Search results

The standard forms of construction contract are receiving greater attention in the management of projects scholarship as they probably influence the project success and project disputes. The extant literature suggests that the standard forms of construction contract are one of the top sources of disputes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of the standard forms of construction contract, FIDIC and NEC, in reducing disputes in the Palestinian construction industry.

The researchers have used qualitative methods to collect data and more specifically have undertaken 12 semi-structured interviews.

The study reveals that the standard forms of construction contract can be a tool to minimise disputes, but certainly not to eradicate them, and NEC appears to be more capable than FIDIC to do so.

This study contributes to knowledge by bringing an industrial perspective into the role of standard forms of contract in disputes creation and avoidance. The interviewees, recurrent users of FIDIC contract, criticised certain features and expressions and proposed some solutions.

This paper aims to investigate the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques in the Palestinian construction industry. It also seeks to identify some of the drivers and barriers to the greater use of particular ADR techniques.

In this study, 12 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with senior ADR practitioners comprising nine construction professionals, two eminent lawyers and a retired judge.

This research has explored the practices of mediation, adjudication and expert evaluation in the Palestinian construction industry and has identified deficiencies in implementation and the roles that the cultural and legal contexts play in this. The research findings cast some doubt on the results of previous studies asserting the widespread use of construction mediation.

This paper contributes to knowledge by bringing new insight into the practice of particular ADR techniques in the Palestinian construction industry and in identifying challenges to the more widespread adoption of these ADR techniques. This paper exposes the myth of the popularity of construction mediation and the dilemma to the use of mediation brought by the social construction and conceptualisation of the mediator’s role.

The purpose of this research is to advise on UK construction delay strategies. Critical delay factors were identified and their interrelationships were explored; in addition, a predictive model was established upon the factors and interrelationships to calculate delay potentials.

The critical causes were identified by a literature review, verified by an open-ended questionnaire survey and then analysed with 299 samples returned from structured questionnaire surveys. The model consisted of factors screened out by Pearson product–moment correlational coefficient, constructed by a logical reasoning process and then quantified by conducting Bayesian belief networks parameter learning.

The technical aspect of construction project management was less critical while the managerial aspect became more emphasised. Project factors and client factors present relatively weak impact on construction delay, while contractor factors, contractual arrangement factors and distinctively interaction factors present relatively strong impact.

This research does not differentiate delay types, such as excusable vs non-excusable ones and compensable vs non-compensable ones. The model nodes have been tested to be critical to construction delay, but the model structure is mostly based on previous literature and logical deduction. Further research could be done to accommodate delay types and test the relationships.

This research updates critical delay factor list for the UK construction projects, suggesting general rules for resource allocation concerning delay avoidance. Besides, this research establishes a predictive model, assisting delay avoidance strategies on a case-by-case basis.

This paper aims to devise a case-controlled method combined with Bradford Hill criteria for causal inference of contractual disputes in construction projects. It is a genuine attempt in a systematic method from research design to execution for causal issues where only observational data is available.

The authors located insufficient top management support as the putative pathogen of construction disputes based on a literature review, an interview and Delphi surveys. A questionnaire survey was then conducted to collect case-controlled data to ensure comparability, in which for each disputed project put in the experimental group, the authors sought for a dispute-free project of similar characteristics. The incidence rates of insufficient top management support in the experimental and control groups were then examined by Bradford Hill criteria as an alternative to the test of intervention effect.

The association of insufficient top management support and construction disputes was tested to conform with the Bradford Hill criteria with case-controlled data where applicable and logical deduction where statistical tests were not applicable. With a clear, positive, reasonable and statistically significant association, while excluding methodological biases, confounding and chance, the authors reached a causal verdict of insufficient top management support causing contractual disputes.

This paper supports the validity of applying a case-controlled method combined with Bradford Hill criteria in investigating causal issues in project management, especially the verdict of causal inference based on empirical data. In addition, the located root cause of contractual disputes could inform project management personnel with reasoned strategies for dispute avoidance.

Time-cost trade-off is normal conduct in construction projects when projects are expectedly late for delivery. Existing research on time-cost trade-off strategic management mostly focused on the technical calculation towards the optimal combination of activities to be accelerated, while the managerial aspects are mostly neglected. This paper aims to understand the managerial efforts necessary to prepare construction projects ready for an upcoming trade-off implementation.

A preliminary list of critical factors was first identified from the literature and verified by a Delphi survey. Quantitative data was then collected by a questionnaire survey to first shortlist the preliminary factors and quantify the predictive model with different machine learning algorithms, i.e. k-nearest neighbours (kNN), radial basis function (RBF), multiplayer perceptron (MLP), multinomial logistic regression (MLR), naïve Bayes classifier (NBC) and Bayesian belief networks (BBNs).

The model's independent variable importance ranking revealed that the top challenges faced were the realism of contractual obligation, contractor planning and control and client management and monitoring. Among the tested machine learning algorithms, multilayer perceptron was demonstrated to be the most suitable in this case. This model accuracy reached 96.5% with the training dataset and 95.6% with an independent test dataset and could be used as the contingency approach for time-cost trade-offs.

The identified factor list contributed to the theoretical explanation of the failed implementation in general and practical managerial improvement to better avoid such failure. In addition, the established predictive model provided an ad-hoc early warning and diagnostic tool to better ensure time-cost implementation success.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and analyse factors that affect contractors’ behavioural strategies in resolving disputed claims.

Factors were explored by a literature review and an open-ended questionnaire survey. In total, 9 hypotheses involving 12 factors were developed accordingly. Then a structured questionnaire survey was conducted, and 248 valid questionnaires were received from Chinese contractors. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was employed to test the hypotheses.

Factors that have the largest impacts on the contractual approach and the relational approach regarding obliging and compromising are favourability of evidence, time pressure and reputation, respectively. Unexpected results show that obliging behaviours are negatively correlated with procedural fairness but positively correlated with occurrence time of the dispute.

The results are based on correlation, although the research design improves the internal validity. Furthermore, this study belongs to single-level research. In the future, researchers can conduct multilevel research to enrich theories.

The findings not only enhance practitioners’ understanding of the factors influencing contractors’ behavioural strategies when dealing with disputed claims, but also offer insights into both parties’ ex ante focus of attention on specific factors to facilitate the subsequent dispute resolution.

This study furnishes a nuanced picture of multiple factors’ impacts on contractors’ behavioural strategies of claim-related dispute resolution, and thus supplements the relevant construction dispute management literature. From the perspective of contractual governance, it is one of those exploring drivers of contract application in problem situations. It extends the body of knowledge on this topic and hopefully will encourage more research on contractual governance from the reactive perspective.

This paper proposes that strategy activity is the most necessary form of and foundation for innovation. It is also the real context for any innovation effort that is intended to create competitive advantage, especially in response to three key strategic issues construction industry; changing client demands for value, partnering, and supply integration. Innovation is the profitable exploitation of ideas. Clearly, this requires two things a source of ideas that can lend themselves to profitable exploitation and a goal in pursuit which to exploit the ideas. Those goals are established and met by strategic innovation. The right strategy tools can motivate ideas and insight. However, elements of normal industry practice constitute strong demotivators to profitable strategic innovation, hence the presence of strategy activities noted in the industry. This paper discusses the development of the strategic management discourse and to identify tools for use in construction industry innovation that relate to its strategic challenges; the Value Chain, Game Theory and Delphi Technique. The paper also identifies the process of “Bricolage”, potentially a fourth tool, or process, which could be a source hard to imitate advantage in developing strategic innovation practices which act catalyst for participation and the means to profitably exploit new ideas. With strategically‐oriented innovation, a firm can identify and create new value for its customers and integrate its supply chains. Without it, innovation is at best blind, at worst, will never happen; there no goal to exploit the idea in pursuit of. Without strategy, there is no motivation to innovate.

Safety precautions in the use of raw materials, in manufacturing and processing, marketing and enforcement of food and drug law on purity and quality may appear nowadays to be largely a matter of routine, with manufacturers as much involved and interested in maintaining a more or less settled equilibrium as the enforcement agencies. Occasionally the peace is shattered, eg, a search and recovery operation of canned goods of doubtful bacterial purity or containing excess metal contamination, seen very much as an isolated incident; or the recent very large enforcement enterprise in the marketing of horseflesh (and other substitutions) for beef. The nationwide sale and distribution of meat on such a vast scale, only possible by reason of marketing methods — frozen blocks of boneless meat, which even after thawing out is not easily distinguishable from the genuine even in the eye of the expert; this is in effect only a fraud always around in the long ago years built up into a massive illicit trade.

Stakeholder paradigm has been gaining currency over the past few decades and technological breakthroughs have been influential in building its momentum. Hyper-Transparency is emerging as a building block and as an indispensable concomitant of stakeholder paradigm. The crux of a Hyper-Transparent organization is trust. The new paradigm requires substituting translucent and opaque business practices with fully transparent ones under which lasting trust can be built between the organization and its stakeholders. However, the nub of the stakeholder paradigm is the changes inside the organizations as well as changes in relation to their external environment, and transparency is both a driver and a resultant of these changes. Transparency is an integral part of corporate social responsibility debate and an eristic issue for the stakeholders. Moreover, Hyper-Transparency empowers the stakeholders to considerably influence the decision making sphere. In this chapter, transparency, its drivers and tools as well as the power of stakeholders in the new age of Hyper-Transparency alongside a number of case studies are presented.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) communicatively engaged in legitimization concerning accreditation.

This study utilized the rhetorical analysis approach outlined by Hoffman and Ford (2010) to explore the accreditation-related texts from an online source created by CHEA, Information About Accreditation.

The analysis identified three overarching approaches to include: isomorphism to address regulatory legitimacy, organizational identity management to address pragmatic legitimacy, and a dialogic approach to address normative legitimacy. This analysis also developed a new theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that can be summarized as: organizations foster a type of legitimacy through a legitimizing strategy by demonstrating how the purpose of the legitimizing strategy is achieved by the implementation of the legitimizing strategy.

Limitations include that data were gathered only from online, web-based texts during a period in which the rhetorical situation was ongoing.

This study expands research concerning the rhetorical approach to issues management in that it examines the way legitimacy is negotiated through the various rhetorical strategies of an organization. Additionally, information is offered about the rhetorical structure of texts when an organization seeks to legitimize certain ideas.

This analysis developed a theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that demonstrates important relationships between legitimizing strategies and types of legitimacy. Understanding these relationships may allow for a better interpretation of how legitimacy theory is represented within a communicative venture.