Love, P E D; Davis, P; Kerry London, K and Jasper, T (2008) Causal modelling of construction disputes. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
Disputes have become an inherent feature of the construction industry. A plethora of studies have been undertaken to identify the causes of disputes so as to determine the most appropriate prevention and resolution strategies. While it is widely known what the main causes of dispute are, they still remain prevalent in the Australian construction industry. This is because there is a need to better understand the complexity and interplay between causal variables. Using data derived from the literature a conceptual causal model of construction disputes is developed. The model identifies the key causal variables and pathogens that can contribute to disputes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | acceleration; causal modelling; disputes; pathogens; scope changes |
| Index terms: | complexity, construction dispute, acceleration, construction industry, prevention, modelling, resolution, pathogen, dispute, strategy, scope change |
| Subjects: | health risk and incident analysis, management, financial risk, conflict resolution, project controls, industry analysis, systems engineering, dispute resolution, scope management, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Time Control |
| 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