Ali, B; Aibinu, A and Paton-Cole, V (2023) Facilitating agreement in disruption claims through disruption analysis methods. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 39th Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2023, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Disruption in construction projects is one of the major causes of claims. The extent of each contracting party's responsibility for disruptions in a project is a frequently asked question in such claims. Over the years, various disruption analysis methods have been developed to address this question, but the consensus among experts and contracting parties on this matter is still sparse. Such lack of agreement on a uniform disruption analysis method often results in disputes between contracting parties. An investigation of the recommended disruption analysis methods is conducted in this research by interviewing 22 disruption claims experts in Australia. Results revealed that the majority of experts preferred using the baseline productivity method (23%) followed by the measured mile method (18%) because they promote objectivity in the assessment. Results from this study suggest that the objectivity in analysis methods along with information availability can enable agreement between contracting parties for their application in disruption claims. This study identifies the need for an established information management system to facilitate resolution of disruption claims.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; contracting; dispute resolution; information management; productivity. |
| Index terms: | resolution, investigation, construction project, Australia, contracting party, productivity, dispute, management system |
| Subjects: | production management, Geography, management, conflict resolution, practitioner, dispute resolution, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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