Efficiency isn't about working harder

26 Apr 2026 · 0 min

Watch on YouTube

0:07

In this segment of the YouTube video "Efficiency isn't about working harder," two speakers examine how NEC3 contract clauses should be interpreted in practice. They argue that the intent of the clauses is not to create confusion or trigger burdensome procedures for minor specification changes. Using a training‑course case study about swapping one cherry‑tree species for another—both similar in size and shape—they illustrate that a full‑blown time‑and‑motion study to determine the defined cost is often unnecessary when the cost of the study would exceed the benefit. The discussion highlights the need for pragmatic discretion by project managers and contractors, balancing defined‑cost assessments with overall project efficiency.

this is— that's not the intention of these clauses, is it? But I think that's maybe the interpretation by some people going back to this point about confusion.
It depends what it is. I mean, if we're talking about one of the questions, I seem to remember one of the case studies from training courses I did a long time ago, something about cherry trees. If we're planting cherry trees and a specification, a change to the what was works information in NEC3 comes down and specifies a slightly different species of cherry tree, we're probably not going to get too excited about doing a full-blown time and motion study on looking at the defined cost, it might be that the cost of doing that is more than just agreeing.
It's a similar size and shape.
So this gives the project manager and the contractor acting appropriately for their, you know, to come up with something that's sensible. And so, you know, I think it's a really useful provision and it absolutely should be there, but each of those, so both the contractor and the project manager have in the back of their mind got this ability to say, well, actually, I think there was a loss leader perhaps in the contract, or