Braimah, N; Ndekugri, I and Gameson, R (2007) A systematic methodology for analysing disruption claims. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2007, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Disruptions to contractor’s progress are commonly encountered in most construction projects and often result in productivity loss (or disruption) claims. The standard of proof set by the courts and other dispute resolution mechanisms for the recovery of such claims is onerous. This demand, coupled with the extreme difficulty associated with proving disruption pose a major challenge to practitioners in their resolution. Whilst methodologies for analysing disruptions abound in the literature, their use is found to be unsatisfactory from a number of different aspects, particularly in proving causation. As a contribution to aid practitioners overcome this problem, this paper reports on an on-going research aimed at developing a framework for improving disruption claims analysis. Based on review of the literature, a systematic methodology is proposed for performing the analysis in detailed, clear and equitable manner. Further studies have been designed to validate it and address issues that may affect its acceptability and usability in practice.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; delay and disruption; extension of time; productivity loss; programming |
| Index terms: | dispute, productivity, usability, recovery, resolution, construction project, methodology, programming, practitioner |
| Subjects: | operations management, user-centered design, practitioner, dispute resolution, programming, conflict resolution, research methods, management, production management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| 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