Harmon, K M J (2003) Dispute review boards and construction conflicts: Attitudes and opinions of construction industry members. PhD thesis, Nova Southeastern University, USA.
Abstract
The construction process is fraught with conflict. The adversarial attitude prevalent on many projects undermines the cooperative environment necessary for a successful project and is at odds with the collaborative nature of the construction process. Yet efforts to reduce the number and the magnitude of these conflicts have been unsuccessful. This dissertation addresses the perceptions of the construction industry concerning an innovative, non-adversarial dispute resolution methodology called the Dispute Review Board (DRB), which seeks to resolve conflicts contemporaneously with their occurrence. DRBs are based on the premise that early attention to a conflict will generally lead to its prevention or to its timely settlement (Jones, 1995). The traditional dispute resolution methodologies, litigation and arbitration, are both adversarial processes that result in win/lose (also known as distributive) outcomes. In contrast, the DRB offers a win/win solution because it is an instrument of the contract and a proactive, preventive process. It has been implemented in underground construction since 1974 and is gaining more widespread acceptance. This dissertation describes a research project addresses conflicts in the construction industry and evaluated the effectiveness of the DRB process as a viable alternative to other dispute resolution methodologies.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | McKay, J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | effectiveness; arbitration; conflicts; dispute resolution; litigation |
| Index terms: | construction process, methodology, litigation, dispute, effectiveness, non-adversarial, arbitration, dissertation, resolution, underground construction, prevention, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, conflict resolution, building construction, geotechnical engineering, financial risk, management, research methods, performance management, dispute resolution, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Site Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, 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