A better way to estimate and mitigate disruption

Finke, M R (1998) A better way to estimate and mitigate disruption. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6), pp. 490-497. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

The construction industry has a difficult time prospectively identifying, with accuracy, either the scope or magnitude of change-caused disruption at the activity level. This difficulty increases contractors' risks when negotiating change orders, makes owners more suspicious of contractors' negotiating positions, increases the chances that change orders will not be settled and will turn into claims or disputes, and makes it more difficult for contractors to foresee and mitigate the disruptive effects of change orders. This article proposes a methodology which will solve these problems by (1) qualitatively identifying the scope of possible disruption, thereby limiting the scope of application of any disruption estimating methodology; (2) within this scope of possible disruption, quantifying disruption using an improved factor-based estimating methodology; and (3) yielding activity-specific estimates of disruption. The proposed methodology recognizes the specific characteristics of the interacting activities, and more realistically models the process by which disruption occurs. Activity-specific estimates of disruption will allow contractors to mitigate disruption by taking advantage of available float to selectively postpone some combination of the disrupting and/or disrupted activities.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: accuracy, estimating, negotiating, methodology, change order, dispute, owner, construction industry, estimate
Subjects: industry analysis, sociology, conflict resolution, professional development, contractual condition, research methods, financial and cost management, dispute resolution
Topics: Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Cost Management
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

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