VanDemark, L P (2021) Mitigating risk of site development disputes. PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Denver, USA.
Abstract
Design and construction professionals are repeatedly named in disputes where common defects are identified as the main driver. In order to mitigate risk from the onset, design and construction professionals should avoid being named, or seek to properly arm themselves to address these disputes. To do this, they should (1) know what constitutes common disputes (2) understand the causes of these disputes (3) understand who is responsible for underlying issues (4) understand the project process from start to finish (5) have access to reference documents to guide them through the process. This research uses the Action Design Research Method to address the research questions, and to accomplish the goal of mitigating risk associated with common disputes for professionals. Findings identify common disputes across construction projects. Further, findings demonstrate that identifying and analyzing these disputes within the construction process proves to be a valuable tool to mitigate associated risk. The research outcome is a comprehensive list of common disputes as well as comprehensive process diagrams that inform professionals of their liabilities and how to mitigate their liabilities through a broader understanding of the dispute resolution process.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Abdallah, M and Clevenger, C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction project; dispute resolution; disputes; professional |
| Index terms: | construction process, liability, construction project, resolution, dispute, documents, design and construction |
| Subjects: | liability law, dispute resolution, professional development, conflict resolution, contractual arrangements, building construction, production management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Procurement, Site Management, Information Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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