Keith Strutt, MSc, LLM, PG Dip, MCIOB, MRICS, CCES, MInstCES, FCIArb

Expert QuestionS & AnswerS

You have worked on disputes involving projects and negotiations worth billions of dollars – what remains fundamentally the same whether the project is a building, a rail scheme, a power plant or an oil and gas field?

There is a common thread to all construction and engineering projects, that is to plan effectively and realistically for the scope of work you need to complete; that means being realistic about risks, time to complete and the cost. Then record the outcomes of the plans, share with all of the project stakeholders and keep them updated as you progress. Failing to plan, then communicate is what creates tension and mistrust – communication about the realities of the project fosters trust.

When acting as a quantum, delay and management expert, how do you keep cost, programme and project-management evidence connected rather than treating them as separate issues?

A construction project involves a team of specialists – cost engineers, project schedulers, designers, managers – but there is only one project and one set of project information. What are normally seen as cost records for instance are just records of work, which can be used for progress assessment by a delay analysist, risk registers are used by schedulers and cost engineers for planning – the information is connected by the project itself, it just requires the team to communicate share it.

Your career includes contractor, client adviser, negotiator and expert roles – how does seeing disputes from multiple sides affect your analysis?

Working from multiple sides allows someone to see from different points of view – which helps if you are the only dissenting voice. I was technical lead in a $67Bn contract negotiation, it was lengthy and complex with multiple languages and participants – my most effective contribution was explaining what was driving the other side’s stance – helping finding what the parties need for a settlement, which is not always what they are asking for, is an effective route to settlement in my experience.

In live project advisory work, what warning signs tell you that a project is heading towards a dispute unless the team changes course?

Optimism bias in planning and projecting the remaining work and costs. Not being realistic about available resources, site conditions and logistics, future cost profiles, funding, regulation approvals and supply chain realities, are the most common mistakes that sets a project on the path to dispute. Continually promising and then failing leads to a collapse in trust, credibility and effective communication – that is a very steep and slippery slope to embark on.

What have high-stakes international negotiations taught you about explaining complex technical and commercial issues clearly under pressure?

Essentially you must read everything and tell the truth when contributing; for me, if I don’t believe something is true I cannot say it. Be complete and accurate and don’t bluff if you want to deliver effectively for a client. Credibility and trust are everything, people do not agree with others they do not believe or trust – even someone who does not like the answer will accept it if they believe you and trust your answer.

Back to top