Guest Post by Malcolm Peart (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)
Project documentation; the bane of some people’s lives, for other’s their raison d’être. Documentation is essential and its written word can ensure effective communication so there is as little misunderstanding as possible. Requirements will be definitive, obligations and liabilities will be unambiguous, and instructions will be clear.
Projects typically require plans and processes as well as details of products and services and methodologies for contemporaneous purposes. They contribute to corporate knowledge, assist with learning lessons and may defend any liability. Documents are usually subject to some form of acceptance, approval, non-objection or similar.
In construction contracts, an Employer will typically engage a Contractor to perform the work and a Consultant to administer and supervise the Contractor on his behalf to some ‘duty of care’. In design and build construction contracts the Contractor will engage a design consultant unless they have in-house capability. Their design(s) will be subject to review and acceptance or approval even though in most cases contractual responsibility and liability for correctness lies with the Contractor.
Despite where liability lies, we often find that the initial submissions are rejected or attract an abundance of comments. A document is then revised and resubmitted despite no need for any substantive change. It may then be accepted with comments prior to being, ultimately, accepted, particularly if linked to payment. Unless a document is obviously wrong, we may ask ourselves as to why there was a need to correct something that could have been accepted subject to ‘minor revision’.
Documentation Review
A Contractor’s documents are normally produced by suitably qualified and experienced people or adapted from previous projects that have, hopefully, incorporated lessons learned. Design documents, similarly, are produced by trained designers based upon codes and standards. Of course, mistakes or slips may occur and, despite internal checks may remain and be found in any review.
Blatant mistakes or glaring errors will, obviously require a document to be resubmitted or attract adverse comment. These may be addressed in either a subsequent revision or in any consequential documents. However, any gross error that would affect the safety and integrity of a Project would require to be rectified and addressed to ensure that any latent repercussions are obviated.
Documentation reviews should be carried out, professionally speaking, objectively rather than subjectively. Objectivity is measured through compliance with contract requirements, appropriate and applicable codes and standards, and, more often than not some catch-all requirement of ‘recognised good practice’.
Reviews inevitably involve interpretations of the contractual and codal requirements. Inevitably, and depending on experience and culture, interpretations can abound, and ‘objectivity’ becomes questionable. Rather than a document being accepted, and differences being escalated and resolved timeously, it’s rejected. Such rejection, while not changing the intent of a document implies wrongness which leads to argument, extra work, frustration and bitter or even vehement disagreement. But is it obviously wrong?
Obviously Wrong
A mistake in a document that can be corrected does not mean that an entire document is wrong and can therefore, reasonably, be rejected. If something is obviously wrong then an out-and-out rejection and need for a resubmission is, unquestionably, warranted. But what is ‘obviously wrong’? According to a British judge:
“Is the obviousness something which one arrives at ….on first reading over a good bottle of Chablis and some pleasant smoked salmon, or is ‘obviously wrong’ the conclusion one reaches at the twelfth reading of the clauses and with great difficulty where it is finely balanced. I think it is obviously not the latter.”
Looking for mistakes is a human trait and some people excel at finding them. If one looks hard enough and long enough, errors can be found everywhere; just look at the amount of ‘bloopers’ found in Hollywood Movies despite efforts to the contrary.
An error, or even the obvious faux pas does not equate to being ‘obviously wrong’ and can be corrected. Once upon a movie, the famous film producers Clint Eastwood and Wolfgang Petersen collaborated. One scene went horribly and expensively wrong and Peterson, a perfectionist, wanted to reshoot. Eastwood, a pragmatic veteran of spaghetti-westerns, merely asked, “was I in focus”; dubbing is always an option!
Wrongness, or rightness can be a matter of opinion based upon how objective, or subjective the determinator may be. This in turn is based upon their experience, education, reputation, and background. It’s also a function of any legitimate power and individual judgement. These factors influence a person’s attitude and motives which, in turn drive their behaviour. But if motives aren’t positive then self-satisfying ulterior motives may prevail.
Ulterior Motives
The parties who produce and review project documents are working towards a common goal. However, the construction industry is notoriously confrontational which is a consequence of the legal contracts that govern the parties’ roles. Consultants are paid to look after the Employer’s interests both technically and commercially and Contractors are paid to produce something. All parties are in business and despite any contractual differences all parties are out to make money or seek some financial benefit.
Any differences are balanced through the umbrella of formal contracts which, theoretically, establish a ‘level playing field’ where it is expected that there will be fair and reasonable behaviour. Bias and self-gratification should, in theory, not exist. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say, but power can be wielded with either knowing impunity or in ignorance of liability because of underlying ulterior motives.
People granted positions of authority may feel that they are also endowed with some perquisite ability; just because somebody works for NASA doesn’t make them an astronaut. Some people may shy away from the authority and resort to dilatory tactics resulting in procrastination, uncertainty and delays. Their mantra may well be “Reject first, ask questions later” but those questions may not be relevant or critical today. We also have those who attempt to influence the scope of work and introduce changes, variations or preferential engineering which, unless accepted will lead to vexatious rejection; getting something for nothing is ethically wrong.
Reviewers, be they consultants looking at contractors’ documents or contractors reviewing those of subcontractors, may feel that they are duty bound to make some comment for comments sake and prove that they are doing something to earn their salt and, above all, justify their position. Comments will need to be addressed and re-reviewed or, possibly, argued but as comments can beget comments reviewers can become ‘indispensable’. This can easily become the case if a reviewer is a specialist with no readily available peers or has raised issues that may be addressed comfortably at a later time rather than delay the present.
Sometimes in the absence of anything being ‘obviously wrong’ there may be a focus on typographic errors, grammatical mistakes etc. These, although perhaps frustrating to a reader are not grounds for rejection unless they detract from a document’s understanding. ‘Typos’ etc. can always be corrected and reviewers should remember they are not editors and project documents are not, or should not, be intended to be literary masterpieces.
Patently Acceptable
Documents can be either accepted or rejected and review comments, if any, must, inevitably, be addressed by the document producer(s). However, and for some of the reasons outlined above some reviews may produce comments that are superfluous, inappropriate, argumentative, or even wrong. Documents and their reviews can be wrong but there are degrees of wrongness; out-and-out wrong, contrary to opinion, following a different school of thought, or errors in arithmetic, spelling, or grammar. For reviewers it may be that, if in doubt ‘reject’ and for the reviewee if in doubt ‘argue’.
Opinions can abound in design and construction contracts and document review and acceptance can be a significant risk to the commencement of the design as well as the physical works. Parties grapple with interpretations of contractual requirements or the applicability of codes of practice and argue over variations or changed requirements introduced by an unscrupulous reviewer. Argument gets the project nowhere quickly and it can be a slow journey to get somewhere if issues aren’t escalated early and resolved expeditiously.
Commenting for comment’s sake does not add value to documentation. The time and effort taken in addressing them can detract from the very purpose a document serves as do inordinate amounts of time spent perfecting formatting when proof reading would add more value. Requests for explanations of matters which will be readily understood by users are also questionable and some Subject Matter Expertise is a prerequisite for any reviewer. Demands for explanations of ‘the basics’ are inappropriate and, unless the original document was ‘obviously wrong’, then the document is ‘patently acceptable’.
Conclusions
Just over 300 years ago the English poet Alexander Pope wrote ‘To err is human; to forgive, divine’ reminding us that we can all make mistakes and there should be an understanding that, in the light of mistakes, they can be forgiven.
The first act of many reviewers is not to consider overall sense, applicability, and wrongness but seek error. This ‘red pen’ approach is an indication that mistakes will be sought out ab initio, but sometimes the tactile feel of a pen can stimulate cognitive reasoning if an objective view is taken.
Documents need to convey information. If the information is correct, then there are grounds for acceptance. If it’s not correct, then it can be corrected but if it’s not wrong then it should be accepted. But on this note we should also be mindful of Sinclair’s Law when it comes to some reviewers and the potential for any risk of rejection:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
Bio:
Malcolm Peart is an UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.
Leave a Reply