Search results

Voluntary participation (VP) has been identified as one of the characterizing features of mediation. This study aims to examine the value of VP in construction dispute mediation from two perspectives. Firstly, is VP a prerequisite of successful construction mediation. Secondly, does power asymmetry (PA) between the contracting parties marginalize the value of VP in fostering the use of mediation to resolve construction disputes.

Constructs of VP, PA and prerequisites of successful mediation were first developed. Principal component factor analysis was performed on data collected from the construction dispute resolution community to explore the underlying structure of the constructs. The relationships between the constructs were tested by structural equation modelling.

VP is found to be an important attribute of successful mediation. PA is also found to be inherent in construction contracting. This study identified three forms of PA: Resource, Information and Expectation. Moreover, this study found no conclusive empirical evidence to support that PA would marginalize the value of VP in fostering an attempt to construction dispute mediation. It is suggested that VP shall remain one of characterizing features of mediation.

The users, mediators and the judiciary should be aware of the importance of VP in mediation, irrespective of the use of mediation is contractual or court-encouraged. Although the presence of PA between the disputing parties, through participating voluntarily and ensuring the mediation process is flexible and fair, the chance of achieving a settlement would be enhanced.

VP has been viewed as one of the fundamentals of mediation. This study empirically supported this design concept. Furthermore, PA in construction contracting can be expressed as disparities in resource, information and expectation. Their existence presents no significant barrier to attempt of mediation. The flexible approach of mediation has been instrumental in overcoming the paradox between VP and PA. This study affirms the positive value of VP in fostering the use of construction dispute mediation.

While a considerable amount of research has been conducted on construction disputes, disputes remain prevalent in the construction industry and have still been a crucial problem in the Turkish construction industry as well. The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of different stakeholders on key factors that contribute to construction disputes by adopting a qualitative approach.

The qualitative approach adopted for the study provided gathering in-depth and rich information about the topic. To explore the phenomenon in-depth information, semi-structured interviews were conducted. A total of 38 interviews were conducted among experts and practitioners who engaged in construction disputes.

Content analysis of interview data resulted in the emergence of varying categories relevant to the problems which result in construction disputes. By grouping related themes into main categories, the analysis yielded five major ones: clarity of the contract form, errors in contract documents, payments, changes, delays and not granting extension of time.

The major limitations are having interviewees from one country and results limited to the Turkish construction industry.

The findings provide insight on the factors contributing to construction disputes as perceived by different stakeholders, which should provide guidance to determine the associated risks for dispute occurrence, make effort to mitigate disputes once they happen, take proper precautions for minimizing the effects and after all make a significant contribution in the successful accomplishment of completed construction projects.

The findings of the study contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to construction disputes through a qualitative approach which is limited in the related literature. Although the qualitative exploration only focuses on the Turkish construction industry, the study has added significantly to the body of knowledge within the subject area.

Unresolved construction dispute can be detrimental to project success. A systematic method to evaluate the seriousness of construction dispute of a construction project will assist management to take appropriate corrective actions. Evaluation of construction disputes requires an analysis on both the likelihood of occurrence and its impact, which are normally expressed by practitioners in linguistic terms. The application of classical discrete analysis will not be able to accommodate the fuzzy nature of this information. To determine how fuzzy sets theory can be applied to construction disputes evaluation (CDE), a fuzzy CDE model has been developed based on the knowledge extracted from practitioners in Hong Kong. The fuzzy CDE system consists of four components: dispute identification, dispute analysis; dispute evaluation; and dispute control. This paper describes the framework and operation of the fuzzy CDE system developed. The results indicate that CDE can be modelled by the fuzzy sets theory.

This paper aims to identify the critical factors causing construction disputes in small to medium enterprises (SMEs) in Ireland during the recent recession period from 2007 to 2013.

This study used a mixed-method approach incorporating a literature review, case studies and questionnaire survey, with results analysed using exploratory (data reduction) factor analysis.

The results indicate seven core critical factors which result in construction disputes in SMEs in Ireland during a recession: payment and extras; physical work conditions; poor financial/legal practise; changes to the agreed scope of works; time overrun; defects; and requests for increase in speed of project and long-term defects.

With Ireland emerging from the current economic recession and the prevalence of SMEs in the construction sector, it is essential to document the core critical factors of construction disputes which emerge within this particular segment of the built environment.

To address the adversarial nature of the construction sector and the prevalence of SMEs, it is essential to identify and document the critical factors of construction disputes within this remit. It is envisaged that the results of this research will be acknowledged, and the recommendations adopted, by construction SMEs, particularly within Ireland, as they emerge from the economic recession.

This paper fulfils a gap in knowledge with the emergence of the economic recession and the identification of critical factors of construction dispute within SMEs in the Irish construction industry.

This paper aims to devise a case-controlled method combined with Bradford Hill criteria for causal inference of contractual disputes in construction projects. It is a genuine attempt in a systematic method from research design to execution for causal issues where only observational data is available.

The authors located insufficient top management support as the putative pathogen of construction disputes based on a literature review, an interview and Delphi surveys. A questionnaire survey was then conducted to collect case-controlled data to ensure comparability, in which for each disputed project put in the experimental group, the authors sought for a dispute-free project of similar characteristics. The incidence rates of insufficient top management support in the experimental and control groups were then examined by Bradford Hill criteria as an alternative to the test of intervention effect.

The association of insufficient top management support and construction disputes was tested to conform with the Bradford Hill criteria with case-controlled data where applicable and logical deduction where statistical tests were not applicable. With a clear, positive, reasonable and statistically significant association, while excluding methodological biases, confounding and chance, the authors reached a causal verdict of insufficient top management support causing contractual disputes.

This paper supports the validity of applying a case-controlled method combined with Bradford Hill criteria in investigating causal issues in project management, especially the verdict of causal inference based on empirical data. In addition, the located root cause of contractual disputes could inform project management personnel with reasoned strategies for dispute avoidance.

Adjudication was introduced to the English construction industry in 1996 in response to its litigious nature. At the time, adjudication aimed to provide a time-efficient, cost-effective solution to construction disputes. The industry is concerned that adjudication is not always providing the expected benefits due to increasing cost, the length of time it takes to resolve disputes and the difficulty in maintaining good relationships between the parties in dispute. Mediation is recommended here as a most desirable approach to resolving disputes without affecting the relationship between the parties. However, the benefits of mediation have not been fully appreciated by all due to slow uptake. This paper aims to identify barriers to the greater use of meditation the English construction industry.

This paper presents results from a study that investigated issues preventing greater use of mediation. The study involved 20 case studies of previous dispute resolutions, ten in-depth interviews and 357 usable responses to a structured questionnaire survey involving the English construction industry.

The research found a limited detailed awareness of mediation within the English construction industry due to a lack of detailed knowledge among industry stakeholders and a lack of emphasis from construction contracts. The study revealed that there is strong support for adjudication; however, the majority of those with experience of adjudication would prefer to use mediation as the first step in resolving disputes.

This research identifies the support required for mediation and its preference among those with and without prior knowledge of both adjudication and mediation for the English construction industry. The paper provides an insight into barriers that need to be addressed to increase use of mediation.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the views and experiences of mediators from different professional backgrounds practising in the construction industry. Previous research shows that the legal profession dominates construction mediation in both England and Wales.

The phenomenological approach was used to capture the lived experiences of the interviewees and gain insight into their views and practices. The data collection was by semi-structured interviews. The data was then analysed using software to establish themes.

The major difference in mediator practice discovered between the two groups is the use of the evaluative style by lawyer and facilitative style by non-lawyer mediators. Non-lawyer mediators strongly reported their criticisms of the evaluative style in mediation suggesting that it undermines the parties’ ability to self-determine their own dispute and reduces the level of satisfaction experienced by the parties in the process of mediation. Lawyer mediators supported the use of the evaluative style as an acceptable compromise on the parties’ self-determination and feelings of satisfaction in pursuit of achieving the goal of a settlement in mediation, which was significantly better than the escalation of stress and costs to the parties in the event that the dispute escalates to litigation. In addition, mandatory mediation, the role of advisors/advocates, governance and the future of mediation were explored.

The research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring a construction dispute to mediation.

The purpose of this research is to paint a picture of the current utility of mediation in the Scottish construction sector; determine the willingness of Scottish construction lawyers to shift away from traditional dispute resolution approaches towards mediation; and ascertain the drivers towards the adoption of mediatory techniques and the barriers to change.

Drawn from a questionnaire survey, this paper seeks to add to the dispute resolution literature by identifying the attitudes of construction lawyers on the use and effectiveness of mediation to resolve construction disputes in Scotland.

The findings suggest that there is a core of Scottish construction lawyers in Scotland that recognize the promise of mediation as a useful dispute resolution tool. Respondents generally profess knowledge of the process and some measure of positive practical experience and espouse positive views on mediation. Their response to mediation then does not appear to be one of cultural conservatism or fear of the unknown as opposed to traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, which for all their imperfections lawyers understand unequivocally.

It is recognized that the introduction of mediatory techniques into construction disputes will have a cumulative effect on the Scottish legal fraternity over time. Cross‐sectional studies are often unable to yield information about the direction of causal relationships between variables that are interrelated in a complex way. Neither do cross‐sectional studies permit researchers to assess the effectiveness of intervention strategies.

This is the first empirical work ascertaining the views and experiences of Scottish construction lawyers on mediation. While the research reveals evidence of a modest bottom‐up growth of construction mediation in Scotland, it also provides insight into key policy issues which will require to be resolved if mediation is to move from the margins to the mainstream of construction disputing practices in Scotland.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the circumstances in which a refusal to refer a construction dispute to mediation may be judged acceptable in the English Technology and Construction Court (TCC), thus avoiding the imposition of a costs penalty.

The paper uses traditional doctrinal legal methodology in the evaluation of judicial statements in the TCC on the criteria for determining the appropriate use of mediation and combines this with a socio‐legal approach which examines empirical findings on settlement outcome.

An analysis of TCC cases indicates a significant steer from the judiciary on when construction cases are deemed appropriate for the process of mediation. Most cases are identified as suitable, particularly if they involve small sums compared to litigation and where there is uncertainty about factual and legal issues. Judges continue to emphasise the ability of skilled mediators to deal with intractable parties and the importance of continuing commercial relationships despite empirical evidence to the contrary. The personal experiences and perceptions of TCC judges continue to drive mediation “appropriateness criteria”. This could work negatively against its true potential if construction parties' actual experience of the mediation process involves less‐experienced mediators or a failure to achieve settlement.

The paper provides a detailed and scholarly analysis of the application of Court of Appeal's decision in Halsey in the TCC with specific reference to built environment cases. It evaluates empirical findings on the effectiveness of construction mediation on settlement outcome with the judicial steer on “appropriateness criteria”. It is of value to legal scholars, legal practitioners and researchers in the built environment.

Disputes frequently occur on engineering and construction projects. In this paper it is argued that these disputes need to be evaluated and managed, with proper attention being paid to planning of time and money. Since the way in which dispute management is approached will depend on the perceived self‐interest of the parties, it is imperative that disputants have a sensible measure of their self‐interest. ‘Traditional’ probabilistic risk assessment techniques are shown to be of assistance and can be used to compute appropriate dispute management strategies. By way of example, a Monte Carlo simulation of a dispute is performed and discussed.