Mawdesley, M J; Al-Jibouri, S H and Clark-Hughes, J (2002) A proactive control approach to agreeing entitlement to claims in construction. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 7(1), pp. 41-48. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Disputes between the parties to construction projects seem to be a fact of life worldwide. Many people and organisations spend a lot of money trying to resolve them; some are paid a lot of money for their advice and assistance in settling them; others seek to avoid them by altering the conditions of contract; yet others appear to spend time entering into them for their company survival. Irrespective of the perspective from which these disputes are viewed, it is generally agreed that they make construction much more expensive than it might be. This paper argues that active project management aimed specifically at the avoidance of disputes is not only a practical alternative but will also lead to easier resolution of any disputes which may still occur. This is to some extent a formalisation of good planning and control practice. The paper contains a description of the method and the experience which has been gained in its use on a number of projects. The benefits and drawbacks are discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction disputes, conflict, extensions of time, claims, variations |
| Index terms: | resolution, project management, construction dispute, company survival, dispute, construction project, variation |
| Subjects: | production management, dispute resolution, business, conflict resolution, project management theory and practice, contractual condition |
| Topics: | Project Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Contract Administration |
| 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