A systemic view of dispute causation

Abstract

PurposeA considerable amount of research has been undertaken with regard to the dispute causation within construction project management. Research has eschewed identifying the interrelatedness of variables, which has blurred researchers understanding of dispute causation and lead to latent work practices being embedded within the contracting environment within which projects are procured. With this in mind, this paper attempts to identify the underlying dynamics influencing disputes through the use of causal modeling.Design/methodology/approachUsing the concept of system dynamics a series of causal models are developed from the literature to demonstrate the complexity associated with dispute causation.FindingsIt is revealed that project management, organization and people are the main sources of disputes. Causal models are constructed for each of these constructs and a series of strategies for avoiding disputations identified.Originality/valueThe research has demonstrated the inherent complexity associated with disputes and identified the interrelatedness of factors that can lead to their causation. It is suggested that further empirical research is required to determine the recurring latent conditions that contribute disputes. Once these conditions are examined then effective strategies for dispute avoidance can be identified and advancement toward improving the performance of construction projects made.

Institutional Waste within the UK Construction Procurement Context: A Conceptual Framework

“…The fact that much of the waste produced in construction is common to many projects led to the study's hypothesis that there are imperfect institutional regulations, norms, and culturalcognitive framework assumptions within the construction procurement context, which support and/or encourage wasteful activities. Examples of these include: traditional lump-sum procurement systems based on price-competitive tendering (Winch, 2000b;Love et al, 2011b;Laryea and Hughes, 2008;Mohammed et al, 2011); silo thinking and resistance to change such that existing values and beliefs are not open for questioning (Winch, 2000a;Eriksson et al, 2008); traditional insurance products (Kent and Becerik Gerber, 2010;Ndekugri et al, 2013); textual complexity of standard contracts (Rameezdeen and Rajapakse, 2007;Rameezdeen and Rodrigo, 2013), disclaimer clauses (Zaghloul & Hartman, 2003;Love et al, 2010); late payments (Poverbs, 2000;,); the short-term focus as exemplified by clients' habit of changing suppliers between projects through the frequent use of open bid invitation procedures (Erikkson et al, 2008 unsatisfactory outcomes. It is thus questionable why conventional procurement systems remain very prevalent, as opposed to newer and more collaborative forms of procurement that are deemed to be more beneficial and efficient.…”

“…Additionally, it could be argued that many clients conform to imperfect conventional procurement procedures, due to institutional pressure imposed on them (Sarhan et al, 2017). Most of the clients, who procure construction projects, lack experience and may only ever build once or twice (Love et al, 2010). Thus, they invariably rely on taking professional advice from consultants, financiers, and legal advisers.…”

“…The construction industry has, over a long period, been subject to substantial criticism for its opportunistic relationships, with conflicts and disputes, and lack of trust, collaboration and customer focus often cited as significant amongst its various shortcomings (Egan;1998;Rooke et al, 2003;Eriksson and Laan, 2007;Love et al, 2010). Hence, traditional procurement arrangements (e.g.…”

“…Additionally, it could be argued that many clients conform to imperfect conventional procurement procedures, due to institutional pressure imposed on them (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;Sarhan et al, 2017). Most construction clients are inexperienced or one-off procurers of construction projects (Love et al, 2010); and as such, they invariably rely on professional advice from consultants, financiers and legal advisers. These professional advisers may have a vested interest (i.e.…”

Rework in Highway Projects

“…As a result, design errors and omissions arose in the contract documentation. This was mainly because design audits, reviews and verifications where not adequately undertaken (Love et al 2010a). Such errors and omissions were not identified until construction was being undertaken.…”