Construction contract policy: do we mean what we say?

Recent developments in contracting practice in the UK have built upon recommendations contained in highprofile reports, such as those by Latham and Egan. However, the New Engineering Contract (NEC), endorsed by Latham, is based upon principles of contract drafting that seem open to question. Any contract operates in the context of its legislative environment and current working practices. This report identifies eight contentious hypotheses in the literature on construction contracts and tests their validity in a sample survey that attracted 190 responses. The survey shows, among other things, that while partnership is a positive and useful idea, authoritative contract management is considered more effective and that “win-win” contracts, while desirable, are basically impractical. Further, precision and fairness in contracts are not easy to achieve simultaneously. While participants should know what is in their contracts, they should not routinely resort to legal action; and standard-form contracts should not seek to be universally applicable. Fundamental changes to drafting policy should be undertaken within the context of current legal contract doctrine and with a sensitivity to the way that contracts are used in contemporary practice. Attitudes to construction contracting may seem to be changing on the surface, but detailed analysis of what lies behind apparent agreement on new ways of working reveals that attitudes are changing much more slowly than they appear to be.

Stereo and motion parallax cues in human 3D vision: can they vanish without a trace?

In an immersive virtual reality environment, subjects fail to notice when a scene expands or contracts around them, despite correct and consistent information from binocular stereopsis and motion parallax, resulting in gross failures of size constancy (A. Glennerster, L. Tcheang, S. J. Gilson, A. W. Fitzgibbon, & A. J. Parker, 2006). We determined whether the integration of stereopsis/motion parallax cues with texture-based cues could be modified through feedback. Subjects compared the size of two objects, each visible when the room was of a different size. As the subject walked, the room expanded or contracted, although subjects failed to notice any change. Subjects were given feedback about the accuracy of their size judgments, where the “correct” size setting was defined either by texture-based cues or (in a separate experiment) by stereo/motion parallax cues. Because of feedback, observers were able to adjust responses such that fewer errors were made. For texture-based feedback, the pattern of responses was consistent with observers weighting texture cues more heavily. However, for stereo/motion parallax feedback, performance in many conditions became worse such that, paradoxically, biases moved away from the point reinforced by the feedback. This can be explained by assuming that subjects remap the relationship between stereo/motion parallax cues and perceived size or that they develop strategies to change their criterion for a size match on different trials. In either case, subjects appear not to have direct access to stereo/motion parallax cues.