Love, P; Davis, P; Ellis, J and Cheung, S O (2010) Dispute causation: Identification of pathogenic influences in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(4), pp. 404-423. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - While a considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated about dispute causation, disputes continue to prevail and disharmonise the process of construction with considerable cost. This paper seeks to identify the underlying pathogens that clients and contractors perceive to contribute to disputes in construction projects. The identification of pathogens can provide an ameliorated understanding of the origin of disputes and therefore enable their prevention. Design/methodology/approach - Case law and focus groups with a client and contracting organisation from Western Australia are used to determine the pathogens of disputes. Findings - Analysis of the case law findings revealed that the underlying issues that were brought to litigation were to do with points of law, namely "civil procedure". A significant number of disputes are thus settled using alternative dispute resolution methods such as adjudication, arbitration and mediation. For clients the underlying latent conditions that resulted in a dispute were due to the nature of the task being performed (e.g. failure to detect and correct errors) and those arising from people's deliberate practices (e.g. failure to oblige by contractual requirements). For the contractor focus group the circumstances arising from the situation or environment the project was operating in were identified as the main underlying latent condition for disputes (e.g. unforeseen scope changes). Research limitations/implications - Focus groups are only undertaken with clients and contracting groups as they were identified as the main parties involved in dispute during the analysis of litigation cases within Western Australia. Input from consultants and subcontractors may provide a more balanced perspective as to the perceived causes and costs of disputes. Originality/value - The research has been able to provide the initial building blocks for understanding the underlying pathogens contributing to disputes. However, more empirical research is required before conclusive findings can be made, particularly with regard to the influences on subcontractors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; case law; construction industry; contracts; costs; disputes |
| Index terms: | pathogen, construction industry, prevention, arbitration, case law, adjudication, dispute, Australia, litigation, construction project, methodology, alternative dispute resolution, contracting organization, subcontractor, scope change, focus group, mediation |
| Subjects: | health risk and incident analysis, research methods, Geography, production management, financial risk, contract management, industry analysis, data collection methods, scope management, dispute resolution, practitioner, legal systems |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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