Lane, P M M and Watson, M J (2010) Effectiveness of dispute adjudication boards, South Africa. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 163(4), pp. 171-177. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
The paper details the results of a review of the performance of six dispute adjudication boards appointed for contracts which were constructed in South Africa and, with the exception of one, were completed between 2004 and 2008. The review was conducted at a meeting held in Johannesburg in August 2008 and the participation was confined to persons who had been members of the boards or employees of the employer, contractor and engineer who had been directly involved in the process during the course of the contracts. The input and discussion was between people who had direct experience of the dispute adjudication boards and the associated procedures. The authors, who were members of several of the boards, describe a number of the problems and difficulties that were experienced and suggest various methods for avoiding such problems in the future. It is hoped that the experiences and recommendations detailed in this paper will be of assistance to those who intend to use the dispute board mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising from major and complex contracts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | disputes & arbitration |
| Index terms: | South Africa, arbitration, resolution, effectiveness, dispute, engineer, adjudication, Johannesburg |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, performance management, dispute resolution, profession, Geography |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| 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