Li, K and Cheung, S O (2016) The potential of bias in multi-tier construction dispute resolution processes. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Disputes have been identified as the inevitable happening in adversarial and competitive construction contracting activities. Amicable dispute resolution is mostly welcomed by the construction industry. Major changes in Hong Kong construction dispute resolution landscape have emerged since the Civil Justice Reform came into effect in 2009. It can be observed that wider use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods has been advocated. As such, multi-tier dispute resolution processes incorporating ADR have become the design protocol for dispute resolution provision in contracts. Moreover, the use of multi-tier dispute resolution does not guarantee dispute can be resolved. In some cases, multi-tier resolution processes may create unintended obstacles.This study aims to review the use of multi-tier dispute resolution processes. In addition, issues, in particular, obstacles against settlement arising from the use of multi-tier dispute resolution processes are explored. The research began with literature review on relevant government documents, ordinances, books and journal publications. Furthermore, expert opinions from industry stakeholders are solicited. Real life stories are collected to illustrate the aforementioned propositions.The study identified three key causes of failure of multi-tier dispute resolution. First, the negative attitude and loss of commitment of either party arising from any of the tiers would diminish the chance of settlement. Second, psychological and cognitive attributes, especially the negative dimensions of the disputants can be aggravated. Third, multi-tier resolution may allow creeping in of biases in the decision making process. The study points to further study on the ways to alleviate the aforementioned failing causes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bias; multi-tier construction dispute resolution; obstacles. |
| Index terms: | dispute, literature review, decision-making process, commitment, journal, Hong Kong, guarantee, dimension, alternative dispute resolution, resolution, construction industry, construction dispute, publication, bias, civil justice, documents |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, decision analysis, conflict resolution, contract management, probability and distributions, professional development, Geography, contract structure, health monitoring assessment and metrics, legal systems, data analysis and analytics, psychology, dispute resolution, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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