Bubbers, G and Christian, J (1992) Hypertext and claim analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(4), pp. 716-730. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper suggests a new approach to the problem of providing computerized assistance in settling construction contract claims. Previous research on this topic has concentrated on the use of expert systems to try to predict the outcome of a claim, but has met with limited success. The proposed approach is to use a hypertext information system to assist in the analysis of a claim by informing contractors, owners, and their representatives of the contract provisions. The system does this by providing a precise hypertext guide to the contract wording, which is in turn linked to the relevant sections of various reference texts and descriptions of cases in which similar issues were determined. Careful structuring and linking of the data contained in the system are necessary to enable users to focus quickly on only relevant material. In this way, the system presents the users with the information they need in order for them to reach an informed decision on the validity of a claim.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction contract, validity, owner, expert system, information system |
| Subjects: | contract type, evaluation and assessment methods, sociology, data management, information systems |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here