A contractor asks for a decision. The client asks for evidence. The design team is working from another revision. The next meeting begins with the same disagreement, while the installation date gets closer.
The useful question is not only who is right. It is also: what needs to be decided now, by whom, on what evidence? Our recommended starting point is to separate resolution of the delivery problem from determination of the contractual position. Both matter; they need not become the same conversation.
Start with the agreed process
NEC’s discussion of dispute avoidance highlights understanding roles and contract mechanisms, as well as the risks of entering construction before design questions are sufficiently developed. That is a useful starting principle, not evidence that every project should use the same contract. Source: NEC, Avoiding Disputes with NEC4.
At mobilisation, we suggest agreeing a short decision map: who may issue instructions, who can approve a technical proposal, who administers notices, and where an unresolved issue goes next. Keep it accessible alongside the project communication procedure. A helpful person in a meeting is not automatically the person authorised to make the decision.
Give each disagreement three separate tracks
The factual track records the affected location, drawing revision, requirement and observation. Replace “the design is wrong” with a specific discrepancy that another person can check. Preserve photographs, relevant correspondence and the information that was available when the work was planned.
The delivery track evaluates the available response: clarification, an approved alternative, holding the affected activity, or resequencing unaffected work. Record assumptions, safety constraints and the latest useful decision date. Do not turn a desire for progress into permission to build from unapproved information.
The commercial track handles responsibility, cost, time and any required contractual communication. Give it an owner rather than allowing every coordination discussion to become an improvised entitlement negotiation.
A shared record can connect these tracks without pretending that everyone agrees. “Technical solution agreed; commercial allocation unresolved” is more useful than an ambiguous “closed”.
Use an issue record that leads to action
For the next difficult interface, try a single page with these fields:
| Field | What it should establish |
|---|---|
| Requirement and evidence | The agreed reference, current revision and observed discrepancy |
| Delivery consequence | What work is affected, and when a decision becomes necessary |
| Options | Feasible responses and the assumptions behind each |
| Decision owner | The authorised person or function, not an entire distribution list |
| Next action | A specific deliverable and date |
| Commercial status | Agreed, under assessment or disputed, with a separate reference |
This is a suggested coordination record, not a replacement for any contractually required form or notice.
An illustrative example: an opening changes late
Suppose a revised opening clashes with a prefabricated services assembly. This is a hypothetical example, not a Konstraff case study.
The site team first records the location, competing revisions and fabrication status. The designer is asked to confirm a coordinated technical solution. The planner identifies which activities genuinely depend on that decision. Procurement confirms the supplier’s last change date.
The joint discussion then compares defined options rather than competing recollections. For example, could an authorised design adjustment avoid remanufacture? Could an unaffected zone proceed while the affected area is held? What additional assessment would each option require?
Minutes should record the decision, its authorisation and any unresolved qualification. “Discussed with client” is not the same as “approved for execution”. The commercial team addresses the resulting cost and time questions through the agreed process.
Raise problems early without blurring notices
Within NEC, early warnings and compensation events are distinct processes, even when they concern the same underlying issue. A warning can prompt mitigation; it does not simply substitute for the other process. Source: NEC, Links between key NEC processes.
For any project, our practical recommendation is to check the actual contract’s communication requirements before relying on a meeting minute, issue log or informal email. Collaboration and disciplined contract administration should support each other. This article does not determine notice validity, entitlement or applicable deadlines.
Escalate the decision, not the temperature
Set an escalation point linked to the project need. Send the next decision-maker a concise evidence pack, the options already examined and the decision being requested. Keep disputed statements attributed instead of rewriting them as agreed facts.
After resolution, ask what would prevent a repeat: an earlier information deadline, a clearer interface owner, or a better release check? That turns an individual conflict into an improvement to the delivery system.
A good outcome is a traceable decision and a workable next step, not silence in the meeting room.
General project-management guidance, not legal advice. Contractual rights and obligations depend on the actual agreement and applicable law. Obtain appropriate professional advice for a live dispute.
Related reading: Just-in-time materials and information and quality assurance before inspection.
