The Tricky Boiler Case—Managing Scope Issues in Project Execution

  • Ralph SchuhmannEmail author


This case study deals with three situations of unforeseen events disturbing the execution of a large-scale project. It highlights the many functions a contract has to fulfil under such circumstances, its impact on project management as well as the effects of its working environment on contract implementation. Since projects are highly dynamic, the contract’s main purpose is to organize an orderly progression of the project while maintaining the substance of the agreement reached by the parties. The contract thus serves as a manual for project execution under unexpected conditions, and the stakeholders’ potential course of action will largely depend on its content.

The conflicting necessities and interests in cases of project scope issues are addressed in particular by the concepts of change, disruption, and additional order. Each of them entails complex processes: In terms of organization and communication, they cover a considerable number of fields of management and concern a variety of departments and management functions; at a material level, decisions will be made in a somewhat opaque interplay of explicit legal rules, implicit social norms, and business objectives. The linking parameter for the various processes, however, will be the construct ‘risk’ and considerations of risk management.


  1. 1.
    AACE International. (Ed.). (2004). International examiner format of definitions. Certified Estimating Professionals (CEP). Accessed 23 July 2018.
  2. 2.
    Burr, A. (2016). Delay and disruption in construction contracts (5th ed.). New York: Informa Law from Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chilton, J. (2003). Construction claims analysis, south beach marina project. Engineering 429 Term Project, 5/12/03. Accessed 20 July 2018.
  4. 4.
    Collins, H. (1999). Regulating contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Firoozmand, R. F., & Zamani, J. (2017). Force majeure in international contracts: Current trends and how international arbitration practice is responding. Arbitration International, 33(3), 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2016). Advanced project management (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hewitt, A. (2016). Construction claims and responses: Effective writing and representation (2nd ed., pp. 11–26). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levin, P. (Ed.). (2016). Construction contract claims, changes, and dispute resolution (3rd ed.). Reston: ASCE Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. The Yale Law Journal, 88(5), 950–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ren, Z., Anumba, C. J., & Ugwu, O. (2001). Construction claims management: Towards an agent-based approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(3), 185–197.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smyth, H. (2015). Relationship management and the management of projects. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Court Cases

  1. 12.
    County of Galveston, Texas v. Triple B Services, PLL, Court of Appeals of Texas (1st. District), May 26, 2016. Accessed 22 July 2018.
  2. 13.
    ICC Award No. 4462. (1990). First award on force majeure and final award in case no. 4462 of 1985 and 1987. In: International Legal Materials, vol. 29, pp. 565–623.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ernst-Abbe-Hochschule JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations