Mitropoulos, P and Howell, G (2001) Model for understanding, preventing, and resolving project disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(3), pp. 223-231. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Based on the comparative analysis of 24 construction disputes, this paper presents a process model that explains the development of disputes. The model examines the combined effect of project uncertainty, contract, working relations, and problem solving effectiveness on the development of disputes. The model develops a classification of problem situations, and identifies the problem-solving requirements and the potential for dispute in each situation. The model indicates that the prevention of complex, high cost disputes depends more on the planning and problem solving ability of the project organization, and less on the contractual terms. The paper identifies the following actions that can reduce the number and severity of claims: reduction of project uncertainty, reduction of contractual problems, reduction of opportunistic behavior, increased the project organization's problem-solving ability, and use of alternative dispute resolution methods to reduce resolution costs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project uncertainty, project organization, comparative analysis, problem solving, alternative dispute resolution, contractual term, dispute, opportunistic behaviour, effectiveness, resolution, prevention, construction dispute |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, dispute resolution, business, conflict resolution, organizational theory, project management theory and practice, contract management, financial risk, contract structure, performance management, decision-making and reasoning |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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