Cheung, S O; Tam, C M; Ndekugri, I and Harris, F C (2000) Factors affecting clients' project dispute resolution satisfaction in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), pp. 281-294. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The use of project dispute resolution satisfaction (DRS) as a project success measurement responds to the increasing concern over the spread of the dispute epidemic within the construction industry in Hong Kong. The DRS of a project is considered as favourable where disputes are resolved within the site level. With the use of 48 project data sets and the technique of multivariate discriminant analysis, a discriminant model function was derived to classify projects into favourable DRS and adverse DRS. The multivariate discriminant analysis model function identified eight discriminating variables, among which the degree of design changes offered the highest separation power. The reliability of the discrminating variables was reinforced by a separate relative importance index study. Through the use of principal component factor analysis, these variables were grouped into three factors generically described as substantive influence, facilitation and indirect influence.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; discriminant analysis; disputes; Hong Kong; project |
| Index terms: | project data, design change, relative importance index, resolution, construction industry, factor analysis, dispute, satisfaction, project success, discriminant analysis, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, industry analysis, statistical analysis, Geography, project management theory and practice, contractual arrangements, project delivery, risk assessment, data collection methods, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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