Study of Real Options with Exogenous Competitive Entry to Analyze Dispute Resolution Ladder Investments in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Projects
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 136, Issue 3
Abstract
Architecture, engineering, and construction industry participants often find it pragmatic to implement a project-specific dispute resolution ladder (DRL) as a managerial tool to assist in the prompt resolution of claims and change orders (CCOs) that might arise during the project construction phase. This project-specific DRL consists of a single or multiple alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques that require capital expenditures to cover the expenses incurred by the owner’s/contractor’s employees and third-party neutrals. If a project-specific DRL is properly chosen, then the capital expenditures are outweighed by the expected benefits from the DRL implementation; namely, prompt resolution of the CCOs without incurring excessive cost overruns on an already financially stressed project budget, as well as avoiding the escalation of the claims to a dispute that requires long protracted litigation for final settlement. Typically, the decision as to which ADR techniques to include in the project-specific DRL is undertaken during the project planning phase prior to the actual occurrence of the CCOs. In this case, the project owner decide to invest in a DRL in exchange for the expected savings in the project. This decision regarding the project-specific DRL is usually done based on the experience of the project parties with the ADR techniques. However, such a decision needs to be guided by a financial tool that allows the project owner to evaluate alternative DRLs and choose the most economically feasible alternative based on the project and ADR characteristics. In this paper, a financial model is developed to evaluate DRL implementations in construction projects by drawing analogies from real option theory with exogenous competitive entry. More specifically, the occurrence of a given CCO will result in a reduction in the value of expected savings in the project due to DRL implementation. This is similar to the reduction in the gross value of a capital investment project in a commercial property due to competitive entry by another similar commercial property developer in the market. At the same time, the CCO resolution due to an effective DRL implementation will allow project owner to recover part of the losses in the expected savings in the project due to the DRL implementation. The model presented in this paper takes into account the characteristics of the various ADR techniques included in the project-specific DRL, and the characteristics of the CCOs occurring during the construction phase of the project. A case study of a real construction project is used to illustrate the practical implementation of the model. The results indicate that for this case project and from a financial point of view, the investment in the chosen project-specific DRL was not worthwhile because of the high uncertainty in the project, and the low effectiveness of the selected DRL. These conditions did not provide the owner with the anticipated advantage of the DRL implementation in reducing the value of the CCOs occurring in the project. At the same time the cost of the DRL implementation exceeded the actual savings attained in the project.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the financial support for this research received from the National Science Foundation CAREER and PECASE Award No. NSFCMS-9875557 and National Science Foundation Award Nos. NSFCMS-0324501 and NSFCMMI-0700415. The writers would also like to thank Professor Carlos A. Arboleda of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his extremely helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. In addition, the writers would like to acknowledge the support of the late Mr. Lawrence Delmore from Dispute Review Board Foundation; Ms. Carolyn A. Lynch from the United States Army Corps of Engineers; Ms. Warnecke Miller from the United States Air Force; Mr. Michael Kissel, Mr. Henry Wells, and Mr. Reza Hajjari from the California Department of Transportation for providing data and very helpful insights on partnering and dispute review boards. In addition, the writers would like to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of undergraduate research assistants, Mr. Michael Addison and Mr. Allen Barton, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for their help in obtaining conflict resolution data. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, Dispute Review Board Foundation, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Air Force, California Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation, or the individuals mentioned here.
References
Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America. (2000). “Enlightened risk allocation—The 21st century owner’s guide to cost effectiveness.” AGC, ⟨http://www.agc.org/⟩ (Jan. 15, 2006).
Black, F., and Scholes, M. (1973). “The pricing of options and corporate liabilities.” J. Polit. Econ., 81(3), 637–654.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2000). “Field guide to partnering on Caltrans projects.” April 2000.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2003). “Construction manual. Caltrans.” Dec. 2003.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2006). “Project development procedures manual. Chapter 20—Project development cost estimate.” Caltrans, ⟨http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/chap_pdf/chapt20.pdf⟩ (Apr. 22, 2007).
Chan, S. H., Martin, J. D., and Kensinger, J. W. (1990). “Corporate research and development expenditures and share value.” J. Financ. Econ., 26, 255–276.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1995). “Dispute prevention and resolution techniques in the construction industry.” Dispute Prevention and Resolution Research Team, CII, Rep. No. 23-1, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Cox, R., Esq. (1997). “Managing change orders and claims.” J. Manage. Eng., 13(1), 24–29.
Cox, C., Ross, S., and Rubinstein, M. (1979). “Option pricing: A simplified approach.” J. Financ. Econ., 7, 229–263.
Dixit, A., and Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under uncertainty, Princeton University Press, N.J.
Dispute Review Board Foundation (DRBF). (2006). “How can you resolve construction disputes without litigation or arbitration.” Proc., 2006 DRB Administrative and Practice Workshop, DRBF, Seattle.
Federal Reserve Statistical Release. (2008). “Market yield on U.S. treasury securities at 5-year constant maturity, quoted on investment basis.” The Federal Reserve Board, ⟨http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data/Annual/H15_TCMNOM_Y5.txt⟩ (Apr. 07, 2008).
Fenn, P., O’Shea, M., and Davies, E. (1998). Dispute resolution and conflict management in construction: An international review, E & FN Spon, London.
Fichman, R., Keil, M., and Tiwana, A. (2005). “Beyond valuation: Option thinking in IT project management.” California Manage. Rev., 47(2), 74–96.
Grenadier, S. (1996). “The strategic exercise of options: Development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets.” J. Financ., 50(5), 1653–1679.
Harmon, K. (2003). “Resolution of construction disputes: A review of current methodologies.” Leadership Manage. Eng., 3(4), 187–201.
Hecht, P. (2007). “Union rips Caltrans budget—Plan leaves 100 state jobs unfilled and relies on 595 private design workers at double the salary rate.” The Sacramento Bee, ⟨http://www.celsoc.org/userdocuments/File/SacBee_05_20_07.pdf⟩ (April 07, 2008).
Hull, J. (2000). Options, futures, and other derivative securities, 4th Ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Luehrman, T. (1995). Capital projects as real options: An introduction. Harvard Business School, 1–12.
McDonald, R. (2005). Derivatives markets, 2nd Ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Menassa, C., Peña Mora, F., and Pearson, N. (2009a). “An option pricing model to evaluate ADR investments in AEC projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(3), 156–168.
Menassa, C., and Peña Mora, F. (2009b). “Analysis of dispute review board applications in US construction projects from 1975-2007.” J. Manage. Eng., posted online ahead of print April 2009.
Peña Mora, F., Sosa, C., and McCone, D. (2003). Introduction to construction dispute resolution, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Smit, H., and Trigeorgis, L. (2006). “Real options and games: Competition, alliances and other applications of valuation and strategy.” J. Financ. Econ., 15(2), 95–112.
Thompson, R., Vorster, M., and Groton, J. (2000). “Innovations to manage disputes.” J. Manage. Eng., 16(5), 51–59.
Touran, A. (2003). “Calculation of contingency in construction projects.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 50(2), 135–140.
Treacy, T. (1995). “Use of alternative dispute resolution in the construction industry.” J. Manage. Eng., 11(1), 58–63.
Trigeorgis, L. (1993). “Real options and interactions with financial flexibility.” Financ. Manage., 22(3), 202–224.
Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1989). Appendix A. Part 3—Contract, requests, claims, and appeals, ⟨http://www.usace.army.mil/usace-docs/⟩ (Mar. 15, 2006).
Williams, J. (1993). “Equilibrium and options on real assets.” Rev. Financ. Stud., 6(4), 825–850.
Williams, J. (1991). “Real estate development as an option.” J. Real Estate Finance. Econ. 4(2), 191–208.
Wilmott, P., Howison, S., and Dewynne, J. (2005). The mathematics of financial derivatives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Zucherman, S. (2007a). “Comparing cost in construction arbitration and litigation.” Dispute Resolut. J., 62(2), 42–48.
Zucherman, S. (2007b). “Managing dispute resolution options in the construction industry—Cover story.” Dispute Resolut. J., 62(2), 22–34.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 136 • Issue 3 • March 2010
Pages: 377 - 390
Copyright
© 2010 ASCE.
History
Received: Sep 25, 2008
Accepted: Aug 10, 2009
Published online: Aug 12, 2009
Published in print: Mar 2010
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.