Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Contract risk management has become a critical mission, as contract issues may lead to a loss of vast amounts of money to parties involved or cause project failure. This study sought to identify effective management strategies to mitigate construction contract issues that might emerge during construction.

A quantitative research approach was adopted for the study. Structured questionnaires made up of close-ended questions were distributed to construction professionals in South Africa via the SurveyMonkey platform. The data were then analysed using descriptive statistics.

The findings indicate that the critical sources of contract-related disputes are ambiguous definitions of the contract parties' scope of their rights and obligations, lack of precise arrangements regarding the calculation of contractual penalties for failure to meet the deadline, lack of detailed specification of the works and specific milestones, lack of provisions regulating changes to the project documentation during the construction stage, an excessive amount of contractual penalties on contractor's side and lack of provisions regarding the rules of performing additional and replacement works and their settlement. However, for these disputes to be effectively managed, strategies such as reduction uncertainties in project's phases, setting up contingency plans, construction guarantee, extension of time claims, payment guarantee, retention and escalation clause should be implemented by the parties involved.

Even though the empirical study focused on construction professionals in South Africa, the findings could be applied to other countries outside of South Africa.

To effectively manage and prevent contract disputes from averting project failures and losses to parties involved in the contract, construction professionals need to be aware of strategies that must be implemented before and during the project execution. If well implemented, these strategies will help a construction project be successful and experience fewer contractual disputes.

The study has identified the knowledge gap concerning suitable contract risk management strategies available for implementation to effectively prevent any contract parties from losing money, time and project failure.

Contract incompleteness with deficiency, inconsistency, defectiveness, and ambiguity in contract clauses, which can cause misunderstandings and misinterpretations, may result with disputes in projects. This study aims to investigate contract incompleteness factors with a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach.

Contract incompleteness factors were ranked by fuzzy VIKOR (Visekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) method, and the most significant factors were subjected to fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) to examine their causal relationships. The study is not limited to ranking the identified factors solely, since their cause-effect interactions are also essential for proper risk management in construction projects.

Hybrid use of multi-criteria analysis reveals that ambiguity in enforceability including excessive demands and significant amendments in the scope of works are the top two causal contract incompleteness factors, while lack of implementation details and focus of focal point, and insufficient supporting and technical documents are the most affected ones.

Contractual causes of disputes due to contract incompleteness factors other than requirements of the contracts have been rarely investigated in the literature. The research is one of the first studies in the literature investigating the causal relationship among factors in construction contracts, which might lead to project disputes. Findings are expected to improve contract drafting, eventually contributing to effective risk management in construction projects.

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.

Justice, although well developed in the organisational field, has not been given adequate attention in the area of construction project dispute negotiations. Based on previous studies, the purpose of this paper is to more elaborately discuss whether each dimension of justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) is important for negotiators to cooperate in construction project dispute negotiation and whether their impact was moderated by the completeness of construction contract.

A survey of 164 prime negotiators from different construction projects was conducted. A stepwise multiple regression was employed to test the impact of each dimension of justice, and then a moderated multiple regression model was used to test the moderating effect of contract completeness.

The results indicated that, while distributive justice is related to cooperative behaviours, the impact of procedural justice and interactional justice also have great impact, and even more significantly related to cooperative behaviours. Moreover, while contractual obligatoriness positively moderates the relationship between procedural justice and cooperative behaviours, the term specificity negatively moderates the relationship between procedural and interactional justice and cooperative behaviours.

First, the authors aimed to test the effect of justice on cooperative behaviours in construction dispute negotiations originally, but did not determine whether their relationship is mediated by any other factors. Second, contractual governance was chosen as the moderator; other factors may also influence behaviours in project dispute negotiations.

First, project dispute negotiators should not focus their attention solely on the distribution of the negotiation issues. For a cooperative approach, negotiators should also give strong consideration to whether their offers reflect procedural justice and whether their opponents are being treated fairly. Second, while contractual design may affect the frame surrounding the negotiations to help negotiators achieve an integrated outcome, they should give more attention to certain forms of justice.

In contrast to previous studies, the authors defined all three forms of justice in project dispute negotiations, and by adding all three forms of justice into the model, the authors attempted to investigate whether distributive, procedural and interactional justice were all related to cooperative behaviours in project dispute negotiations and to ascertain the extent to which each form of justice is important. Furthermore, the authors explored variations in the importance of each form of justice in negotiations under different contractual conditions.

The construction industry is complex, human-intensive and driven by monetary values. Hence, disputes are widespread. Initial conflicts among parties may develop into a disastrous dispute that costs the project success and good relationships and affects stakeholders' expectations. There has been a focus on causes of construction-related disputes, and studies over the past three decades have attempted to identify a more comprehensive list of reasons for disputes. Some of these studies' limitations were geographical, project delivery methods and project types. The purpose of this study is to identify the most recent and conclusive list of causes of disputes based on current literature by undertaking a systematic literature review (SLR).

Considering the large number of studies that focused on causes of disputes, this study aims to develop a comprehensive list of causes, using a SLR, as it ensures that all previous articles in multiple databases are reviewed to produce a comprehensive outcome. A six-stage SLR was followed from background study to analysis and reporting.

Not surprisingly, the number of publications has increased over time, most from the Middle East region. The interconnected nature of the causes was widely emphasised. The SLR has produced eight common core causes of disputes. They are: poor contractual arrangements, employer-initiated scope changes, unforeseen site changes, poor contract understanding and administration, contractor’s quality of works, the inability of the contractor to achieve time targets, non- or delayed payments and poor quality of design. The majority of previous authors realised that disputes could be avoided by parties’ involvement during the early stages, avoiding being opportunistic and acting collaboratively.

Even though numerous studies have been carried out to identify the causes of disputes in the construction industry, none did a SLR. This study aggregates all the previous studies that focused on construction-related disputes systematically. Categorising causes based on the party primarily responsible help various stakeholders by providing a distinct list of factors to avoid that contribute to disputes.

A clear definition of the responsibilities of the contracting parties is crucial to any contract. However, many building services maintenance contracts contain vague terms that are often causes of disputes, suspension of work, unsatisfactory performance and financial losses. Common vague contract terms include those that require the contractor to be responsible for any replacement and restoration work arising from “fair wear and tear” and “vandalism”. Reports the findings of a survey of maintenance practitioners’ interpretations of these terms, and their experience with the use of such terms in building services maintenance contracts in Hong Kong.

While a considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated about dispute causation, disputes continue to prevail and disharmonise the process of construction with considerable cost. This paper seeks to identify the underlying pathogens that clients and contractors perceive to contribute to disputes in construction projects. The identification of pathogens can provide an ameliorated understanding of the origin of disputes and therefore enable their prevention.

Case law and focus groups with a client and contracting organisation from Western Australia are used to determine the pathogens of disputes.

Analysis of the case law findings revealed that the underlying issues that were brought to litigation were to do with points of law, namely “civil procedure”. A significant number of disputes are thus settled using alternative dispute resolution methods such as adjudication, arbitration and mediation. For clients the underlying latent conditions that resulted in a dispute were due to the nature of the task being performed (e.g. failure to detect and correct errors) and those arising from people's deliberate practices (e.g. failure to oblige by contractual requirements). For the contractor focus group the circumstances arising from the situation or environment the project was operating in were identified as the main underlying latent condition for disputes (e.g. unforeseen scope changes).

Focus groups are only undertaken with clients and contracting groups as they were identified as the main parties involved in dispute during the analysis of litigation cases within Western Australia. Input from consultants and subcontractors may provide a more balanced perspective as to the perceived causes and costs of disputes.

The research has been able to provide the initial building blocks for understanding the underlying pathogens contributing to disputes. However, more empirical research is required before conclusive findings can be made, particularly with regard to the influences on subcontractors.

A considerable amount of research has been undertaken with regard to the dispute causation within construction project management. Research has eschewed identifying the interrelatedness of variables, which has blurred researchers understanding of dispute causation and lead to latent work practices being embedded within the contracting environment within which projects are procured. With this in mind, this paper attempts to identify the underlying dynamics influencing disputes through the use of causal modeling.

Using the concept of system dynamics a series of causal models are developed from the literature to demonstrate the complexity associated with dispute causation.

It is revealed that project management, organization and people are the main sources of disputes. Causal models are constructed for each of these constructs and a series of strategies for avoiding disputations identified.

The research has demonstrated the inherent complexity associated with disputes and identified the interrelatedness of factors that can lead to their causation. It is suggested that further empirical research is required to determine the recurring latent conditions that contribute disputes. Once these conditions are examined then effective strategies for dispute avoidance can be identified and advancement toward improving the performance of construction projects made.

It is necessary and useful to differentiate destructive from constructive conflict and avoidable from necessary claims; and also to minimize disputes arising from unresolved conflict and claims in construction projects. This paper analyses such needs and proposes means of meeting them through an appropriate classification of construction claims; an estimation of their relative significance in terms of magnitude and frequency; and an identification of the proximate and root causes of the significant claims. A hierarchy of such claims, proximate and root causes is presented, based mainly on data collected from 61 projects and on 46 responses to questionnaires in Hong Kong. Measures of the relative significance of the claims categories are also presented. The results are reinforced by observations from parallel studies in Hong Kong and elsewhere, as well as from the literature. Strategies are suggested to avoid the avoidable and mitigate the unavoidable or unavoided claims, through controlling the controllable causes. Management focus is also recommended on controlling the causes of those categories of claims and disputes that are seen to be significant in terms of higher impact and/or probability of occurrence.