Cheung, S O; Ng, S T; Lam, K C and Sin, W S (2001) A fuzzy sets model for construction dispute evaluation. Construction Innovation, 1(2), pp. 117-127. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Unresolved construction dispute can be detrimental to project success. A systematic method to evaluate the seriousness of construction dispute of a construction project will assist management to take appropriate corrective actions. Evaluation of construction disputes requires an analysis on both the likelihood of occurrence and its impact, which are normally expressed by practitioners in linguistic terms. The application of classical discrete analysis will not be able to accommodate the fuzzy nature of this information. To determine how fuzzy sets theory can be applied to construction disputes evaluation (CDE), a fuzzy CDE model has been developed based on the knowledge extracted from practitioners in Hong Kong. The fuzzy CDE system consists of four components: dispute identification, dispute analysis; dispute evaluation; and dispute control. This paper describes the framework and operation of the fuzzy CDE system developed. The results indicate that CDE can be modelled by the fuzzy sets theory.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analysis; control; dispute identification; evaluation; fuzzy sets theory |
| Index terms: | dispute, Hong Kong, project success, practitioner, fuzzy set, construction dispute, construction project |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, production management, decision-making and optimization, Geography, practitioner, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, 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