Anatomy of construction disputes

Cheung, S O and Pang, K H Y (2013) Anatomy of construction disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(1), pp. 15-23. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Disputes have been identified as one of the epidemics of the construction industry. Many studies have found that risks, uncertainties, inadequate contract documentation, and behavioral factors are notable dispute sources. Many have described disputes with reference to the subject matter. This approach is pragmatic but has not yet lead to any form of conceptualization. The study contributes to the construction dispute research domain in (1) proposing an anatomy of construction disputes, (2) identifying the key factors contributing to the happening of construction disputes, and (3) providing an example on the use of the anatomy through a dispute occurrence likelihood evaluation exercise. The proposed anatomy distinguishes two types of construction dispute: contractual and speculative. Contract incompleteness is the root cause and underpins both types of construction disputes. In addition, task and people factors fuel contractual and speculative disputes, respectively. The proposed anatomy is arranged under a fault-tree framework whereby the events are linked by logic gates. In this format, construction participants could understand how these events contribute to the occurrence likelihood of disputes. As an illustration, a web-based assessment tool was developed to collect occurrence likelihood assessments of dispute artifacts. The fuzzy occurrence likelihood of construction disputes was then computed. The dispute occurrence likelihood evaluation exercise supports the observation that construction disputes are inevitable.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction dispute; fuzzy occurrence likelihood; web technology
Index terms: construction industry, construction dispute, exercise, dispute, contract documentation, artifact
Subjects: sociology, industry analysis, health behaviours and lifestyles, dispute resolution, contractual arrangements
Topics: Legal Issues, Procurement, Research Practice, Health and Safety
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