Lopez, R and Amara, A (2018) Comparison of dispute boards and statutory adjudication in construction. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 171(2), pp. 70-78. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
The objective of this study is to present the issues encountered by construction industry practitioners resolving disputes through the adoption of the dispute board (or DB) and statutory adjudication (or SA). This research is significant due to the often adversarial working environment in a typical construction and engineering project, as well as substantial adverse consequences resulting from disputes that have not been adequately resolved between two or more of its stakeholders. This paper presents the historical background and aims of and main principles behind the introduction of DB and SA. Stakeholder practitioners involved in three case study projects were then interviewed to reveal issues encountered with their adoption of DBs and/or SAs. Their perceived effectiveness, as well as suitability, to resolve disputes within construction then underwent comparative analysis. Barriers were found which had contributed towards a general apprehension by practitioners in the major case study projects to adopt either of these dispute-resolution methods. This paper suggests that these barriers significantly relate to the perceived formality of their procedures, potentially expensive legal costs involved and subsequent harm to future working relationships.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts & law; corporate responsibility; disputes & arbitration |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, arbitration, construction industry, resolution, case study, statutory adjudication, dispute, practitioner, suitability, corporate responsibility, comparative analysis |
| Subjects: | design criteria, industry analysis, conflict resolution, performance management, data analysis and analytics, dispute resolution, business, data collection methods, legal systems, practitioner |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| 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