Project Management in International Arbitration · “2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration” (2015) Queen Mary University

Revue de Règlement des difféRends de mcgill

Ben Giaretta*

“Economiser du temps et de l’argent” est une demande habituelle en arbitrage international. Cependant, il peut s’agir d’un objectif problématique puisqu’il ne prend pas toujours en compte certains aspects d’un arbitrage, en particulier son cycle de vie qui s’adapte et répond aux changements, ainsi que l’exigence d’un standard de qualité élevé. Cet article propose de se concentrer à la place sur la gestion de projet en arbitrage. Un arbitrage devrait être perçu comme un projet qui requiert une évaluation complète des objectifs des parties et d’autres parties prenantes, et une bonne gestion de projet pour atteindre ces objectifs. Les arbitres peuvent apprendre énormément des autres industries quant à la gestion de projet. Appliquer des compétences de gestion de projet à l’arbitrage comprend une planification appropriée, l’identification et la gestion de l’étendue du travail, l’implication des parties prenantes, l’organisation des problématiques et des preuves, et la conclusion adéquate de l’arbitrage.

“Saving time and costs” is a common demand in international arbitration. However, this can be a problematic goal to aspire to, as it can fail adequately to take into account all aspects of an arbitration, in particular the adaptive or change-driven lifecycle of the arbitration and the requirement for a high standard of quality. This paper proposes that the focus in international arbitration should instead be on project management. An arbitration should be viewed as a project that requires a full assessment of the objectives of the parties and other stakeholders, and proper project management in order to achieve those objectives. Arbitrators can draw on a considerable body of knowledge about project management from other industries. Applying project management skills to arbitration includes appropriate planning, identifying and managing work scope, engaging with stakeholders, organising issues and evidence, and closing the arbitration properly.

Project Management in International Arbitration

McGill Journal of Dispute resolution

VOL 3 (2016-2017), 66

*MA (Oxford), PGDipIntArb (Queen Mary University of London); Chartered Arbitrator; FCIArb; FSIArb; Solicitor-Advocate, England & Wales; Partner, Ashurst LLP. The author is grateful to Rachael Moore, the Head of Project Management at Ashurst LLP for her comments on this article. All views expressed here are those of the author, and all errors or omissions are the author’s responsibility.


revue De rèGleMent Des DifférenDs De McGill

67vol 3 (2016-2017)

I. INTRODUCTION Therearemanyqualitiesthatdefineagoodarbitrator.Theymusthavesoundjudgment,

good analytical capabilities, interpersonal skills, and a strong work ethic.Advanced projectmanagementskillsarealsoincreasinglyrequired.

Projectmanagementisdistinguishedherefrom‘savingtimeandcost’,aphrasewhichhas become prevalent in international arbitration. It is a popular theme ofmany conferencesand commentaries,1 and frequently a measure by which institutions evaluate themselves intheir publications.2 It is also influencing the shape of new legislation. In India, for instance,theArbitration and ConciliationAct, 1996 has recently been amended to restrict arbitrationproceedingstoa12-monthmaximum.Noonewoulddenythattimeandcostareimportanttoarbitrationstakeholders;3butasthisarticlesuggestssavingtimeandsavingcostcanbeproblematicstandardstoaspireto.Amoreholisticunderstandingofarbitrationisneeded,asaprojectthatrequires a full assessment of the objectives of the parties and other stakeholders, and properprojectmanagementinordertoachievethoseobjectives.

II. WHAT'S WRONG WITH SAVING TIME AND COST?Thissectionoutlinesfivereasonswhysavingtimeandcostcanbeaproblematicgoalin

internationalarbitration.

A. It undervalues other objectivesFirst,savingtimeandcostisnotamongthemainobjectivesofarbitration,whichdiffer

fromproceedingtoproceeding.Asdiscussedbelow,theprincipalendinallcasesistoachievearesolutionoftheparties'dispute.Timeandcostsavingsaresecondaryobjectives,orfactorsthatprovide parameterswithinwhich the principal objective of resolving the dispute is achieved.Thesesecondaryobjectivesmustnotdivertattentionfromthemaingoal.

There are alsoother factors at play in an arbitral proceeding.Parties alwayswant theopportunitytopresenttheircase.TheUNCITRALModelLawdefinedthisasa"full"opportunity,althoughthe2010UNCITRALRuleschangedthistoa"reasonable"opportunity,4ashiftthathas

1Seee.g.JeorgRisse,“TenDrasticProposalsforSavingTimeandCostsinArbitralProceedings”(2013)29:3Ar-bitrationIntl453;PhilippAHabegger,"SavingTimeandCostsinArbitration"inManuelArroyo,ed,Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner's Guide(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2013)1393;ChristopherNewmark,"ControllingTimeandCostsinInternationalArbitration"inLawrenceWNewman&RichardDHill,eds, The Leading Arbitrators' Guide to International Arbitration(Huntington:JurisNet,2008)81;DavidBrown,“WhatStepsShouldArbitratorsTaketoLimittheCostofArbitration?”(2014)31:4IntlArbitration499;DavidJACairns,"OralAdvocacyandTimeControlinInternationalArbitration"inAlbertJanvandenBerg,ed,Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2011)at 181-201.2Seee.g.ICCCommissionReport,“ControllingTimeandCostsinArbitration”(2ndEdition,2012).LondonCourtofInternationalArbitration,NewsRelease,“LCIAReleasesCostDurationData”(3November2015),online:<www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-costs-and-duration-data.aspx>.3Thisisconsistentlyfoundinsurveysofinternationalarbitrationusers.Seee.g.PaulFriedland&LoukasMistelis,“2015InternationalArbitrationSurvey:ImprovementsandInnovationsinInternationalArbitration”(2015)QueenMaryUniversityofLondon&WhiteandCaseLLPat7.4UNCITRAL,ModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration,UNDocA/40/17,7July2006.Art18;UNCITRAL,SixthCommittee,ArbitrationRules,UNDocA/65/465,2010.Art17(1).SeeSophieNappert,

68vol 3 (2016-2017) Ben Giaretta: proJect ManaGeMent in international arBitration

notbeenappreciatedbymanyparties,whostillexpecttherighttobeheardinfull.5Therecanbeatensionbetweenkeepingtimeandcostdown,andthedesireofthepartiestohavetheircasesheard.

Inothersituations,partiesmaynotplacemuchemphasisontimeandcostfactorsatall.Theymay, for instance,agree tosuspendproceedingsforaconsiderableperiodof time if thecircumstancescallforit,withoutbeingconcernedthatthismeanstheirarbitrationisregisteredinthestatisticsastakingarelativelylongtime.6Theymayevenbewillingtoincurrelativelylargeexpenditureinordertoachievethedesiredresult.Timeandmoneymayberelativelyunimportantwhenplacedwithinthecontextofthebroadertransactioncosts,toadaptaphraseusedbyRonaldCoase,7resultingfromanunfavourableoutcome.Suchexampleshighlightthefactthatsavingtimeandcostmaysometimesbemoreaconcerntootherstakeholdersinanarbitration,suchasinstitutionsorgovernments,thanofthepartiestoanarbitration.

Thereisatrendforthoseotherstakeholderstoimposetimelimitsonarbitrations.However,anarbitratorandthepartiestoanarbitrationareusuallyinthebestpositiontoweighuptheriskstotimeandcostschedulesforanarbitration,bearinginmindtheavailableresources,andtobuildincontingencies for these, rather thanhavingfixed limits imposed fromoutside.At the1976PoundConference,ProfessorFrankSanderofHarvardUniversityobservedthat,withregardtosmallclaimscourtsintheUS:

…theevidencenowseemsoverwhelmingthattheSmallClaimsCourthasfaileditsoriginalpurpose;thattheindividualsforwhomitwasdesignedhaveturnedouttobeitsvictims.Smallwonderwhenoneconsidersthelackofrationalconnectionbetweenamountincontroversyandappropriateprocess.Quite obviously a small casemay be complex, just as a large casemay besimple.8

Inasimilarvein,partiestoanarbitrationareatriskofbecomingvictimsoffixedtimelimitsimposedbyotherstakeholders.9

B. It undervalues quality Arbitrationproceedingsmustadheretohighstandardsinordertoensureacertaindegree

ofquality.Timeandcostsavings,however,cancomeatthedetrimentofthisgoal.Unliketimeandcost,whichareeasilyquantifiable,qualitycanbedifficulttomeasure.Assomewriterson

Commentary on UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010: A Practitioner's Guide (Huntington:JurisNet,2012)at69.5"Fullopportunity"mustalsobeunderstoodinthecontextoftheparticulararbitration.A"fullopportunity"inanemergencyarbitration,forexample,wouldlookdifferentfroma"fullopportunity"inanormalarbitration.But"fullopportunity"isoftenunderstoodbyreferencetotheparty'sarguments,andnotbyreferencetotheconstraintsoftheprocess.6Forexample,intworecentcasesinwhichtheauthorhassatasarbitrator,thepartieshavechosentosuspendthearbitrationforoverayear,fortheirowncommercialreasons.7RHCoase,The Firm, the Market, and the Law(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988)atch2.8FrankEASander“VarietiesofDisputeProcessing”inA.LeoLevin&RusselR.Wheeler,eds,The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future(Eagan:WestPublishing,1979)at78.9SeealsoStephenBarkerandRobCole,Brilliant Project Management,3rded(Harlow:PearsonEducation,2012)at23.



69vol 3 (2016-2017)

projectmanagementhaveputit,"[p]rojectmanagersunderstandablyrespondtothepressuretodeliverontimeandsomewhereclosetobudget.Qualitycanoftenendupasthepoorrelationtothesetwoveryobviousmeasuresofsuccess."10

Even if quality is accounted for, models of time and cost in international arbitrationnevertheless appear ready to sacrifice it.A common trope in the analysis of time and cost inarbitrationisthedepictionoftime,costandqualityasthreecornersofatriangle,asfollows:11

Thepremiseofsuchadepictionis thatonlysomeof theseobjectivescanbeachievedsatisfactorily,withtheothersinevitablysufferingproportionally.AsDrJoergRisseobserved:

Partiestoaninternationalarbitrationmustchoosenow,byinsertingadot indicatingtheirpreferences,where theirpriorities lie:are theywillingtomaximizethequalityoftheaward,regardlessoftimeandcosts?Thenthedotwillbeclosetotheuppercornerofthetriangle.Ordotheyprefertoendtheirdisputequickly,evenbyadecisionormediocrequality?Dothepartiesprefertosavecostsastothearbitrators'feesandremunerationforoutsidecounsel,trustingthattheimpactonthefinalawardwillbelimited?Partiescannotevadeananswertothesequestions.Ifpartiesprovidenoanswer,anautomatismcalled'internationalpractice'willstepin–andtheresultistheoftencriticizedlongandcostlyarbitralproceeding.12

Thisisnottheonlywaytodepicttherelationshipbetweentime,costandquality,however(the "triple constraints" of project management). In comparison, theAssociation for ProjectManagement(APM),aleadingprojectmanagementorganisation,basedintheUK,suggeststhefollowingrepresentation:13

10 Ibid at47.11SeeRisse,supranote1at455;JenniferKirby,“EfficiencyinInternationalArbitration:WhoseDutyisIt?"(2015)32:5J Intl Arbitration 689at690.(ReferstothisrelationshipastheIronTriangle).12Risse, supra note1at455.13SeeAssociationforProjectManagement,“Whatisprojectmanagement?”(n.d.)Project Management,online:<https://www.apm.org.uk/WhatIsPM>.


In this formulation, time, cost and quality are three boundary pointsmarking out thescopeoftheproject:thepartyisnotrequiredtochoosebetweenthem.Otherdepictionsoftherelationshipbetweenthesethreeelementsincludethefollowingdiagram:14

Here,quality iscentral to theoutcomeof theproject,and timeandcostare tradedoffagainsteachother.Increasedspendingmeanstheobjectivesareachievedinlesstime,andvice versa. 15

Withinthelegalservicesindustry,thefollowingdepictionhasbeenused: 16

14Barker&Cole,supra note9at75.Thiswouldparticularlyapplyinaconstructionproject,whereincreasedspendtypicallymeansmorepeopleworkingontheproject,andhenceshortertime.Itmaynotalwaysapplyinanarbitration,whereincreasedspendmaynotnecessarilyresultinshortertime.15AnotherformulationisW.EdwardsDeming'sviewthatwhenthefocusisonquality,overtimequalitytendstoincreaseandcostsfall,becauseofthebenefitsoflong-termrelationshipswithasuppliercommittedtohighqualitystandards.However,whenthefocusisoncosts,overtimecoststendtoriseandqualitydeclines:purchasingfromthecheapestsupplierusuallyresultsinadditionalcosts,forexamplereworkcosts.Herecordsoneintervieweetellinghim:"Wecannotaffordtopurchaseequipmentandbuildingsatthelowestprice.Wehavetobecareful."SeeW.EdwardsDeming,Out of the Crisis(Cambridge,Massachusetts:MITPress,2000)at33.16TheauthorisgratefultoRachaelMooreofAshurstLLPforthisformulation.ItdrawsontheworkofThereseLintonofSydneyUniversity.



71vol 3 (2016-2017)

Like the previous depiction, quality here is a non-negotiable item,while the scope isdefinedbytime,riskandcost.17

C. It fails to identify the comparator Thirdly,thegoaloftimeandcostsavingsshouldrequireanobjectivestandardbywayof

comparison,butthisisusuallynotidentified.Writingin1989,LordMustillobservedthat:

…itistomymindundeniablethatinternationalcommercialarbitrationfacessomeseriousproblems.Atleastinitslargermanifestationsitcanbetooslow,tooformalisedandtooexpensive.Italsolackstheproceduralteethwhichare the prime advantage of the courts. Nobody has yet discoveredwhy thedinosaursbecameextinct,butitisareasonablesurmisethattheirbulkwasasignificantfactor.Itwouldbeapityifarbitrationwentthesameway.Thisisunlikelytohappen,butitisatleastworthaskingwhetheracourseofslimmingmightbeinorder.18

Writinginthe1980s,itisunlikelythatLordMustillhadthesameabsolutestandardfortimeandcostinmindascurrentcommentators.Inflation,atleast,militatesagainstthis.Ifnotbyanabsolutebenchmark,thenperhapscriticsarethinkinginrelativeterms.Ifso,itisneverstatedwhethertimeandcostinthatera'sarbitrationsare10percentabovethebenchmark,or50percent,orsomeotheramount.

Alternatively, Lord Mustill's reference to "the courts" may be an indication that the

17SeegenerallyJimHassett(forprojectmanagementinthelegalservicesindustry),Legal Project Management, Pricing, and Alternative Fee Arrangements(Boston:LegalBizDev,2013).18MichaelMustill,"Arbitration:HistoryandBackground"(1989)6:2J Intl Arbitration 43at56.


comparatoristhetimeandcostofresolvingadisputethroughastatecourtsystem.However,timeandcostvaryconsiderablybetweencourtsystems.Thecomparisonisalsotenuoussinceitmightbesaidthatusersofarbitrationpayapremiumtoavoidthepossibilityofappeal, thepeculiaritiesofindividuallegalsystems,andthecentrally-mandatedprocessesthatonefindsinstatecourt.

No-onewoulddisagreewithWarrenE.Burgerwhenhesaidthat:"Conceptsofjusticemusthavehandsandfeet…tocarryoutjusticeineverycaseintheshortestpossibletimeandthelowestpossiblecost";19andtheaphorismsof"justicedelayedisjusticedenied"and"justicehurriedisjusticeburied"areuniversallycited.Butwhatisdifficultistoidentifywhattimeandcostis"possible"inthecircumstancesandwhatyardstickisbeingusedintheparticularcase,andtoavoidthetrapofthinkingthatifjusticehasaprice,anypriceistoomuch. Thechallengeforinternationalarbitrationistoprovideaprocessthatisfit-for-purpose:involvingneitherunder-deliverynorover-delivery,andmeetingtherealisticexpectationsofusers.

D. It fails to take change into account Manyarbitrationproceedingshaveanadaptiveratherthanapredictivelifecycle.20Rather

thanthescopebeingcloselydefinedattheoutset,anarbitrationmustfacilitatechangeandhaveahighdegreeofstakeholderinvolvement.Thepartiestoanarbitrationproceedingmaychoosetoalterthecourseofthearbitrationhalfwaythrough,suspenditforcommercialreasons;orsettletheirdisputeentirely. Timeandcostsavingimperativesdonotrecognizethispotentiality,whichmayrenderinitialestimatesredundant.Worseyet,itmaysetunrealisticexpectationsatthestartofthearbitrationbynotincorporatingcontingenciesforthechangesthatarelikelytooccurasthearbitrationprogresses.

E. It fails to take into account project management Finally, timeandcost saving imperativesdetract fromoneof thegreatest advantages

of internationalarbitration, in that theydiscount thepossibilityofusingarbitration’s inherentflexibilitytoformulateaprocessthatsuitstheparticulardispute.Somearbitratorsmayfalltooreadily into repeating 'standard' procedures (the "automatism called 'international practice'"whichRissereferredto)thatarenotwellsuitedtothepartiesandtheissuesbeforethem.21 This isafailingintheirprojectmanagementskillsthatshouldindeedbeaddressed,butnotareasontotakeallprojectmanagementresponsibilitiesawayfromarbitrators.Thoseresponsibilities,andthetypesofprojectmanagementthatarbitratorsmayundertake,areconsideredintherestofthisarticle.

19WarrenBurger,“TheJudiciary”(1972)38:24Vital Speeches of the Day 740at743.20 A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,5thed(NewtownSquare:ProjectManagementInstitute,2013)atch2.4[PMBOKGuide]."Projectlifecyclescanrangealongacontinuumfrompredictiveorplan-drivenapproachesatoneendtoadaptiveorchange-drivenapproachesattheother.Inapredictivelifecycle,theproductanddeliverablesaredefinedatthebeginningoftheprojectandanychangestoscopearecarefullymanaged.Inanadaptivelifecycle,theproductisdevelopedovermultipleiterationsanddetailedscopeisdefinedforeachiterationonlyastheiterationbegins."21Risse,supra note1at455.



73vol 3 (2016-2017)

III. PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEFINITIONSA. Arbitration as project

The ProjectManagement Institute (PMI), a leading project management organisationbased in theUSA,definesaproject for thepurposesofprojectmanagement as "a temporaryendeavourundertakentocreateauniqueproduct,serviceorresult."22

Thisdefinitionservesuswellhere.Arbitrationisatemporaryendeavour,arisingoutofaspecificcontract,andisundertakentocreateauniqueresult,namelytheresolutionoftheparticulardisputethatisinfrontofthearbitrators.Anindividualarbitrationdoesnotexisttocreatelaw,orserveasasymbolofjustice(exceptperhapsinthegenericsense).Ithasnoexistencebeyondthelifeofthecase;itmustbeorientatedtowardsresults,withanemphasisonwhatneedstobedeliveredratherthanonwhatneedstobedone.

B. Arbitrator as project manager Aproject,ofcourse,alsoneedstobemanaged–itcannotmanageitself.ThePMIdefines

projectmanagement as "the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to projectactivities to meet the project requirements."23 It defines the project manager as "the personassignedbytheperformingorganizationto leadtheteamthat isresponsibleforachievingtheprojectobjectives."24

When applying the project management paradigm to arbitration, it is the arbitratorswhoqualifyasprojectmanagers.Thepartieshaveentrustedthemwiththedispute.Thearbitralinstitutions25 and arbitral laws26 recognise that arbitrators bear the responsibility to adoptappropriate procedures.27 It is important that arbitrators acknowledge this responsibility andembracetheirroleasprojectmanager.AsRivkinandRoweputit,“arbitratorswhosimplysitbackandletthepartiescontroltheagendaarelettingthosesamepartiesdown".28

Ofcourse,arguablythearbitratorscannot"lead"intheusualsenseoftheword,particularlyiftheteamthatisresponsibleforachievingtheprojectobjectivesmainlycomprisesthepartiesandtheir lawyers.Arbitratorsdonotoversee themoneyspentbypartiesontheirprofessionaladvisers, or the effort put in by counsel to prepare their client's case.But they can still lead

22PMBOKGuide,supranote20 atch1.2.23 Ibidatch1.3.24 Ibidatch1.7.25Seee.g.Singapore International Arbitration Center Rules 2013,Rule16.1."TheTribunalshallconductthearbitrationinsuchmannerasitconsidersappropriate,afterconsultingwiththeparties,toensurethefair,expeditious,economicalandfinaldeterminationofthedispute".26Seee.g.Arbitration Act 1996 (UK),c23,s33(b)."Thetribunalshall…adoptproceduressuitabletothecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,avoidingunnecessarydelayorexpense,soastoprovideafairmeansfortheresolutionofthemattersfallingtobedetermined."27DavidWRivkin&SamanthaJRowe,“TheRoleoftheTribunalinControllingArbitralCosts”(2015)81:2Arbitration116;DavidWRivkin,“TowardsaNewParadigminInternationalArbitration:TheTownElderModelRevised”(2008)24:3Arbitration Intl375;SeealsoMitchellMarinelloandRobertMatlin,"MuscularArbitrationandArbitratorsSelf-ManagementCanMakeArbitrationFasterandMoreEconomical"(2012)67:4DisputeResolutionJ69.28Rivkin&Rowe,supranote26at123.


indirectly.29Suchleadershipismanifestedin:

1. setting the timetablewhichprovides the framework for thepartiesandtheircounseltooperatein;

2. using costs awards, or the intimation of them, to mould parties'behaviour;30

3. leading by example, by being responsive to correspondence andthoroughlypreparedatallrelevantstages; 31

4.remainingfocussedontheobjectivesofthearbitration;

5.usingallthetoolsandtechniquesavailabletotheminordertokeepthearbitrationoncourse(asdiscussedbelow);

6.activelymonitoringotherstakeholders(inparticular,thepartiesandtheircounsel)inordertoconfirmtheywillcomplywiththetimetable;

7. keeping the timetable under review throughout the arbitration, tocheckthatitremainsachievable;and

8.forthepresidingarbitratorofathree-persontribunal,communicatingclearlyandpromptlywiththeothertwoarbitrators.

Theprojectmanageranalogyisalsousefulbecauseofthegrowingmovementtowardsthe professionalization of both roles. Project managers can train and earn qualifications viaorganisationssuchasthePMIandtheAPM,ascanarbitratorsthroughorganisationssuchastheCharteredInstituteofArbitrators.Inaddition,itisrecognisedthatprojectmanagerscanbringtheirexperienceofotherprojectstobear,toensurethatbestpracticesareadoptedandpastmistakesavoided;arbitratorsalsobringsuchexperiencetoacase.Likeprojectmanagers,arbitratorsmustconstantlylooktoadaptandevolve,andlearnfromeacharbitrationtheyworkon.

Thinkingofanarbitratorasaprojectmanagerdoesnotprecludeassigningasimilarroletocounselwithinhisorherownteam.Thepreparationandpresentationofaparty'scasemaybeseenasitsownproject,occurringwithintheprojectofthearbitrationasawhole.Budgets,inparticular,whichareoutsidethearbitrator'sfieldofvision,fallsquarelywithinthecounsel'spurview.Theparty'scounsel(usuallyitsexternalcounsel,butsometimesitsin-housecounsel)shouldthereforealsousethesametoolsandtechniquesasaredescribedbelow.

C. The Arbitral institution as a project management office ThePMIalsorecognizesthatmultiplestructuresareinvolvedinprojectmanagement..

29Indirectleadershipoccursinotherprojectmanagementsituations.SeePMBOKGuide,supranote20atch9.4.2."Becauseprojectmanagersoftenhavelittleornodirectauthorityoverteammembersinamatrixenvironment,theirabilitytoinfluencestakeholdersonatimelybasisiscriticaltoprojectsuccess."30ICCCommissiononArbitrationandADR,Report on Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration, 2nded,ICC,Doc861-1ENG(2015)15,online:www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/Document-centre/2012/ICC-Arbitration-Commission-Report-on-Techniques-for-Controlling-Time-and-Costs-in-Arbitration/.31Barker&Cole,supra note9at162."Brilliantprojectmanagersrecognisethecriticalimportanceofpreparation.Thisattitudeextendsintoeverythingtheydoandsay,whetherit'shavingcontingenciesinplacetodealwithaseriousprojectriskorcirculatingawell-constructedagendainadvanceofameeting."



75vol 3 (2016-2017)

Aprojectmanagementoffice(PMO)is"amanagementstructurethatstandardizestheproject-relatedgovernanceprocessesandfacilitatesthesharingofresources,methodologies,tools,andtechniques"32; and project-based organisations (PBOs) are ones that “conduct themajority oftheirworkasprojects”.33 Bothdefinitionsmightapplytoanarbitrationinstitution,suchastheICC.Institutionsmaintainaportfolioofarbitrationprojects,anditisimportanttorecognizetheinstitutions'roleinthisrespect.Theysupportarbitratorsconductingarbitrationsundertheirrules;equally,theyhavearesponsibilitytomonitorsucharbitrators,whichmanifestsitselfinafurtherlayerofindirectcontrol.Theyauditthearbitrationatitsclosing,includingreviewingtheaward.34 Theymayalsoreducearbitrators'feesinconsequenceofarbitrator-causeddelay,35andsanctionarbitratorsbyremovingthemfromtheirpanelofarbitrators(iftheinstitutionmaintainssuchapanel).36

D. Stakeholders in the projectFinally,projectmanagersmustacknowledgethevariousstakeholders inaproject.The

PMIdefinestheseas:

Astakeholderisanindividual,group,ororganizationwhomayaffect,beaffectedby,orperceiveitselftobeaffectedbyadecision,activityoroutcomeofaproject.Stakeholdersmaybeactivelyinvolvedintheprojectorhaveintereststhatmaybepositivelyornegativelyaffectedbytheperformanceorcompletionof the project.Different stakeholdersmayhave competing expectations thatmightcreateconflictswithintheproject.Stakeholdersmayalsoexertinfluenceovertheproject,itsdeliverables,andtheprojectteaminordertoachieveasetofoutcomesthatsatisfybusinessobjectivesorotherneeds.37

The parties are obviously stakeholders and have the most pressing interest in theproceedings.Otherstakeholders includecounselandparty-appointedexpertswhobothderivefeesfromanarbitrationhearing,andhavearelationshipwiththeirclientstomaintain.Theyhavealso invested reputational capital:wanting to serve their clientswell andperformcredibly intheeyesoftheotherparticipants.Arbitralinstitutionsandthestatesoftheseatofthearbitrationarealsostakeholders inasmuchas theyhavea"brand"topromoteandprotect.Theydesire toencourage others to nominate them in future arbitrations.The body of stakeholders can alsoconceivablyextend towitnesses,whowant tomaintain theirownreputation,aswellasother

32PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch1.4.4.33 Ibid atch1.5.2.34Theextenttowhichinstitutionsreviewawardsvariesbetweeninstitutions,ofcourse,dependingontheirapplicablerulesandpractices. 35SeetheannouncementbytheICCthatitwillreducearbitrators'feesforunjustifieddelaysinsubmittingawards,ICC,NewsArticle,“ICCCourtannouncesnewpoliciestofostertransparencyandensuregreaterefficiency”(6January2016),online:<http://www.iccwbo.org/News/Articles/2016/ICC-Court-announces-new-policies-to-foster-transparency-and-ensure-greater-efficiency/>.36SeeCatherineARogers,"TheVocationoftheInternationalArbitrator"(2005)20:5AmUIntlLRev957("Therelativepermanenceandvisibilityofarbitralinstitutions,ascomparedtoindividualarbitrators,andtheirintimateknowledgeof,anddirectinvolvementin,arbitrationpracticesandproceduresgivesthemanunrivalledinstitutionalcompetencetoregulatearbitrators.Giventheirinstitutionalcompetence,theyarepoisedtobecometointernationalarbitratorswhatbarassociationsaretolawyers"at1011).37PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch2.2.


serviceprovidersincludingtranscribersandprovidersofhearing-rooms.38

The arbitrator as projectmanagermust acknowledge these interests and communicatewithsuchstakeholdersasrequiredthroughouttheprojectlifespan.Also,newstakeholdersmaybeidentifiedasthearbitrationproceeds.Forthesepurposesitisusefulforanarbitratortodrawupastakeholderregisteratanearlystageofthecase,identifyingeachstakeholderanditsinterests.39 Thestakeholderregistercanhelpwiththeidentificationofthescopeoftheproject(asdiscussedbelow)andguidethearbitratorinthecommunicationthatisrequiredasthearbitrationproceeds.

IV. THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT LIFECYCLE Thissectionwillillustratearbitrationasaproject,approachedfromaprojectmanagement

perspective. Complex projects, such as major infrastructure works, justify detailed projectmanagement,withmanylayersandstages.Amajorarbitrationmayneedsuchcomplexitytoo,butforthisgeneraloverviewthefollowingfourmainstagesofaprojectcanbeidentified:40

A.Initiating

B.Planning

C.Delivering

D.Closing

Thesestagesareconsideredinturnbelow.

A. Initiating Anyprojectmustbestartedproperly.Akeydocumentatthebeginningofaproject,in

projectmanagementterms,istheprojectcharter.Thissetsouttheprojectandgivestheprojectteamtheauthoritytoproceed.Ininternationalarbitration,theNoticeofArbitrationandResponsemight together comprise the project charter – they give authority for the appointment of thetribunal–butabetteranalogueistheTermsofReferenceinICCarbitration,whichidentifiesthepartiesandthetribunalandsummarizestheparties'positions.

i. The objectives of an arbitrationAnimportantfunctionoftheprojectcharteristoidentifytheproject'sobjectives,andthe

parties'andotherstakeholders'requirementsforthearbitration.Asindicatedabove,thesemayvaryfromarbitrationtoarbitration.Anarbitratormightusefullydiscussparties'objectivesandrequirementswiththematanearlystageofthearbitration,ifthepartiesarewillingtodisclosethese.Justasinmediation,itishelpfultoestablishattheoutsetwhatthecommonaimsoftheparties and other stakeholders are.41However, even if such a conversation is not feasible, an

38Thisarticlemainlyconsidersinternationalcommercialarbitration.Ininvestmenttreatyarbitration,thebodyofstakeholdersmaybewider,toincludeallthoseaffectedbythedecision(anditmightbedifficultforthearbitratortoidentifythese).Also,anumberofthesemightnotbeincludedinthestakeholderregister,becausetheyfalloutsidethearbitrationprocess,butnonethelessmayhavesignificantinterests.39PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch13.1.3.1.40 Ibid atch2.4.1.41 Ibid atch3.3."Involvingthesponsors,customers,andotherstakeholdersduringinitiationcreatesashared



77vol 3 (2016-2017)

arbitratormay considerwhat the parties' and other stakeholders' objectives and requirementsmightbe.

Rule 37.2 of theArbitrationRules of the Singapore InternationalArbitrationCentre42 states:

InallmattersnotexpresslyprovidedforintheseRules,thePresident,theCourt,theRegistrarandtheTribunalshallactinthespiritoftheseRulesand shall make every reasonable effort to ensure the fair, expeditious and economical conclusion of the arbitration and the enforceability of the award.(Emphasisadded)

Similarwording is found inResolution 40/72 of theGeneralAssembly of theUnitedNations,adoptedatthe112thplenarymeetingon11December1985,whichisrecordedatthebeginningoftheUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitrationintheversionpublishedbyUNCITRAL.Thisstates(inpart):

Convinced that theModelLaw, togetherwith theConventionon theRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwardsandtheArbitrationRules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade LawrecommendedbytheGeneralAssemblyinitsresolution31/98of15December1976,significantlycontributestotheestablishmentofaunifiedlegalframeworkfor the fair and efficient settlement of disputes arising in international commercial relations.43 (emphasisadded)

TheEnglishArbitrationAct1996states(atsection1):

(a)theobjectofarbitrationistoobtainthe fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense.44(Emphasisadded)

Theprincipalobjectiveindicatedintheselawsandrulesistheconclusionofthearbitrationor resolutionof thedispute.Arbitration is typically resolved inoneof twoways: through thepartiescomingtoanegotiatedsettlementorthroughafinalaward.Theformerisnotwithinthecontrolofthearbitrator,buttheycanfacilitateitthroughaprocessthatbringsthepartiesintocontactandbringsissuestotheforeatanearlystage.Thelatteriswithinthearbitrator'scontrol,andmustbeborneinmindthroughout,inparticularfromtheearlystagesofthearbitration.Itisalsoworthnotingthatthesetwoobjectives,fromthepointofviewofthearbitrator,arealsoqualitativelydifferent:oneisprocess,theotherisanoutcome.Promotingtheprocessissimilartotheobjectiveofamediator;deliveringanawardinvolvesbeingadecision-makerorjudge.

Four requirements that set boundaries around the arbitration are then identified: theobjectivesmustbeachievedinafair,expeditiousandeconomicalmanner,andtheawardmustbeenforceable.Thefirstthreetermscanallbearasubjectivemeaningandcanbeinterpreteddifferently

understandingofsuccesscriteria,reducestheoverheadofinvolvement,andgenerallyimprovesdeliverableacceptance,customersatisfaction,andotherstakeholdersatisfaction.”42 Supranote24at37.2.43UNCITRAL,supranote4atvii.44 Supranote25ats1.


bypartiesdependingontheirbackground,nationalcultureandindividualcircumstances.Also,therelationshipbetweentheserequirementsmustbeinterrogated,inordertoestablishwhetherthereareanyinconsistencies,and,ifso,howthesearetoberesolved.45

The fourth requirement, relating to the enforceability of the award, also depends ontheparticularcircumstances,althoughsomegeneralpointsmaybemade.Foranaward tobeenforceable,theprovisionsoftherelevantlawattheplaceofenforcement(whichthearbitratormay reasonablyassumewillbebasedon theNewYorkConvention)mustbecompliedwith.Thiswillencompassensuringdueprocess,andavoidingunethicalbehaviour;moreover,asLordNeubergerobservedat theCentenaryConferenceof theChartered InstituteofArbitrators, anarbitratormustupholdtheruleoflaw.46

Other requirements may be imposed by particular stakeholders, as identified in thestakeholderregister.Forexample,therelevantarbitralinstitutionmayspecifyaparticularprocess,suchastheTermsofReferenceprocedurespecifiedbytheICC.

ii. The scope of an arbitrationFromanassessmentoftheobjectivesandrequirements,alongwithanacknowledgement

oftheavailableresources,comesanappreciationofthescopeofthearbitration.Asoneprojectmanagementtextbookputsit:"Allprojectsneedasoundstatementofscope.Thisdescribestheboundarytobedrawnaroundwhattheprojectwillandwillnotdeliver."47

ThePMIdefinesaprojectscopestatementas:

…thedescriptionoftheprojectscope,majordeliverables,assumptions,and constraints. The project scope statement documents the entire scope,including project and product scope. It describes, in detail, the project'sdeliverablesandtheworkrequiredtocreatethosedeliverables.Italsoprovidesacommonunderstandingoftheprojectscopeamongprojectstakeholders.48

Aproject scope statement is needed at the start of arbitration so that any requests forchangesatlaterstagescanbeproperlyassessed(asdiscussedbelow).Itcanalsohelpthearbitratoridentifywhenthescopeisbeingexceeded,intheabsenceofaspecificrequest–henceavoiding"scopecreep".49

45Forexample,theSingaporeHighCourtinAQZ v ARA[2015]SGHC49hadtoconsiderwhethertheparties'choiceoftheSIACRules,withitsexpeditedprocedureinvolvingonearbitrator,couldbereconciledwiththeexpressstatementinthearbitrationagreementthatthepartieswantedtheretobethreearbitrators.46LordNeuberger,“ArbitrationandtheRuleofLaw”,SpeechattheCharteredInstituteofArbitratorsCentenaryCelebration,HongKong,20March2015,online:<www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-150320.pdf>.47Barker&Cole,supranote9at19.SeealsoPMBOKGuide,supranote20atch5.3."Thepreparationofadetailedprojectscopestatementiscriticaltoprojectsuccessandbuildsuponthemajordeliverables,assumptions,andconstraintsthataredocumentedduringprojectinitiation.Duringprojectplanning,theprojectscopeisdefinedanddescribedwithgreaterspecificityasmoreinformationabouttheprojectisknown.Existingrisks,assumptions,andconstraintsareanalysedforcompletenessandaddedorupdatedasnecessary."48PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch5.3.3.49Barker&Cole,supranote9at19."Onanyprojectthereisariskof'scopecreep'–thegradualprocessoftheworkexpandingwithouttheimplicationsbeingmanagedeffectively."SeealsoPMBOKGuide,supranote20atch5.6."Theuncontrolledexpansiontoproductorprojectscopewithoutadjustmentstotime,cost,andresourcesis



79vol 3 (2016-2017)

B. PlanningOnce thearbitration isunderway, twofurtherdocumentsmustbedeveloped:aproject

management plan and a project schedule.ThePMIobserves that a projectmanagement plan"defineshowtheprojectisexecuted,monitoredandcontrolled,andclosed".50Itwillinclude:

1. the objectives of the arbitration, its scope and the deliverables (inparticular,thearbitrationaward);

2.theresourcesavailableinthearbitration,andageneralallocationofresponsibilities;and

3. an implementation strategy, including an identification of possiblerisks,andtheassumptionsunderlyingtheplanning.

Aprojectmanagementplanwilltheninfluencethebudgetsforthearbitrationpreparedbythepartiesandtheircounsel,basedontheobjectives,scopeandschedule.

Aprojectschedulewillinclude:

1.anachievable timetable for thearbitration, taking intoaccount theobjectives,deliverables,resourcesandanyexternalfactors;

2.aspecificallocationofresponsibilities;and

3.anidentificationofthedependenciesintheschedule,sothatacriticalpathcanbedevelopedwhichshowsthelongestroutetothecompletionofthearbitration(determiningthedurationofthearbitration)andtheachievementoftheobjectives.51

Theprojectplanandprojectschedulewillbepreparedthroughcommunicationwiththevariousstakeholders,mostobviouslywiththepartiestothearbitrationataproceduralhearing,butalsowithotherstakeholderssuchasthearbitralinstitution.Theplanandtheschedulewillonlybeworkableifthereisbuy-infromallstakeholders.

Individual stagesof thearbitration, suchasdisclosureofdocuments,mightbebrokendownintosubordinatephaseswithspecificplansandschedules.Forthearbitrator,theprocessfordraftingtheawardmightbemappedout,inparticularidentifyingtheallocationofresponsibilitiesbetweenarbitratorswhenthereisathree-persontribunal,andthetimingforthedraftingofeachsectionoftheaward.Further,thecounseloneachsidecanpreparetheirownplansandschedulesforworkdonewithintherelevantcounselteam,suchasdraftingofpleadings.

Theprojectplanandtheprojectschedulearetoolstobeusedduringthearbitration:theymustmaketheobjectivesof thearbitrationvisible,andmakeiteasyforstakeholders to trackthearbitration'sprogress.Asaresult,theplanandtheschedulemustbepreparedlogicallyandpresented in a user-friendly format. For example, in addition to being set out inwriting in aproceduralorder,thearbitrationschedulemightbepresentedinagraphicalformatsuchasaGantt

referredtoasscopecreep."50PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch4.2.51 Ibidatch6.6.2."Thecriticalpathisthesequenceofactivitiesthatrepresentsthelongestpaththroughaproject,whichdeterminestheshortestpossibleprojectduration."


chartoraflowdiagram,orbyusingaKanbanboard.

C. Delivering Thedeliveryphasecanbebrokendownintofourmainprojectmanagementworkstreams

for an arbitrator, namely: organising the issues and evidence; engaging with stakeholders;managingthescopeandschedule;anddraftingtheaward.

i. Organising the issues and evidence Organisingtheissuesandtheevidencepresentedbythepartiesisanessentialpartofan

arbitrator'srole.52Thisprocessofcollatingandorganisingrequirescloseanalysisofthedisputebythearbitratorandonlybysuchanorganizationcanthearbitratorproduceanawardthatisnotsimplyareproductionofaparty'ssubmissions(andareproductionofsubmissionsisnoawardatall).Activelyengagingwiththisorganisingtaskbecomesallthemoreimportantincaseswherethere isa largeamountofevidence,orelse importantpointsmaybe lost.Norcanarbitratorssimply relyon theparties'counsel todo this job for them:whilecounselmayprovideusefulsupportforthearbitrators(forexample,byprovidinganindexofdocuments),theresponsibilityremainsthatofthearbitratorsandcannotbedelegated.53

Variouspowers,toolsandtechniquesareavailabletothearbitratortoassistwiththis.Attheoutset,thearbitratormayidentifyandlistthekeyissues.Thislistthenbecomesthefoundationstoneforanumberofotherlists,including:

1.alistofkeyeventsanddates;

2.alistofdocumentaryevidence;and

3.alistofpeopleinvolved–notonlythepeopleinvolvedinthedispute,butalsowitnessesandotherstakeholders;

Eachlistmaybecross-referencedagainstthelistofissues.Inthiswayan"issuemap"canbedeveloped,throughthemultipleconnections–perhapsmostusefullypresentedinapictorialformsimilartothatofa"mindmap".54

Assuchanissuemaptakesshape,itcanguidethearbitratorastotheformofthearbitrationasthescheduleproceeds.Forexample,anissuemightsuggestthebifurcationoftheproceedings,ifrelevanttheappointmentofanexperttoassistthetribunal,oraparticulararrangementofthepresentationofwitnessevidenceinamannerthatsuitsthenatureoftheevidenceandtheissues

52MichaelESchneider,"LeanArbitration:CostControlandEfficiencythroughProgressiveIdentificationofIssuesandSeparatePricingofArbitrationServices"(1994)10:2ArbIntl119.53Inajudicialcontext,seethecommentsofJudgeRichardPosnercriticizingthedelegationofopinion-writingtolawclerks:"Thejudge-editoralsomaynotrealizethattheprocessofwriting,whichmeanssearchingforwords,forsentences,inwhichtoexpressmeaning,isaprocessofdiscoveryratherthanjustofexpressingpreformedideas;thatitrevealsanalyticalgaps;thatitgivesrisetonewideas;andthatfluencyinwritingcomeslargelyfrom–writing."RichardPosner,ReflectionsonJudging(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2013)at240.54SeegenerallyTonyBuzan,The Ultimate Book of Mind Maps(Thorsons,2012).SeealsoIainSheridan,"QualitativeAnalyticalModelsforArbitration"(2016)33:2JIntlArb171.Theauthorpresentsthreeanalyticalmodelsthatmaycontributetoimprovingtheprocessesandoutcomesofinternationalarbitration,includingmindmaps.



81vol 3 (2016-2017)

involved,suchaswitnessconferencing.

ii. Engaging with stakeholders Thesecondworkstreaminvolvesengagingwithstakeholdersduringthearbitration.Key

tothisisbuildingeffectiverelationships,55sothatstakeholders'needsaremet,andstakeholders'inputs are appropriately made. Relationships depend on the individuals concerned, so thearbitrator'sstylemayneedtobeadaptedtosuitthecircumstances;butsomegeneralobservationsmaybemade.

First,thestakeholderregister(asdiscussedabove)willhelpthearbitratoridentifyeachstakeholder'sinterests,andguidethearbitratorintheengagement.Forexample,ProfessorJulianLew has lamented that sometimes the interests of parties' counselmay be an obstacle to anarbitration:

Lawyershaveincreasinglyseenarbitrationasanotherplayingfieldinwhichtoexerciselitigationskills,ratherthanasaforumfordisputesettlement.Theyviewtheobjectivesas 'beating' theotherpartyrather thandeterminingthemeaningoftheagreementoutofwhichthedisputehasarisenandtherightsandobligationsoftheparties.Theattemptsbylawyersfromonejurisdictiontoimposetheirownproceduralsystemonthetribunalandtheotherpartyinthenameof'fairness'canunderminetheinternationalarbitralprocess.Tacticalissues,suchaschallengestoarbitrators,raisingjurisdictionalissues,demandsfor additional time, lengthy hearings, additional submissions, excessivewitnesses andchallenges to theproceduraldirectionsof arbitrators,haveallcontributed tomake arbitrationmore contentious.All thatmatters is for theclienttowin!Asaresultofthesefactors,theoriginaltwinmeritsofarbitration,i.e.speedandinexpense,arenolongerreallytrue.56

Recognitionofsuchanattitudemayhelpthearbitratorinunderstandingcommunicationsfromcertaincounselandguidebehaviourtoaproductiveend.

Ontheotherhand,theinattentionofpartiesandtheircounselmayequallycreateobstacles,includingpoorlypresentedsubmissionsorbadlyorganisedevidence.Forexample,intheHongKongHighCourtcaseofTang Chung Wah and another v. Jonathan Russell Leong and others, thejudgecomplainedthatthetrialbundle,whichfilled22files,wasexcessiveinbulkand:

Hadthepartiestakencaretoincludeonlythosedocumentswhichwerestrictlyessentialtoresolvetheirdisputesorwhichcouldreasonablybeexpectedwouldbereferredtointhecourseofthetrial,Iwouldhavethoughtthetrialbundlescouldhavebeenshrunktonomorethan3to4leverarchfilesintotal.57

The arbitratormust strive to ensure thatparties and their counsel remainproductively

55Barker&Cole,supra note9at84."Alargepartoftheroleinvolvesbuildingeffectiveworkingrelationshipswithawholerangeofpeople–andsometimesinchallengingcircumstances.Amantraforusis:projectmanagersmanagepeoplenotactivities." 56JulianLew,"AchievingthePotentialofEffectiveArbitration"(1999)65:4Arb283.57 Tang Chung Wah and another v. Jonathan Russell Leong and others,[2016]HCA1691/2011atpara189.


engagedthroughoutthearbitration.58

Ofcourse,thereisalsotheriskthatarbitratorsthemselvesmaylosefocus,particularlyparty-appointedarbitratorsonthree-membertribunalswhomaynothaveacentralrolethroughoutthe arbitration. It is part of the responsibilities of the presiding arbitrator to ensure that allarbitratorsarefullyengagedandcontributing.Regularcommunicationbetweenthearbitratorsisimportanthere.Ithasbeenrightlyrecognisedthatitisimportantforarbitratorstotakeadvantageofopportunitiesdirectlyafterahearingtoconverseabouttheaward,whiletheevidenceisfreshinone'smind(theso-called"ReedRetreat"59).Equally,discussionsbetweenthearbitratorsmighttakeplaceatearlierstagesofthearbitration,suchaswhenpleadingsarefiled.

Engagementwithstakeholders includesensuring thatcommunicationsareeffective. Inparticular,emailcommunicationought tobeclearandresponsive;andhearingsandmeetingsmustbemanagedappropriately.Thisincludes:

1.preparingasuitableagendainadvance;

2.settingatime-periodforthehearingormeetingthataccommodatestheagenda;

3.managingthehearingormeetingtoensurethattheagendaiscompletedwithinthetimeavailable(withappropriateallocationoftimetoeachitem);

4.followingupwithasuitablerecordofwhatwasdiscussedordecided;

5. adopting communication techniques that are appropriate for thecontentofthemeeting/hearing,suchasfacilitationtechniquesduringdiscussionoftheprojectschedule;

6. ensuring that relevant stakeholders attend each meeting/hearing,for example parties' commercial representatives or in-house counsel at theproceduralhearing;

7. using telephone and video conferencingwhere appropriate, to cutdownoncosts;

8.usingin-personmeetingswhereappropriate,recognisingthatbodylanguageisanimportantelementofcommunicationandcannotbereplicatedremotely;60 and

9. employing active listening techniques, to ensure comprehensionof thepoints thataremade,and todemonstrate this to thespeaker (whethercounselorwitness),therebyencouragingthemtobesuccinct.

iii. Managing the scope and schedule

58Foradiscussionoftheneedforin-housecounseltobefullyengaged,seeUgoDraetta,"TheRoleofIn-houseCounselinInternationalArbitration"(2009)75:4Arb470.59LucyReed,"ArbitralDecision-Making:Art,ScienceorSport?"(KaplanLecture2012deliveredattheHongKongInternationalArbitrationCentre,2December2012),online:www.arbitration-icca.org/media/4/42869508553463/media113581569903770reed_tribunal_decision-making.pdf.60Seee.g.JamesBorg,Body Language,3rded(Pearson:2013).



83vol 3 (2016-2017)

The thirdworkstreaminvolvesmanaging thescopeandscheduleof thearbitration. Itisimportanttorecognizethatplanningisnotconfinedtotheearlystagesofarbitration.AsthePMIhasobserved,"Duetothepotentialforchange,thedevelopmentoftheprojectmanagementplan isan iterativeactivityand isprogressivelyelaborated throughout theproject's lifecycle.Progressiveelaborationinvolvescontinuouslyimprovinganddetailingaplanasmoredetailedandspecificinformationandmoreaccurateestimatesbecomeavailable."61

Theplanandschedulemustnotbesetoutinaninitialproceduralorderandthentreatedasifsetinstone.Anarbitratormustreturntothatproceduralorderagainandagainthroughoutthearbitration,tocheckwhetherthearbitrationremainsontrack,andtoworkoutwhatadditionaldetailsmightbeneededandwhatimprovementsmightbemade.62

An important part of this is managing change in the arbitration. Change might beunexpectedandoutsideanyone'scontrol,suchasillnessduringahearing.Itmayalsobeattherequestof aparty, either to change the scheduleof the arbitration to ensure that the scope isachieved,ortochangethescopeofthearbitrationwithconsequentchangetotheschedule.Thearbitratormustensureontheonehandthatsuchchangedoesnotderailthearbitration,butontheotherhandthatappropriatechangeisallowedinordertoachievethearbitration'sobjectives.Asuitablestatementofthescopeandscheduleatthebeginningofproceedings(asdicussedabove)willhelpthearbitratortoaccommodatechangeeffectively.Changemayrequireamendmentstotheprojectmanagementplan,thescopestatement,andtheschedule. 63

Changecontrolasthearbitrationproceedsisfacilitatedbytheon-goingpreparationofachangeregister,recordingallchangesandchangerequests(evenifrejected),andismoderatedbytheawardofanycoststhatareconsequentuponsuchchanges.Relatedtothis,itisimportanttoanticipatetherisksandconsequentchangesthatmightimpactthearbitration:inparticular,theriskthatthescopeofthearbitrationmightexpand,forexampleasaresultofaparty'scasenotbeingsetoutinfullatthebeginningofthearbitration,meaningthatthescopeofthearbitrationcannotproperlybecapturedattheoutset.64

Variouspowers,toolsandtechniquesareavailabletothearbitratortomanagethescopeandtheschedule.Forinstance,thearbitratormayusecostawardstosanctionmisbehaviour,restricttheparties'writtensubmissionsbyimposingapage-limit,employachecklistofthingstobedone,orusetechnologysuchassharedonlineworkspaces,ftpsitesandelectronicsubmissions.

iv. Drafting the awardThefourthworkstreamisthedraftingoftheawarditself.Theawardistheproductofall

61PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch1.3.62Seealsotheobservationabovethatmanyarbitrationshaveanadaptiveratherthanapredictivelifestyle:seeSectionII(D)andfootnote21.63PMBOKGuide,supranote20atch4.5."Theprojectmanagementplan,theprojectscopestatement,andotherdeliverablesaremaintainedbycarefullyandcontinuouslymanagingchanges,eitherbyrejectingchangesorbyapprovingchanges,therebyassuringthatonlyapprovedchangesareincorporatedintoarevisedbaseline."64Thesuggestionofa"KaplanOpening",requiringthepartiestomakeashortpresentationatthebeginningofanarbitrationinordertosetouttheirrespectivecases,isintendedtomitigatethisrisk:NeilKaplan,"IfItAin'tBroke,Don'tChangeIt"(2014)80:2Arb172,online:<www.arbitration-icca.org/media/4/44493740788727/media314050030194870kaplan_if_it_aint_broke_dont_change_it.pdf>.


thathasgonebefore,butmayinlargepartbeadvancedconcurrentlywiththeotherworkstreams.In particular, the sections of the award describing the arbitration itself can be drafted as thearbitrationproceeds;andthestructureoftheawardcanbedevelopedastheissuesareidentifiedandorganised.Theproperweighingoftheevidenceanddeterminationoftheissuesofcoursecannotbeconcludeduntilallevidenceandsubmissionshavebeenfiled,buttheultimatedraftingtaskcanbemadeconsiderablyeasierbytheprecedingefforts,aswellasbythetimespentonorganisingandanalysingtheissuesandtheevidence.

Drafting the award in the final stage of the arbitration should be properly scheduled,and,ifthereisathree-persontribunal,responsibilitiesmustbeproperlyallocated.Thetribunalmustalsocommunicatewith relevantstakeholders– thepartiesand thearbitral institution, inparticular–astoprogressinthedrafting,sothattheirexpectationsaremanagedandtheyhavetheopportunitytocommentonthetiming.

D. Closing Likeallprojects,anarbitrationmustbeproperlyclosed.Closingcomeswhentheobjectives

ofthearbitrationhavebeenachievedandthescopehasbeenfulfilled:65henceitisimportanttostate these at theoutset and record any changes to themduring the courseof the arbitration.Formalitiesmustalsobecompliedwith,toauthorizeclosing:eithertheawardmustbeissued,orthetribunalmustconfirmthatthearbitrationhasbeenbroughttoanendfollowingasettlement.66

Itisimportantatclosingforthoseinvolvedtoreviewwhathasbeendone.Ifanarbitralinstitutionisinvolved,itmayconductanassurancereviewoftheawardbeforetheawardisissued.Theinstitutionmayalsoreviewthearbitrator'sperformanceinordertoinformdecisionsaboutappointingthearbitratoragaininthefuture.Thepartiesshouldthemselvesprovidefeedbacktotheinstitution,tocontributetothisassessment.

Finally,arbitratorsmustanalysewhattheyhavedoneandwhattheyhavedelivered,inordertolearnlessonsfromthearbitrationand,ifanymistakeshavebeenmade,toavoidtheseinfuture.Ineachcase,awrittenrecordshouldbemadeinordertopreservethelessons.Thisrecordmightbebegunearlyinthearbitration,assuchlessonsarise,andreviewedandconcludedattheendofthecase.

V. CONCLUSIONThepurposeofthispaperhasbeentodemonstratethatthe"fairandefficientsettlement

ofdisputes"byarbitration,asenvisagedbyUNCITRAL,doesnotsimplyequatetosavingtimeandcosts.Whatisneededinsteadisprojectmanagementthatisappropriatetothedispute,withaviewtoachievingtheobjectivesoftheparticulararbitrationwithintherequirementssetbythepartiesandotherstakeholders,andavoidingunder-deliveryorover-deliveryofservices.

Timemaybesavedandcostsmaybereduced,butthismustbeagainstarealisticstandardthatrelatestothedispute.Moreover,arbitratorsshouldnotbeassessedbyhowmanysavings

65Thisincludesthepartiesagreeingthatthescopehasbeenfulfilledearlierthananticipated,viaasettlement.66Bywayofterminationorder,forinstance.Seee.g.UNCITRAL,ModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration,supra note4atArt17.



85vol 3 (2016-2017)

theymake,butbythestrengthoftheirprojectmanagementskillsandtheireffortstoensurethatthearbitrationisbroughttoaconclusionwithspeedandcoststhatarereasonableinthecontextofthedispute.

Documents

Project Management in International Arbitration · “2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration” (2015) Queen Mary University