Dispute resolution aided tool for construction projects in Egypt/Gincu sprendimo pagalbos priemone statybos projektams Egipte.
Marzouk, Mohamed ; Mesteckawi, Lobna El- ; Said, Moheeb El- 等
1. Introduction
Conflict situations are inherent in construction projects.
Unfortunately, such conflicts interfere with the success of projects and
create additional costs for all parties (Thompson et al. 2000). A
construction claim is an assertion of and a demand for compensation by
way of evidence produced and arguments advanced by a party in support of
its case (Construction Industry Institute 1996). A dispute is originally
a claim, but that has been rejected by the defendant. Construction
problems and disputes arise due to several factors including; technical,
climatic and logistic events, while resolution of construction disputes
is influenced by people's motivation, behavioral and cultural
implications (McInnis 2001). If disputes are not resolved promptly, they
tend to drag on and escalate and can cause project delays, which, lead
to claims that require litigation proceedings for resolution, and
ultimately destroy business relationships (Cheung et al. 2002). Project
disputes have become a repetitive phenomenon in the Egyptian
construction industry. Such phenomenon, if not managed efficiently,
would hinder the success of many construction projects in Egypt and thus
slow down the wheel of development. The Cairo Regional Center for
International and Commercial Arbitration recorded over 220 law suits
raised for arbitration in the last 20 years. Thus, understanding of
disputes problem areas as well as the various resolution methodologies
is a step towards its solution. However, understanding of the factors
influencing the dispute resolution strategy (DRS) decision and utilizing
these factors to determine, using a computer model, the most probable
successful strategy to be followed, depending on the dispute case, is a
step towards better disputes management and consequently a step towards
better performance of construction projects.
Managing construction disputes requires thorough studying of the
causes of such disputes and the various resolution methodologies adopted
by practitioners in Egypt. Highlighting the most frequent causes of
disputes would guide project parties (owners, contractors, and
consultants) to put such causes into consideration, i.e. work on
preventing them, when starting a new project in order to reduce the
probability of disputes occurrence as much as possible. Diekmann and
Girard (1995) analyzed the effect of different project characteristics
on the occurrence of contract disputes. Three categories of project
characteristics were considered: people aspects, process aspects, and
project aspects. Certain characteristics were found to be statistically
significant indicators of construction disputes. These characteristics
were grouped together into seven hybrid variables: owner management and
organization, contractor management and organization, project
complexity, project size, financial planning, project scope definition,
and risk allocation. The findings of this work were based on statistical
analysis of data on the frequency and severity of disputes in 159
construction projects. The primary results of this study could be
summarized by stating that people do not cause disputes, but do affect
dispute performance more than any other variable. El-Mesteckawi (2008)
presented forty-four common causes of construction disputes and seven
possible dispute resolution methodologies. Utilizing the results of a
questionnaire survey, such causes and methodologies were ranked
according to their frequency of occurrence in the construction industry
in Egypt. The most frequent causes of disputes which occupied the top
five ranks were: i) owner's un-fulfillment of contract obligations,
ii) changing needs of owner, iii) contractor's un-fulfillment of
contract obligations, iv) contradictory and erroneous information in the
mass of documents and v) Inadequate technical plans/specifications.
Moreover, arbitration was found to be the most frequently adopted
resolution strategy.
A lot of efforts have been made in the area of construction
disputes management and advising on the most appropriate dispute
resolution strategy (Chan et al. 2006; Chan and Suen 2005; Kassab et al.
2006; Chan 2003; Cheung 2002; Goldberg et al. 1992; Mitropoulos and
Howell 2001). Dispute resolution provisions are considered a crucial
issue that should be considered. Jenkins and Stebbings (2006) stated
that contracts parties spend less time and efforts in writing and
negotiating dispute resolution provisions in the contracts compared to
the time and efforts spent in commercial and financial clauses. Cheung
et al. (2002) presented an artificial neural network technique that is
used to determine the important factors, affecting the outcome of
construction dispute resolution processes in Hong Kong. Spalj (2005)
listed several precautions that should be considered to reduce the
potential for causing construction claims. These precautions should be
taking into account: 1) before bidding or negotiating the contract, 2)
before signing the contract, and 3) during project execution, by
preparing job documentation. Cheung (2002) presented a framework to
select a dispute resolution mechanism for use in different construction
contracts. An empirical study was carried out to investigate the
framework, considering four types of contracts (main contracts,
nominated subcontracts, domestic subcontracts, and labor contracts) and
five transaction characteristics (discreteness, presentation,
uncertainty, frequency, and identity). Kassab et al. (2006) presented a
decision support system (named GMCRII) based on the graph model to
resolve construction projects' conflicts. GMCRII is capable to
investigate strategic interactions that took place between owners and
contactors. These interactions are related to the financing of
construction projects. Chan et al. (2006) developed a decision-making
model using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute
utility technique (MAUT). The model developed consists of five
components: Selection factors, dispute resolution methods, utility
factors, relative importance weightings, and user's preferred
weightings. The purpose of this model is to identify in a systematic
manner an appropriate dispute resolution strategy for a given dispute,
rather than relying on subjective decisions.
Studying the causes of disputes and preventing them at an early
stage of the project, is a step forward to reducing the probability of
disputes occurrence throughout the project life. However, this is not
the only criteria in managing disputes in construction projects. It is
important as well to be able to deal promptly and efficiently with
disputes that already arose in a project. Deciding on the resolution
strategy to follow in case a dispute occurred is very critical for all
project parties. An unwise decision would lead to numerous losses for
one or more parties. Such losses could be financial or personal. The
purpose of this paper is mainly to: review the causes of construction
disputes; analyze the attributes that influence the dispute resolution
strategy (DRS) decision; and design a model that would assist decision
makers to make the right decision regarding the resolution strategy to
follow in case a dispute occurred.
The skill of dispute resolution cannot be overemphasized. It should
be part of the tool kit for practitioners, especially those in a
managerial position. Dispute resolution strategies can be classified
into two main categories: traditional dispute resolution methodologies
or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methodologies. The formal
category includes negotiation and litigation. Whereas, the latter
category is defined as "any process or procedure, other than
adjudication by a presiding judge, in which a neutral third party
participates to assist in the resolution of issues in controversy,
through processes such as early neutral evaluation, mediation,
mini-trials and arbitration" (Hoogenboom et al. 2005). It is
further classified into binding (such as arbitration), non-binding (such
as mediation, mini-trials) and preventive (such as partnering and
dispute review boards). Detailed description of resolution methodologies
along with their advantages and disadvantages can be found elsewhere
(Gillie 1988; Mix 1997; Phillips 1997; Phillips 1999; Levine 2000;
Trantina 2001; Harmon 2003; Chan et al. 2004; Cheung et al. 2006).
2. Causes of Construction Disputes
Avoiding construction disputes requires understanding of the
contractual terms, early non-adversarial communication, and
understanding of the causes of disputes (Semple et al. 1994). Thus, it
is very essential to study the causes of construction disputes in order
to manage conflicts among project parties effectively. Forty-four causes
of disputes were identified from literature and unstructured interviews,
and these form the basis for the survey described later. These
forty-four causes were grouped into four categories: contractual
matters, cultural matters, management and organization of project
parties, and project matters. The participation of different parties in
a project is governed by a contract which defines the exchange of
construction materials and services for money. That's why
contractual problems are of the basic factors that drive the development
of disputes. Cultural matters impact parties' relationships, and
perceptions of each other, which subsequently affect the behaviors they
will adopt, as well as how effectively they solve problems together. On
the other hand, issues involving management and organization of project
parties are so important when considering the number of organizations,
roles, responsibilities, experience, and the many expectations that
affect these parties. Project matters category includes four criteria;
project externals, project internals, construction process, and
variations. Internal matters are those inherent to the project, whereas,
external matters are those associated with the environment where the
project is being constructed. The construction process criterion
encounters problems that could hinder or delay the construction of the
project, whereas, the variations criterion encounters the factors that
could impose variations to the project's cost, duration, design and
consequently construction methods.
3. Questionnaire Surveys
3.1. Disputes Causes and Resolution Methodologies
To identify the problem areas of construction disputes and dispute
resolution practices, a questionnaire survey in a form of face-to-face
interview was conducted with thirty-three practitioners, who are experts
in the field. The questionnaire, designed for use in the survey,
comprised three sections. The first section was meant to gather
demographic information about respondents. The second section in the
questionnaire contained forty-four possible causes of disputes collected
from literature and unstructured interviews. These causes were
categorized under four heads; contractual matters, cultural matters,
management and organization of project parties, and project matters.
Table 1 lists the forty-four causes and their associated codes. Every
respondent was requested in this section to rate each cause of dispute
on a five point scale based on causes frequency of occurrence. In the
last section, the eight dispute resolution methodologies gathered from
literature review were encountered and categorized under two heads:
Traditional and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes. Similar to
section two, each respondent was asked to rate every methodology, based
on its frequency of adoption, on a five-point scale.
The questionnaire was distributed only to the first class of
contractors registered in the Egyptian Federation for Construction and
Buildings Contractors, providing that they have enough experience with
construction disputes. The consultants and owners' representatives
of big investment projects have been also approached for the
questionnaire. A total of 40 practitioners were approached for this
questionnaire, however, only 33 responded. All respondents hold senior
positions with related working experience. The numbers of respondents
are fifteen (i.e., 45.45%), twelve (i.e., 36.36%), and six (i.e.,
18.18%) which belong to contractors, consultants, and owners'
representatives, respectively. Whereas, the distribution of the
respondents' positions at work is 22%, 62%, and 16% from strategic,
managerial, and supervisory levels, respectively. The majority of
respondents had practiced in the field for 20 to 30 years. Eight
respondents (i.e., 24.24%) have been in the field for more than 30
years. The minimum size of the sample required from the targeted
population was determined statistically according to Kish (1995) as per
Eqs (1) and (2):
[n.sub.0] = p * q/[V.sub.2], (1)
n = [[n.sub.0]]/[1 + [[n.sub.0]/N]], (2)
where: [n.sub.0]--First estimate of sample size, p--The proportion
of the characteristic being measured in the target population,
q--Complement of p or 1-p, V--The maximum standard error allowed, N--The
population size, and n--The sample size.
The total number of contractor companies (N), registered in
Egyptian Federation for Construction and Building Contractors (EFCBC),
in the year 2007 is 58,991, and the first class contractors'
companies are 1,716. Hence, p is estimated to be the ratio between the
first class of contractors' companies to the total number of
contractor companies which is 0.029. To account for possible error in
the qualitative answers from the questionnaire, the maximum standard
error V was set at 10%. Substituting in Eqs (1) and (2), the minimum
sample required was calculated to be 2.816. This means that the minimum
sample size is approximately 3.0. Since the number of contractor
companies in Egypt is more than the number of consulting companies and
owner representatives, therefore, it would be sufficient to target the
same sample size, for consultants and owner representatives, as that of
contractors. Responses obtained from every category of respondents
(contractors, consultants, and owner representatives) were separately
collected. The frequencies of all causes are depicted in Fig. 1.
According to the survey findings, the most frequent causes of disputes
that occupied the top five ranks are (starting from the top): i)
owner's un-fulfilment of contract obligations, ii) changing needs
of owner, iii) contractor's un-fulfilment of contract obligations,
iv) Contradictory and erroneous information in the mass of documents, v)
Inadequate technical plans/specifications. Whereas, the least frequent
causes of disputes that occupied the last five ranks are (starting from
the least): i) technological developments, ii) stringent building
regulations, iii) environmental restrictions, iv) weather conditions,
and v) changes in environmental regulations. Regarding the resolution
methodologies, it was found that arbitration is the most frequent
methodology adopted in case a dispute occurred, followed by negotiation
and mediation. Whereas, DRB's, partnering, and mini-trials
methodologies are the least adopted ones.
3.2. Dispute Resolution Strategy (DRS) Decision Factors
Another questionnaire was designed for the purpose of collecting
data that would facilitate the construction of the computer model named
Dispute Resolution Strategy (DRS) Decision. Five domain experts were
approached for this questionnaire, however, only 3 responded. The three
domain experts are holding senior/strategic positions, two of which have
participated in the field for more than 30 years and one for about 15
years. The survey questionnaire comprised three sections. Section one
was meant to gather demographic information about respondents. Section
two contained the ten attributes influencing the dispute resolution
strategy decision (see Fig. 2). Studying the causes of construction
disputes and ranking them led to establishing the possible factors that
might affect the Dispute Resolution Strategy (DRS) Decision with the aid
of literature and unstructured interviews. Respondents, in this section,
were asked to perform pair-wise comparisons between the above factors in
order to determine their relative weights--the extent to which every
factor affects the final decision. The third section in the survey
contained twenty-six projects' scenarios. These situations were
extracted from the ten factors previously discussed. Respondents were
asked to assign a resolution methodology for each situation. The
methodologies from which respondents had to choose were: 1) Negotiation,
2) Mediation, and 3) Arbitration/Litigation. Only these three resolution
strategies were addressed as they were found, with reference to the
first questionnaire results, to be the most frequently adopted in
solving disputes for construction projects in Egypt. The 26 situations
and the resolution methodologies assigned for each are listed in Table
2.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The analysis involves the utilization of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) procedures developed by Saaty (1994) in order to estimate
relative weights for the factors. The AHP is a decision making process
that drives ratio scales of relative magnitudes of a set of elements by
making paired comparisons. The first step is to compare the elements in
each level of the hierarchy in pairs. The comparisons are made using
judgments based on knowledge and experience to interpret data according
to their contribution to the parent node in the level above. Once all
the pair-wise comparisons in a group are completed, a scale of relative
priorities (weights) is derived from them. This process is repeated for
all groups on all levels. The final step is a weighting process that
uses these priorities to synthesize the overall importance of the
criteria and sub-criteria. Pair-wise comparisons are represented in a
square matrix with as many rows and columns as there are elements
connected to the parent node in the level above. Respondents'
comparisons were collected and an average value was calculated for every
pair-wise comparison in order to obtain attributes' weights (see
Table 2)
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
4. Implementation of DRS Aided Tool
A computer model was developed as an aided tool for dispute
resolution strategy decision. The tool was developed on three stages: 1)
literature review and unstructured interviews; 2) knowledge base
development; 3) system implementation. The tool employs all the data
collected from the second questionnaire survey (Experts' Knowledge)
to form the knowledge base for the model. The knowledge-base is
represented as a series of production rules. Visual Basic programming
language was utilized to code the tool's IF-THEN rules. The rules
entered were simple If-Then rules, each of which takes the weight of the
factor it questions. After coding the rules, several user interfaces
have been developed to facilitate data entry, as depicted in Fig. 3. The
user; decision maker, has to respond to ten questions in order to
reflect the dispute case, and upon his responses, the program assigns a
resolution methodology for each of the ten factors influencing the
dispute resolution strategy (DRS) decision. Finally, the model
calculates a total percentage for each of the three resolution
strategies; arbitration, mediation and negotiation. These percentages
imply the probability of success of every strategy, if chosen.
5. Model Validation
An actual case study is presented to examine its validity of the
proposed tool. The case data is as follows:
1. Project parties are competing.
2. The relationship between the project parties is strained.
3. The project duration was 33 months, which was considered as a
long-term commitment.
4. The project parties did not experience any previous disputes,
thus it was considered that project parties are not satisfied with
previous resolution methodologies as they failed in this case with
amicable solutions.
5. Project parties do not agree on responsibility for the dispute.
6. The liquidity status of the claimant (contractor) is strong.
7. A long duration resolution process would negatively affect the
claimant.
8. The contract amount was around 66 million dollars, and the
amount claimed was around 1.5 million dollars (less than 10% of the
original contract amount).
9. The strength of facts/documents available at the claimant is
strong.
10. The level of complexity of the dispute and defense is high.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The data were fed to the computer model which recommended
Arbitration as the most efficient resolution strategy for such case with
59.8% percent of success (see Table 3). This result indicates that the
probability of success of negotiation or mediation is very low in
comparison to Arbitration. 59.8% of success would direct the claimant in
this case to resort to Arbitration through which there is a fair
possibility that this dispute will be settled. The computer model's
conclusion proves its truthfulness as it was stated in the case that the
project parties resorted at the end to Arbitration to resolve the
dispute after failure of amicable solutions.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
In construction disputes, organizations face difficult decisions
regarding resolution methodology; whether to negotiate, settle, or
pursue other methods of dispute resolution. These decisions involve
uncertainty or risk about the possible outcomes and the associated
costs. The probability of certain outcomes varies depending on the facts
and circumstances of the dispute at hand. The research work reviewed the
causes of construction disputes and the various disputes resolution
methodologies. It analyzed the attributes that influence the dispute
resolution strategy (DRS) decision in Egypt. The results of this
research revealed that the most important criterion influencing the
dispute resolution strategy decision is the financial status, followed
by the amount claimed, cultural matters, complexity of dispute and
defend, and strength of documents/ facts. A computer model was designed
to compile all the results of the survey and experts' views in a
form of IFTHEN rules. The model is utilized as an aided tool that
supports decision makers to the expected resolution strategy that would
mostly succeed. Although negotiation is usually the first attempt to
solving any dispute, it sometimes could waste time and consequently
money without reaching a satisfying solution. Hence, the computer model
aims at informing the user of whether to quit negotiation and/or any
amicable solution at an early stage of the dispute, to save time and
money, and resort to arbitration/litigation instead, or to stick to
negotiation and/or any amicable solution as it's the only way by
which the dispute could be resolved, i.e. as the probability of success
of arbitration is very low. In general, the model advises the claimant
to resort to arbitration if its percentage of success is high, i.e.
approximately >60% and to give up negotiation and /or mediation if
their percentage of success is low, i.e. approximately <30%.
Incorporating both results of survey I and II, it is recommended
for all project parties to prevent as much as possible the causes of
disputes that were found to be the most frequent in order to reduce
disputes occurrence in a construction project and consequently promote
the success of the project. The following recommendations might help
accomplishing disputes reduction in a project:
--Owner should present complete and clearly presented designs, as
well as clearly and comprehensively prepared contract documents
(including drawings and specifications).
--Project parties should undergo detailed and complete site
investigation during the tender phase in order to cut down errors and
design changes.
--Consultant offices and project management organizations should
have an established control system that is to be used to handle,
control, and evaluate variations initiated by the owner.
--Owner should allow sufficient time to prepare project briefs and
feasibility studies. A comprehensive financial plan and cash flow should
also be prepared.
--Owner should make sure that adequate funding is available before
the project starts.
--Owner should not impose unrealistic completion dates.
--Contractor should develop a comprehensive financial plan and cash
flow.
--Contractor should evaluate his financial capability and volume of
works he would be engaged in to make sure that adequate funding is
available before he gets involved into the project.
--Contractor should develop monitoring and periodical reporting of
critical and long lead items and periodically provide a narrative
explaining the causes of any delay experienced.
--Team building should be conducted to develop common project goals
and processes, and discuss interests and expectations.
--Project parties should employ preventive resolution strategies;
partnering or DRB, at an early stage of the project in order to reduce
the probability of disputes occurrence as much as possible.
doi: 10.3846/13923730.2011.554165
References
Chan, E. H. W.; Suen, H. C. H.; Chan, Ch. K. L. 2006. MAUT-Based
dispute resolution selection model prototype for international
construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management ASCE 132(5): 444-451.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:5(444)
Chan, A. P. C.; Chan, D. W. M.; Chiang, Y. H.; Tang, B. S.; Chan,
E. H. W.; Ho, K. S. K. 2004. Exploring critical success factors for
partnering in construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management S 130(2): 188-198.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:2(188)
Chan, E. H. W.; Suen, H. C. H. 2005. Dispute resolution management
for international construction projects in China, Management Decision
43(4): 589-602. doi:10.1108/00251740510593576
Chan, E. H. 2003. "Disputology" in the International
Construction Industry, in The Construction Research Congress-Wind of
Change: Integration and Innovation 2003: Proceedings, Hawaii, ASCE
Construction Research Council, Reston, VA: 1-9.
Cheung, S. O.; Yiu, T. W. Y.; Yeug, S. F. 2006. A study of styles
and outcomes in construction dispute negotiation, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 132(8): 805-814.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(805)
Cheung, S.-O. 2002. Mapping dispute resolution mechanism with
construction contract types, Cost Engineering AACEI 44(8): 18-26.
Cheung, S.-O.; Suen, H. C. H.; Lam, T.-I. 2002. Fundamentals of
alternative dispute resolution process in construction, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 128(5): 409-U7.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:5(409)
Construction Industry Institute. 1996. Prevention and resolution of
disputes using dispute review boards, Resource 23-2, Construction
Industry Institute, Dispute Prevention and Resolution Research Team,
Austin, TX [cited 17 January 2007]. Available from Internet:
<http://www.constructioninstitute.org/scriptcontent/Index.cfm>.
Diekmann, J. E.; Girard, M. J. 1995. Are Contract Disputes
Predictable?, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE
121(4): 355-363. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:4(355)
El-Mesteckawi, L. 2008. Managing construction disputes in Egypt.
MSc Thesis, Cairo University.
Gillie, M. S. 1988. Litigation and America's competitiveness:
It's time for a change, USA Today (July): 33-35.
Goldberg, S. B.; Sander, F. E. A.; Roger, N. H. 1992. Dispute
Resolution Negotiation, Mediation, and other Processes. Little, Brown
and Company, Boston, Mass.
Harmon, K. M. J. 2003. Resolution of construction disputes: A
review of current methodologies, Leadership and Management in
Engineering ASCE 3(4): 187-201.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2003)3:4(187)
Hoogenboom, J. P. E.; Dale, W. S. 2005. Dispute resolution strategy
and decision analysis, in 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for the
Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International, New Orleans,
Louisiana, U.S., CDR.15.
Jenkins, J.; Stebbings, S. 2006. International Construction
Arbitration Law. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands.
Kassab, M.; Hipel, K.; Hegazy, T. 2006. Conflict resolution in
construction disputes using the graph model, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 132(10): 1043-1052.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1043)
Kish, L. 1995. Survey Sampling. Wiley classics library Edn., Wiley,
New York.
Levine, P. 2000. Resolving construction disputes outside the
courtroom, New Jersey Building Contractor 1: 30-32.
McInnis, A. 2001. The New Engineering Contract: A Legal Commentary.
Thomas Telford, London.
Mitropoulos, P.; Howell, G. 2001. Model for understanding,
preventing, and resolving project disputes, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 127(3): 223-231.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:3(223)
Mix, D. 1997. ADR in the construction industry: continuing the
development of a more efficient dispute resolution mechanism, Ohio State
Journal on Dispute Resolution 12: 463.
Phillips, K. C. 1999. Arbitration or litigation? From the ground
up, Newsletter of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, and Fitzgerald (Spring): 4-5.
Phillips, B. A. 1997. Alternative dispute resolution symposium
issue; mediation: did we get it wrong? Willamette Law Review 33: 649.
Saaty, T. L. 1994. Fundamentals of decision making and priority
theory with the analytic hierarchy process. S Publications.
Semple, C.; Hartman, F. T.; Jergeas, G. 1994. Construction claims
and disputes: Causes and cost/time overruns, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management S 120(4): 785-795.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:4(785)
Spalj, G. T. 2005. Construction Disputes: The best way to avoid
disputes is to be prepared for them, Construction Bulletin (October 11):
1-5.
Thompson, R. M.; Vorster, M. C.; Groton, J. P. 2000. Innovations to
manage disputes: DRB and NEC, Journal of Management in Engineering S
16(5): 51-59. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:5(51)
Trantina, T. L. 2001. An attorney's guide to alternative
dispute resolution (ADR): 'ADR 1.01, New Jersey Bar Association,
Justice Marie L. Garibaldi America Inn of Court for Alternative Dispute
Resolution (October 11), Bedminster, N.J.
Mohamed Marzouk (1), Lobna El-Mesteckawi (2), Moheeb El-Said (3)
(1,2,3) Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
E-mails: (1) mm_marzouk@yahoo.com (corresponding author); (2)
lobna_elmesteckawi@hotmail.com; (3) elsaidl204@yahoo.com
Received 10 Nov. 2009; accepted 22 Jul. 2010
Mohamed MARZOUK. Associate Professor at Dept of Structural
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University. He obtained his
BSc and MSc in Civil Engineering from Cairo University in 1995 and 1997,
respectively. He obtained his PhD from Concordia University in 2002. He
serves as a member for several national committees including Egyptian
Code of Practice for Construction Management. His research interests
include simulation and optimization of construction processes, O-O
simulation, fuzzy logic and its applications in construction, risk
analysis, and decision analysis.
Lobna EL-MESTECKAWI. Senior Procurement Engineer at Power
Generation Engineering and Services Company (PGESCo), Bechtel's
affiliate, and a Ph.D. student at Dept of Structural Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University. She obtained her B.Sc. from
the American University in Cairo in 2004, Construction Engineering and
Management Dept., and her M.Sc. from Cairo University in 2008. Her
research interests include construction disputes, decision analysis, and
optimization of construction management processes.
Moheeb EL-SAID. Professor of construction engineering and
management at Dept of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University. A chairman of Quality control committee, National
organisation for civilisation reformation, Ministry of culture. His
research interests include productivity, scheduling, risk assessment,
life cycle costs, and simulation.
Table 1. Causes of construction disputes
Criterion Code Cause
Contractual NA CN1 Inadequate technical plans/
Matters specifications
CN2 Inadequate scope definition
CN3 Inaccurate material
estimating
CN4 Diverse interpretations of
contract terms
CN5 Contradictory and erroneous
information in the mass of
documents
CN6 Inadequate risks
identification/allocation
CN7 Lack of dispute resolution
process in case a dispute
occurred
Cultural NA CL1 Little cooperation among
Matters project parties
CL2 Lack of trust among project
parties
CL3 Opportunistic behavior of
project parties
CL4 Adversarial approach
in handling disputes
CL5 Reluctance of project
participants to deal
promptly with changes
CL6 Conflicting goals and
objectives of project
parties
Management and Contractors MO1 Contractor's lack of
Organization of experience in construction
Project Parties law, practices and
management
MO2 Contractor's lack of
interpersonal skills
MO3 Dishonesty of contractor
MO4 Contractor's un-fulfillment
of contract obligations
Owners MO5 Owner's lack of experience
in construction law,
practices and management
MO6 Unrealistic Owner's
expectations
MO7 Owner's lack of interpersonal
skills
MO8 Dishonesty of owner
MO9 Owner's un-fulfillment of
contract obligations
Consultants MO10 Consultants' lack of
experience in construction
law, practices and
management
MO11 Consultants' lack of
interpersonal skills
MO12 Dishonesty of project
consultants
Project Matters Project PT1 Site limitations, considering
Externals storage, access, etc.
PT2 Problems with authorities or
neighbors affecting
progress
PT3 Stringent building
regulations
PT4 Environmental restrictions
PT5 Weather conditions
PT6 Force majeur
PT7 Lack of capable craftsmen/
subcontractors
Project PT8 High level of project
uncertainty
Internals PT9 High degree of design
complexity
PT10 High degree of construction
complexity
Construction PT11 Late supply of equipments
and materials
Process PT12 Poor labor productivity
PT13 Shortage in resources
PT14 Insufficient quality control
procedures
Variations PT15 Changing market conditions
PT16 Technological developments
PT17 Changes in environmental
regulations
PT18 Changes in designs, material
types and specifications
by consultants
PT19 Changing needs of owner
Table 2. Recommended resolution methodologies for projects' scenarios
Attribute Weight Scenario
(%)
1.1. Behavior 0.8 Parties inside the project are
competing.
Parties inside the project are
cooperating.
1.2. Project parties' 1.4 Relationship between parties is
relation strained.
Relationship between parties is
good.
1.3. Type of involvement 4 Parties are involved in long-term
relations.
Parties are involved in
short-term relations.
1.4. Previous resolution 6.8 Parties are satisfied with
process satisfaction previous resolution processes.
Parties are not satisfied with
previous resolution processes.
1.5. Dispute 7 Parties agree on responsibility
responsibility for the dispute.
Parties do not agree on
responsibility for the dispute.
2.1. Liquidity status 28.8 The liquidity status of the
claimant is relatively poor
(critical).
The claimant has a strong
(non-critical) liquidity
status.
2.2. Time impact 7.2 A long duration resolution
process would negatively affect
the claimant's company.
A long duration resolution
process would neutrally affect
the claimant's company.
A long duration resolution
process would positively affect
the claimant's company.
3. Amount claimed 22 The amount claimed is less than
10% of the original contract
amount.
The amount claimed is 10-25% of
the original contract amount.
The amount claimed is 25-40% of
the original contract amount.
The amount claimed is 40-60% of
the original contract amount.
The amount claimed is more than
60% of the original contract
amount.
4. Strength of documents/ 10 Strength of available facts/
facts documents is weak.
Facts/documents available are of
intermediate strength.
Facts/documents available are
reliable (strong).
5. Complexity of dispute/ 12 Level of complexity of the
defends dispute and defenses is low.
Level of complexity of the
dispute and defenses is medium.
Level of complexity of the
dispute and defenses is high.
Attribute Resolution Methodology
1.1. Behavior Arbitration/Litigation
Negotiation
1.2. Project parties' Arbitration/Litigation
relation Negotiation
1.3. Type of involvement Negotiation
Mediation
1.4. Previous resolution Negotiation
process satisfaction Arbitration/Litigation
1.5. Dispute Negotiation
responsibility Mediation
2.1. Liquidity status Mediation
Arbitration/Litigation
2.2. Time impact Negotiation
Mediation
Arbitration/Litigation
3. Amount claimed Negotiation
Negotiation
Mediation
Mediation
Arbitration/Litigation
4. Strength of documents/ Negotiation
facts Mediation
Arbitration/Litigation
5. Complexity of dispute/ Negotiation
defends Mediation
Arbitration/Litigation
Table 3. DRS aided tool outputs
Resolution Methodology Percent of success
Negotiation 33.2
Mediation 7.0
Arbitration 59.8
