Kangari, R (1995) Construction documentation in arbitration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(2), pp. 201-208. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper focuses on how arbitrators perceive the effects of poor project documentation on the arbitration process, and what advice arbitrators would give construction professionals to help them properly record project information before a dispute arises. The study is based on a survey questionnaire collected from seven different U.S. cities. The arbitrators were asked to compare the veracity of written documentation with oral presentation to highlight how a document, prepared in the ordinary course of building a project, would weigh in the arbitrator's consideration. The arbitrators were asked to give examples of problems they most often encountered with respect to documentation, and whether they had ever been involved in a dispute in which one party failed to provide documentary evidence that in their opinion could have altered the outcome of the case. The overall results of this study support the notion that the party keeping the most comprehensive and detailed records will have the decided advantage in any dispute-resolution proceeding.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project documentation, questionnaire, evidence, survey, documentation, construction professional, arbitrator, resolution, arbitration, dispute |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, professional development, project planning, dispute resolution, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, profession |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PEA |
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