El-Adaway, I H and Kandil, A A (2010) Multiagent system for construction dispute resolution (MAS-COR). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(3), pp. 303-315. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper develops theoretical foundation and implements technologies for generation of legal arguments based on precedent construction disputes. First, the authors simulated the process of legal discourse in construction disputes using a formal logic algorithm that is based on adversarial precedent law. In this regard: (1) facts associated with construction change order cases were factorized into binary, dimensional, and abstract factors; (2) relevance of the developed factors was associated with the disputing parties; (3) logical predicates and rules were generated based on the said factors; (4) factors were logically analyzed into distinct classifications; and (5) an 11 stage logical induction algorithm was used to show similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses between current and precedent construction disputes. Second, the authors created a multiagent system for construction dispute resolution (MAS-COR) that automates the developed algorithm. In this connection: (1) an agent-based role model was developed to represent the developed algorithms; (2) an agent-based role model was built to represent the developed algorithm; and (3) system implementation was carried using object-oriented programming on NetBean's integrated development environment. Using 30 previously arbitrated construction disputes, testing and validation steps were rigorously applied to assess the developed formal logic algorithm as well as the associated created agents and their integration into the MAS-COR system through syntactical debugging using theorem proving, model checking, and system testing. The results of this validation process illustrated that the system was capable of deriving significant legal arguments that help save time and effort of construction claim and dispute professionals while preparing the defense for their respective positions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artificial intelligence; claims; dispute resolution; mathematical models |
| Index terms: | resolution, testing, implementation, artificial intelligence, construction dispute, dispute, change order, role model, agent, construction claim, integration, validation, programming, mathematical model |
| Subjects: | sociology, payment, organizational analysis, conflict resolution, professional development, contractual condition, artificial intelligence, professional practice, contractual arrangements, mathematical modelling, dispute resolution, practitioner, programming |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Organizational Design |
| 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