Saeb, A; Danuri, M S M; Mohamed, O and Zakaria, N (2021) A mechanism for dispute resolution in the Iranian construction industry. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 26(1), pp. 205-226. ISSN 1823-6499
Abstract
If disputes are not resolved promptly, they tend to become prolonged and escalated, creating a more complicated and less manageable scenario. Therefore, in this study, we formulated a mechanism for dispute resolution in the Iranian construction industry based on alternative dispute resolution methods. The formulated mechanism could aid disputing parties in the construction industry to settle their disputes more effectively and enhance dispute resolution methods in construction standard forms. To achieve this goal, we collected qualitative data using semi-structured interviews with 30 experts who were selected via purposive sampling method. We used MAXQDA software to manage and organise complete interview transcripts and facilitate the qualitative data analysis process. The proposed mechanism and guidance were finally validated using the survey questionnaire. Negotiation has equal potential for dispute resolution with different sources, and it is recommended as the first step in dispute resolution with any source. According to the results, we recommend a three-step resolution mechanism as follows: negotiation, a method based on sources of disputes and a hybrid method of adjudication and arbitration (Adj-Arb), as the appropriate mechanism for dispute resolution in the Iranian construction industry. Replacing arbitration with Adj-Arb in construction standard forms will have satisfactory results in resolving construction disputes and reply to growing criticism that arbitration is becoming more like litigation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; Iran; dispute resolution; alternative dispute resolution; interviews |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, alternative dispute resolution, interview, data analysis, survey, resolution, purposive sampling, construction industry, arbitration, construction dispute, negotiation, adjudication, construction standard, becoming, dispute, litigation |
| Subjects: | philosophical process, industry analysis, conflict resolution, contract management, research methods, standards, data analysis and analytics, dispute resolution, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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