Chapman, P H J (2009) Dispute boards on major infrastructure projects. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 162(1), pp. 7-16. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
Prevention is better than cure. Using dispute boards on major infrastructure projects has been shown to reduce significantly the number of issues that become full-blown disputes and thereby involve the parties in timeconsuming and costly arbitration and/or litigation. In this paper the author, a past-president of the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation and a leading exponent of dispute boards, reviews the history, purpose and proven benefits of dispute boards in the avoidance and early evaluation (adjudication) of disputes within the construction industry. The paper emphasises the importance of good job-site communication and how a proactive dispute board, particularly on international contracts, can positively influence on-site relationships and bring major project management benefits to the construction process. The appointment of dispute boards, the terms of engagement and best-practice procedures are discussed. The article reveals the remarkably successful dispute resolution figures of 98% when dispute boards are used in addition to the hidden benefits of dispute avoidance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts and law; disputes and arbitration; procurement |
| Index terms: | history, construction process, major project, litigation, dispute, adjudication, arbitration, prevention, construction industry, resolution, infrastructure project |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, architectural and construction history, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, conflict resolution, strategic project management, financial risk, building construction |
| Topics: | Project Management, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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