Younis, G E (2010) Minimizing construction disputes. PhD thesis, University of Salford, UK.
Abstract
The continuing incidence of costly disputes in the construction industry has led to a common interest of researchers in different countries to identify the generic aspects of conflicts, claims, disputes and their resolution. This thesis undertakes an extensive review of literature in the field of construction disputes examining the current understanding of the causes of disputes, as identified by other researchers in the field, and attempts made to minimize them. An analysis of the literature helps identify important themes for particular investigation: procurement methods, risk allocation, claims management and dispute resolution methods. A preliminary examination of 20 projects in Lebanon confirmed the existence and revealed the extent of disputes on Lebanese projects. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews with practitioners actively involved in construction projects in Lebanon at the project management level are conducted, from which a set of dispute influencing areas emerge. Fifty cases of disputes occurring on four live case study projects in Lebanon are also analysed to examine the risk allocation and occurrence, the behavioural attitudes of key stakeholders, and the factors which lead to disputes between the parties. The findings demonstrate the relationship between those risks which are addressed in the contract and their interaction (when they eventuate) with the behavioural traits of the project participants involved. Furthermore, the dispute factors encountered in these fifty cases are categorized into dispute influencing areas to establish any correlation with the areas raised in the twenty-four interviews. Following comparison of the evidence gained from the literature, the interviews and the case studies, a set of provisional recommendations to minimize disputes is proposed and organized under three themes: a pre-contract award workshop; the drafting of general and particular conditions of contract; and the potential for improvement based behavioural on compliance of project participants. The validity of the provisional recommendations is tested by the reviews of five experts in the field of construction disputes, in accordance with which the recommendations are amended.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; claims management; conflict; dispute resolution; drafting; interview; Lebanon; procurement; project management; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | construction project, evidence, practitioner, Lebanon, interview, compliance, drafting, investigation, risk allocation, resolution, interaction, construction industry, project management, construction dispute, procurement method, workshop, case study, dispute, validity |
| Subjects: | practitioner, dispute resolution, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, contractual arrangements, technical documentation, project management theory and practice, financial risk, production management, Geography, health safety and environment, behavioral psychology, industry analysis, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Cost Management, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Procurement, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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