Abstract
Construction projects are at risk of dispute. Dispute prevention is thus expected to avoid that cost. This paper aims to establish a model predicting the occurrence of disputes and identifying strategies regarding resource allocation in dispute avoidance. Factors in the model were identified by a literature review and conceptualised into aetiology and progression of dispute formation based on an analogy with epidemiological investigations. The model structure was established upon this analogy, validated against Bradford Hill criteria, and then quantified by conducting a Bayesian network analysis with samples returned from a questionnaire survey. The model shows high accuracy rates with both complete and incomplete input data. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to simulate the results of potential management measures available to be taken. This predictive model not only serves the prediction function but also traces back to factors causing disputes, and hence can be used to assist decision making before and during a construction process. At the centre of the model sits the causal mechanism investigation, but the existing methods only shed lights on correlational research without causal consideration. This paper devised an epidemiological investigation which covers from causal proposition to causal examination and contributes greatly to model establishment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alaloul WS, Liew MS, Wan Zawawi NA, Mohammed BS, Adamu M (2018) An artificial neural networks (ANN) model for evaluating construction project performance based on coordination factors. Cogent Engineering 5(1):1507657, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1507657
Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S (2006) Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal of Project Management 24(4):349–357, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010
Baatz N (2008) Problem management/dispute resolution in partnering contracts. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law 161(3):115–120, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.2008.161.3.115
Busby J, Hughes E (2004) Projects, pathogens and incubation periods. International Journal of Project Management 22(5):425–434, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.09.002
CDC (2011) Principles of epidemiology in public health practice. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Workforce and Career Development, Atlanta, GA, USA, 35–36
CDC (2016) Epidemiology. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Retrieved August 4, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/careerpaths/k12teacherroadmap/epidemiology.html
Chan DW, Kumaraswamy MM (1997) A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects. International Journal of Project Management 15(1):55–63, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00039-7
Chau KW (2006) Prediction of construction litigation outcome—A case-based reasoning approach. In: Ali M, Dapoigny R (eds) Advances in applied artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1177956859
Chau KW (2007a) Application of a PSO-based neural network in analysis of outcomes of construction claims. Automation in Construction 16(5):642–646, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.11.008
Chau KW (2007b) Insight into resolving construction disputes by mediation/adjudication in Hong Kong. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 133(2):143–147, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133:2(143)
Chen WT, Chen TT, Sheng Lu C, Liu SS (2012) Analyzing relationships among success variables of construction partnering using structural equation modeling: A case study of Taiwan’s construction industry. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18(6):783–794, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.735062
Cheung SO, Pang KHY (2013) Anatomy of construction disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139(1):15–23, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000532
Cheung SO, Yiu TW (2006) Are construction disputes inevitable?. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53(3):456–470, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2006.877445
Choi SH, Kim YS (2016) Priority analysis of dispute factors in overseas construction based on FIDIC contract conditions. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20(9):2124–2133, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0174-x
Chua DKH, Kog YC, Loh PK (1999) Critical success factors for different project objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 125(3):142–150, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142)
Dammann J, Hansmann H (2008) Globalizing commercial litigation. Cornell Law Review 94(1):1–72
Diekmann JE, Girard MJ (1995) Are contract disputes predictable?. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 121(4):355–363, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:4(355)
Doll R, Hill AB (1950) Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. British Medical Journal 2(4682):739–748, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.4682.739
Doloi H (2013) Cost overruns and failure in project management: Understanding the roles of key stakeholders in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139(3):267–279, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000621
Eben K, Maly M (2014) Cohort. Statistics Reference Online 254–257, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat04590
Fedak KM, Bernal A, Capsha ZA, Gross S (2015) Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century: How data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 12(1):14–23, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4
Fenn P (2007) Predicting construction disputes: an aetiological approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law 160(2):69–73, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.2007.160.2.69
Fenn P (2012) The cost of conflict and disputes: Towards a predictive model for appropriate dispute resolution. Report No. 16280, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Fisher R (1958) Cigarettes, cancer, and statistics. The Centennial Review of Arts & Science 2:151–166
Gudienė N, Banaitis A, Podvezko V, Banaitienė N (2014) Identification and evaluation of the critical success factors for construction projects in Lithuania: AHP approach. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 20(3):350–359, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.914082
Gunduz M, Yahya AMA (2018) Analysis of project success factors in construction industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 24(1):67–80, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1074129
Hartman F, Snelgrove P (1996) Risk allocation in lump-sum contracts—Concept of latent dispute. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 122(3):291–296, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:3(291)
Hwang BG, Lim ESJ (2013) Critical success factors for key project players and objectives: Case study of Singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139(2):204–215, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000597
Kog YC, Loh PK (2011) Critical success factors for different components of construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138(4):520–528, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000464
Larson E (1997) Partnering on construction projects: A study of the relationship between partnering activities and project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 44(2):188–195, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/17.584926
Love P, Davis PR, Cheung S, Irani Z (2011) Causal discovery and inference of project disputes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(3):400–411, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2010.2048907
Love P, Davis P, London K, Jasper T (2008) Causal modelling of construction disputes. Proceedings 24th annual arcom conference, September 1–3, Cardiff, UK
Mitropoulos P, Howell G (2001) Model for understanding, preventing, and resolving project disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127(3):39–54, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:3(223)
Norsys (2017) Netica software. Norsys, Retrieved September 21, 2018, https://www.norsys.com
Pinto JK, Slevin DP (1987) Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 34(1):22–27, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1987.6498856
Ribeiro P, Paiva A, Varajão J, Dominguez C (2013) Success evaluation factors in construction project management — Some evidence from medium and large Portuguese companies. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 17(5):603–609, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-0019-4
Simon HA (1947) Administrative behavior. Macmillan, New York, NY, USA
Wolfe MF, Goldberg R (2000) Rube Goldberg: Inventions! Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, 49–50
Yaseen ZM, Ali ZH, Salih SQ, Al-Ansari N (2020) Prediction of risk delay in construction projects using a hybrid artificial intelligence model. Sustainability 12(4):1514, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041514
Yates DJ (1998) Conflict and disputes in the development process: A transaction cost economics perspective. PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Yousefi V, Yakhchali SH, Khanzadi M, Mehrabanfar E, Šaparauskas J (2016) Proposing a neural network model to predict time and cost claims in construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 22(7):967–978, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2016.1205510
Acknowledgments
The research carried out was judged by relevant University department to be waived from University ethics approvals, the question asked were within the expertise of the respondents and no sensitive data was required. In addition, no personal data was either asked for or retained.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, P., Zhang, L., Wang, K. et al. Aetiology and Progression of Construction Disputes towards a Predictive Model. KSCE J Civ Eng 25, 1131–1143 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-0728-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-0728-z