Wall, C J and Fellows, R (2010) The dispute resolution adviser (dra) system in Hong Kong. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 163(4), pp. 179-184. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
Conflict and disputes seem to be endemic to the world's construction industry and produce consequences which are detrimental to its performance. Given the array of difficulties with common dispute resolution methods, and the natures of common disputes in construction, a hybrid dispute resolution system, the dispute resolution adviser system, is explained. The system is designed both to prevent disputes arising as well as to resolve them. Application of the system on various construction projects in Hong Kong was investigated. It is concluded that the system works well to reduce the incidence of disputes and to secure speedy and cheap resolution of the few which do arise; thus, relationships between project participants are preserved and performance on the projects is improved. Further, the system seems eminently suitable for use on a wide variety of projects and beyond the area of Hong Kong.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | disputes & arbitration |
| Index terms: | dispute, Hong Kong, resolution, construction industry, arbitration, construction project |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, industry analysis, dispute resolution, Geography, production management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PT |
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