 14 years after the first edition was issued. Back then, its aim was ambitious. It was that, in time, 鈥渕ost contracts will adopt the Protocol鈥檚 guidance as the best way to deal with delay and disruption issues鈥�.
It stated that the number of disputes could be reduced if there was a transparent and unified approach to the programme and the site records. It contained a great deal of detail about the way a programme should be prepared and gave a preferred method of delay analysis - time impact analysis - identifying the shortcomings with other methods. Although it stated this would only work if network programmes and sufficient records had been maintained throughout the project, as recommended by the protocol. On keeping records, it recommended agreeing up front what these should be: differentiating between small and medium to high value/high complexity projects.
It was subject to some criticism at the time as:
- A charter for programming experts (with its preferred (consider