Dispute Avoidance and Resolution (literature review) - Construction ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strategies to Prevent disputesROOT CAUSES OF DISPUTES PAR ALL STM CON ECI SCM1.0 RESOURCES & CONSTRAINTS1.1 Inadequate initial scoping √√ √√ √√ √1.2 Unrealistic time/cost/quality targets √√ √√ √√ √√ √√1.3 Unrealistic tendering √ √ √√ √√1.4 Ambiguous contract documentation √ √ √√ √√1.5 Economic environment √ √2.0 SHARED LEADERSHIP & COLLABORATION2.1 Unfair risk allocation √√ √√ √ √2.2 Unclear risk allocation √√ √√ √2.3 Poor communication between project team √√ √√ √√2.4 Clients lack of information or decisiveness2.5 Inappropriate contract type2.6 Low trust √√ √√ √√ √2.7 Lack of empathy √√ √√3.0 PROBLEM SOLVING CULTURE3.1 inflexible project team member behaviour √3.2 Lack of competence √3.3 Lack of team spirit √√3.4 Lack of culture of continuous improvement √√ √√3.5 Failure of participants to deal promptly with changes and unexpected outcomes √√ √√ √√ √√3.6 Lack of long term inter-firm relationship √√Project 2007-006-EP Page 49 of 62
8.1.3 Encouragement of a cultural shiftThere have been a large number of initiatives, particularly in the UK, aimed at producing acultural shift in the industry. There is also a precedent in Australia with the introduction bythe Gyles Royal Commission of Partnering as a pilot study in 1991. The case could be madethat a contemporary ‘light house’ type project could be undertaken to showcase current goodpractice in Australia in risk avoidance8.1.4 Develop a conceptual framework for dispute avoidance andcontrolGebken and Gibson put forward the proposition that in their view the classical approach torisk management viz. identification; assessment and control could also be applied to disputeresolution management. This proposition was made in 2006 and is as yet untested andthere may be merit in further exploration. The Risk Management Process model accordingto the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4360 2004 Risk Management proposes a 5 Stageprocess (refer to figure 7.1):1. Establish the context2. Identify risks3. Analyse risks4. Evaluate risks5. Treat risksProject 2007-006-EP Page 50 of 62
Page 2 and 3: Dispute Avoidance and ResolutionA L
Page 5: PREFACEThis literature review was p
Page 9 and 10: Figure 2.1 Conceptual Model [Source
Page 11 and 12: An all important point on the natur
Page 13 and 14: Table 3.1 Perceived significance of
Page 15 and 16: • Cost of strained business relat
Page 17 and 18: Figure 2.2 Common sources of constr
Page 19 and 20: 438 dispute events on 21projects in
Page 21 and 22: cases in Australia3. delaysHewitt 1
Page 23 and 24: 5. Industry reform to improve adver
Page 25: 5.2.2 Integration and collaborative
Page 28 and 29: Figure 5.1 Historical Timeline of K
Page 30 and 31: 6. History and Development of Dispu
Page 32 and 33: contract with the aim of providing
Page 34 and 35: It is a little more difficult to de
Page 37 and 38: The process by which the expert str
Page 39 and 40: With regards to the likes of DRBs,
Page 41 and 42: the case through submission of argu
Page 43 and 44: 7. Dispute avoidanceThe avoidance o
Page 45 and 46: For the purposes of this project th
Page 47 and 48: and balancing the various project a
Page 49 and 50: Learning from these initiatives ena
Page 51: 8.1 RecommendationsThis extensive l
Page 55 and 56: Figure 7.2 Dispute health CheckProj
Page 57 and 58: Cheung, S., Yiu, T. and Yeung, S. (
Page 59 and 60: Jones, D. (1998), Dispute resolutio
Page 61 and 62: Peck, G. and Dalland, P. (2007) The
Page 63: Yates, D. J. (2003) Can claims and

Dispute Avoidance and Resolution (literature review) - Construction ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?