Cheung, S O and Suen, H C H (2002) A multi-attribute utility model for dispute resolution strategy selection. Construction Management and Economics, 20(7), pp. 557-568. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Disputes are inevitable in construction projects. Skills in dispute resolution should be part of the toolkit of any practitioner in a managerial position. Dispute resolution procedures such as litigation, arbitration, mediation, dispute adviser and negotiation are widely practised. However, frequently the question is how to systematically determine which dispute resolution strategy to adopt given the nature of disputes. Even though the topic of dispute resolution has been widely discussed and heavily researched, few studies have been conducted with respect to this question. A decision-making model has been developed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT). The model comprises four parts: selection criteria, dispute resolution strategies, collection of utility factors and selection criteria weightings. These were developed from empirical data collected through an interview survey with selected experts in the field. The model is designed to identify in a systematic manner an appropriate dispute resolution strategy for a given dispute, rather than relying on subjective decisions. The model is tested using a hypothetical scenario in which three case studies are evaluated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; dispute resolution strategies; multi-attribute utility technique; selection criteria; selection model |
| Index terms: | survey, dispute, practitioner, negotiation, analytical hierarchy process, toolkit, strategy, interview, construction project, decision-making, selection criteria, mediation, arbitration, resolution, case study, litigation |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, data collection methods, conflict resolution, practitioner, management, software systems, tendering, dispute resolution, production management, decision-making and optimization |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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