Efficiency isn't about working harder. It's about better data.

21 May 2026 · 0 min

Watch on YouTube

0:07

In this brief dialogue, two speakers discuss how contract clauses—specifically those in NEC3—are sometimes misinterpreted, leading to unnecessary procedural burdens. They illustrate the point with a case study about a specification change for cherry tree species: rather than conducting an extensive time‑and‑motion or defined‑cost analysis for a minor change, it is more pragmatic to simply agree on the adjustment, as the cost of detailed assessment would outweigh any benefit. The conversation underscores the importance of focusing on data‑driven, proportionate responses to specification changes, rather than defaulting to exhaustive processes.

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 and 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