Aibinu, A A (2006) The relationship between distribution of control, fairness and potential for dispute in the claims handling process. Construction Management and Economics, 24(1), pp. 45-54. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Parties' concern for fairness has been identified as one of the underlying causes of dissatisfaction and protracted dispute in the process for handling contractors' claims. Social psychology literature suggests that distribution of control over the various stages of any conflict resolution process is a factor that may influence concern for fairness. Despite the numerous studies in social psychology and management research, little or no attempt has been made to systematically investigate how distribution of control over the various stages of the process for handling a contractor's claims for delay and disruption could influence concern for fairness and potential for dispute. This should be a useful exercise in that it would suggest ways of reducing potential for disputes in construction project delivery. This study is an attempt to fill this research gap. Drawing on social psychology theory, this study proposes that, in order to enhance perceived fairness and thereby reduce potential for dispute, (1) the claims certifier needs to exercise a higher degree of process and content control over the early stages of process for handling claims than the control exercised by the employer and contractor; (2) the claims certifier must exercise total decision control so as to enhance the perceived impartiality and neutrality of the decision rendered on the claims. By examining two litigated cases, the study illustrates the relationship between distribution of control, perceived lack of fairness and dispute potential. By adopting the proposed principle for distributing control into the claims handling process and coupled with the use of an independent claims certifier, potential for dispute could be reduced on construction projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; claims process; control; delay and disruption claims; dispute; fairness |
| Index terms: | exercise, neutrality, dispute, conflict resolution, fairness, management research, drawing, construction project delivery, construction project, psychology |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, ethical practice, research design and methodology, dispute resolution, health behaviours and lifestyles, conflict resolution, project controls, behavioral psychology, leadership, production management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Organizational Design, Time Control, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| 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