Pulket, T (2008) Universal prediction model for construction litigation. PhD thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
Construction litigation expenditures have increased considerably over the years. A Universal Prediction Model (UPM) was developed to predict the outcome of construction litigation and hence encourage settlements out of court. The study was conducted by using 151 Illinois circuit court cases filed in the period 1987–2005. UPM consists of data consolidation, attribute selection, hybrid classification, and performance assessment. A code was written to automate the entire process in the WEKA (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) environment. UPM is versatile and scalable. The findings resulted in a higher prediction rate than those obtained in previous studies. The system proved to be quite robust and fast. If the outcome of construction litigation can be predicted with reasonable accuracy and reliability, all parties involved in the construction process could save considerable money and time.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Arditi, D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accuracy; liability; reliability; litigation |
| Index terms: | liability, performance assessment, accuracy, litigation, prediction model, construction process |
| Subjects: | professional development, dispute resolution, prediction and forecasting, liability law, assessment methods, building construction |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Human Resources, Research Practice, Information Management, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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