Mustaffa, N E and Bowles, G (2004) Dispute avoidance mechanism in partnering arrangements. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Numerous innovative approaches to managing and resolving disputes have been developed for the construction industry in the previous few years. Partnering is an increasingly popular approach to procurement that includes a proactive dispute avoidance mechanism to speedily resolve problems within the project team before they become too contentious. A pilot study form part of a broader research framework was conducted to explore practice employed in the industry and to test the suitability of the research instrument. The results of a pilot study indicate the extent to which problem resolution processes are being formally developed and implemented in partnering projects in practice. In particular, an understanding of how problems are being resolved in partnering before they escalate to disputes is emerging
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | partnering; dispute resolution; problem resolution mechanism |
| Index terms: | project team, resolution, suitability, construction industry, dispute, partnering |
| Subjects: | design criteria, industry analysis, partnership management, conflict resolution, project delivery, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| 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