Diekmann, J E and Kim, M P (1992) Superchange: Expert system for analysis of changes claims. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(2), pp. 399-411. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Disputes and claims occur frequently in the construction process. The resulting litigation wastefully consumes important resources like time, money, and especially project-engineering talent. Many contract disputes could be avoided if the disputing parties took fast action and were better informed. This paper reports on an ongoing research project to develop an expert system to educate and advise inexperienced site engineers about the legal consequences of construction disputes. The part of the system described in this paper is called SuperChange. It evaluates the validity of claims brought under the Changes clause found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). SuperChange supports decisions made by site engineers in several important ways. First, SuperChange guides the user through the analysis by controlling the direction of the analysis based on previous user responses. By doing so, the system does not allow the site engineer to forget a crucial part of the analysis and at the same time trains the site engineer in the proper components of an analysis. The second way in which SuperChange supports the site engineer is by providing a comprehensive, hyper-text based, context-sensitive help system. The help system can provide explanation, court citations, examples, and quotations all related to the particular question at hand. The final way the system supports analysis is by providing a report-writing capability that can be used by the site engineer’s superiors to review judgments and conclusions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | engineer, acquisition, litigation, regulation, construction process, expert system, construction dispute, validity, dispute, judgment |
| Subjects: | business, data management, political science, evaluation and assessment methods, profession, building construction, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Governance, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Site Management, Research Practice |
| 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