Investigating alternative dispute resolution methods and the implementation thereof by architectural professionals in South Africa

Abstract

Given the number of role players and the complexity of the building process,  disputes are inevitable. As an alternative to litigation, which is often costly and time consuming, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods could be used.  Arbitration, mediation, negotiation and adjudication are a few examples of ADR and, if understood correctly and implemented effectively, ADR could prove beneficial to  all parties involved in disputes. This article investigates the current knowledge, implementation and benefits of ADR within the South African built environment. The focus population of the study is architectural professionals, as defined by the South  African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP). A   questionnaire was  distributed among 581 architectural professionals to determine how informed these architectural  professionals are about the different ADR methods, their implementation and resultant consequences. The real-world problem is that  architectural professionals do not apply ADR methods because of the lack of knowledge regarding the implementation and benefits of ADR. It is considered that the unique contribution of this article lies in the fact that all architectural  professionals in South Africa were asked to participate in the survey regarding ADR, its methods, implementations, and their knowledge thereof. This is the first evidence of many anecdotal statements made on the lack of implementation and knowledge  regarding ADR methods within the architectural profession of South Africa. The   findings reveal that the majority of the  respondents are not familiar with the term  ADR and could not provide a clear definition; 69.4% of architectural professionals do not discuss ADR methods with their client before entering into an agreement, and 58.4% of the population have hardly any or no knowledge regarding the methods and benefits of ADR. These observations indicate that a significant portion of   architectural professionals are currently in breach of the SACAP Code of Conduct  and could potentially lose their professional license. These results indicate a  possible way forward to facilitate a larger implementation of ADR in future building projects.

Keywords: South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP), alternative dispute resolution (ADR), litigation.

Gegewe die aantal rolspelers en kompleksiteit van die konstruksiebedryf is dispute onvermydelik. As ’n alternatief tot litigasie, wat soms duur sowel as tydrowend kan wees, kan alternatiewe geskilbeslegtingsprosedures (ADR) gebruik word. Arbitrasie, bemiddeling/mediasie, onderhandeling en beoordeling is ’n paar voorbeelde van alternatiewe prosedures en, as dit korrek verstaan en geïmplementeer word, kan dit voordelig wees vir alle partye betrokke in die dispuut. Die studie ondersoek die huidige kennis, implementering en voordele van ADR. Die populasie vir die studie is gefokus op professionele persone in die boukunde, soos beskryf deur die  Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir die Argitektuurprofessie (SACAP). ’n Vraelys is versprei na 581 boukundiges om vas te stel wat boukundiges in die bedryf se huidige kennis is rakende die verskillende ADR-metodes, die implementering daarvan en die  bypassende gevolge. Die werklike probleem is dat boukundiges nie die  ADR-metodes toepas nie, weens die gebrek aan kennis rakende die implementering en voordele van ADR. Die unieke bydrae van hierdie artikel lê in die feit dat alle boukundiges in Suid Afrika gevra is om aan die opname oor ADR, metodes,  implementering en hul kennis daarvan deel te neem. Dit is die eerste bewys van baie anekdotiese stellings oor die gebrek aan implementering en kennis aangaande ADRmetodes in die boukunde van Suid Afrika. Die resultate bewys dat die meerderheid boukundiges nie vertroud is met die term ADR nie en dus ook nie ’n duidelike definisie daarvan kan gee nie; 69.4% van die boukundiges bespreek nie ADR-metodes met hul kliënte voordat hulle ’n ooreenkoms teken nie. Daar is ook bewys dat 58.4% van die boukundiges min of geen kennis van die metodes en hul bypassende voordele het nie. Hierdie waarnemings dui daarop dat ’n merkwaardige  hoeveelheid boukundiges huidiglik die SACAP-gedragskode oortree en dat hul professionele lisensies potensieel weggeneem kan word. Die resultate dui ook daarop dat daar ’n moontlike pad vorentoe is om ’n groter implementering van ADR in toekomstige bouprojekte te fasiliteer.

Sleutelwoorde: Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir die Argitektuurprofessie (SACAP), alternatiewe geskilbeslegtingsprosedures (ADR), litigasie.