Shin, K-C (2000) Identification of critical dispute characteristics (CDCs) during construction project operations. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
Stakeholders in construction projects, owners, designers, and constructors, currently have limited means of managing disputes during a construction project execution once project operations begin. This research defines Critical Dispute Characteristics (CDCs). CDCs are project characteristics defined by retrospectively analyzing dispute cases in construction litigation that provide understanding of disputes and dispute potential. The CDCs are the basis for a framework and methodology that will allow the analysis of project performance from a dispute issue perspective. There is a need to develop new tools to assist stakeholders in monitoring construction project disputes. These tools must be able to proactively diagnose the potential for disputes in a project and prescribe possible preventive actions. As a foundation for the development of such tools, this research project: (1) defines a framework and methodology to analyze retrospectively dispute cases in construction litigation, as a profiling method for the characterization of dispute characteristics, and (2) establishes a fundamental set of CDCs. This research proves that most dispute cases in projects reveal specific, identifiable causes of disputes through their dispute characteristics. Therefore, potential disputes can be identified from the defined dispute characteristics that result from this research. Without a proper procedure for categorizing dispute characteristics into usable form, precedence knowledge cannot be utilized because there is no methodology to relate it to potential disputes. Through retrospective data analysis of dispute cases from federal appellate court cases, 14 CDCs are defined. The dispute cases are selected according to the presence of dispute keywords in the summary of a particular judgment statement. Additionally, dispute keywords are selected from the previously mentioned keywords in the literature review. Using content analysis methodology, the final set of 14 CDCs is defined by their frequency and context within a set of 80 keywords. The CDCs are defect, change, scope, cost, adjustment, bond, schedule, disputes, condition, undiscovered, definition, liability, warranty, and fraud. The importance of these 14 CDCs, and the relationships among them, are analyzed from various perspectives in construction operations.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Vanegas Keith, J M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | liability; disputes; fraud; litigation; monitoring; content analysis; project performance; construction project; designer; owner; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | owner, dispute, litigation, construction operation, designer, judgment, warranty, monitoring, presence, project performance, content analysis, literature review, fraud, liability, data analysis, methodology, construction project |
| Subjects: | liability law, professional ethics, sociology, project management theory and practice, production management, research methods, performance measurement, environmental science, construction operations, data analysis and analytics, control systems, dispute resolution, profession |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Site Management, Project Management, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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