Cheung, S O and Li, K (2019) Biases in construction project dispute resolution. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(2), pp. 321-348. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to propose a framework of bias in construction project dispute resolution (CPDR hereafter). Design/methodology/approach: With reference to the literatures on effects of bias, manifestations of bias in CPDR were developed. Based on data obtained from construction professionals about their frequency of having these bias manifestations, the underlying constructs of biased behaviors were explored by a principal component factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis was further conducted to validate the framework of bias in CPDR. Findings: Four types of bias were identified as the constructs that underlie biased behaviors in CPDR. These four biases were included in the bias framework proposed: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. The potency of these types of bias was also evaluated. Practical implications: First, the findings inform that the existence of bias in CPDR is real. Early detection allows management to intervene and steer CPDR team back to rational courses. Second, this study suggests optimizing CPDR procedures to diminish the chance of bias occurring. Originality/value: Bias is almost an uncharted area in CPDR. The study fills this research gap by conceptualizing the underlying constructs of biased behaviors. The findings inform construction professionals of the likelihood of practicing biased behaviors in CPDR. Repeated dispute decisions in the commonly used multi-tiered dispute resolution process would enable the creeping in of biases.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bias; construction project dispute resolution; multi-tiered dispute resolution; rational decisions |
| Index terms: | construction project, bias, methodology, confirmatory factor analysis, resolution, factor analysis, construction professional, dispute |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, conflict resolution, production management, probability and distributions, professional development, research methods, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTA |
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