Want fewer disputes? Start with better records

12 Jun 2026 · 1 min

Watch on YouTube

1:05

In this conversational segment, Speaker A and Speaker B discuss the strategic advantage of linking site records directly to work activities and commercial events in construction projects. They argue that a single, trusted source of truth simplifies the work of cost engineers, quantity surveyors, and productivity analysts, streamlines payment applications, and facilitates the preparation of quotations for compensation events. By having reliable, unified records, teams can collaborate more effectively, reducing the likelihood of disputes and the need for adjudication. Speaker B questions whether adjudication ever occurs when all parties agree on a complete set of records, suggesting it may be rare. Speaker A raises the cost consideration of establishing such records, referencing Robert Chadwick as a source for typical time and expense, and posits that the aggregate cost of poor record‑keeping likely exceeds the upfront investment in comprehensive record systems. The overall message promotes proactive, high‑quality record‑keeping as a cost‑effective means to prevent disputes and improve project outcomes.

Chapters

So perhaps they were more about points of principle. And I think again, the ability to link site records to the activities of work and to the commercial events makes their recall, their presentation, their orientation for those different uses, whether it's a cost engineer or a QS or somebody looking at productivity when it comes to programming. I think the other thing with having good records is that we're less likely to get into dispute because, particularly if it's a single truth, because the teams, when putting their applications to payment together or their assessment of payment, when they're putting quotations together for compensation events, if they're dealing with a trusted source of truth, then they're able to collaborate more easily and it becomes familiar. We trust that, that's something we just go for. You're taking things off the table, aren't you? I mean, you're taking more off the table. Yeah, you're, with a small a, I've said before, you're kind of agreeing big swathes of it, and then you've got more time then, right, to think about, uh, and more certainty to think about perhaps some points of principle.
Um, I mean, I'd like to test this by getting some feedback, but I wonder how many times someone's gone to adjudication with a completely agreed set of site records, because my feeling is that probably never happens. Yeah, that if you were in a place where you had a completely— you probably would have worked it out amongst yourselves, I suspect. I don't know, it'd be interesting to know. It would be really good. Well, whether any adjudication has a completely defined set of records that everyone agrees on.
Well, we could ask, you mentioned Robert Chadwick, I'm sure he would tell us how long he typically spends establishing the records on something. I'd be interested to know how much that costs. I was going to say the cost of it. Because I bet that in aggregate is far more than it would be to implement something from the beginning that meant that you both agree that had this. Yeah. I mean, why would we do anything else?
Yeah. Prevention is better than cure, isn't it really? We need to get ahead of it and not just wait for it to go wrong.