Navigating the Complexity of Dispute Management in Construction: A DEMATEL and Bayesian Network Approach
Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 17, Issue 1
Abstract
This study delves into the dynamics of dispute management within the construction industry, a topic that has been underexplored due to the complex interplay of factors and potential dispute scenarios. We employ a novel methodology that integrates the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) approach with Bayesian network analysis, providing a more comprehensive understanding of these complexities. Our research utilizes simulations and empirical data analysis from the study region, shedding light on the relationships among factors contributing to claims in construction projects. We identify significant factors such as confusing client requirements, personnel changes, and client change mismanagement, and assess their likelihood of occurrence. Our approach allows for a detailed probability analysis of these factors, highlighting the importance of indirect relationships between seemingly unrelated factors. The primary contribution of our work is providing construction managers and stakeholders with valuable insights for informed decision-making, understanding dispute triggers, and facilitating proactive prevention and resolution measures.
Practical Applications
This research holds significant implications for construction project stakeholders, offering practical insights that extend beyond academic circles. Project managers and practitioners can leverage the findings to enhance claims management strategies and improve project outcomes. The identification of influential factors, such as challenging economic conditions, poor contractor management, and personnel changes, enables proactive risk mitigation. The research methodology, combining Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and Bayesian approaches, provides a structured framework for understanding the complex interplay of these factors. Practitioners can use the influential relationship map to prioritize and address key factors affecting claim occurrence. The Bayesian network model aids in assessing the probabilities of these factors, guiding resource allocation and risk management efforts. The practical application extends to decision-makers, empowering them to anticipate potential scenarios and make informed choices. By considering both internal and external factors, project teams can tailor their claims management approach to specific project contexts, fostering successful project outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Works Cited
Abougamil, R. A., D. Thorpe, and A. Heravi. 2023. “Investigating the source of claims with the importance of BIM application on reducing construction disputable claims in KSA.” Buildings 13 (9): 2219. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092219.
Ali, B., H. Zahoor, A. R. Nasir, A. Maqsoom, R. W. A. Khan, and K. M. Mazher. 2020. “BIM-based claims management system: A centralized information repository for extension of time claims.” Autom. Constr. 110 (Feb): 102937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102937.
Alqershy, M. T., and R. Kishore. 2023. “Construction claims prediction using ANN models: A case study of the Indian construction industry.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 23 (6): 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1955322.
Artan Ilter, D., and G. Bakioglu. 2017. “Modeling the relationship between risk and dispute in subcontractor contracts.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (1): 04517022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000246.
Asadi, R., J. O. B. Rotimi, and S. Wilkinson. 2023. “Analyzing underlying factors of rework in generating contractual claims in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 149 (6): 04023036. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-12141.
Ayhan, M., I. Dikmen, and M. Talat Birgonul. 2021. “Predicting the occurrence of construction disputes using machine learning techniques.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 147 (4): 04021022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002027.
Bouckaert, R. R. 1995. “Bayesian belief networks: From construction to inference.” Ph.D. thesis, Faculteit Wiskunde en Informatica, Utrecht Univ.
Cheung, S. O., and K. H. Y. Pang. 2012. “Anatomy of construction disputes.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (1): 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000532.
Cinko, E. G., S. Demirkesen, E. Sadikoglu, and C. Zhang. 2023. “Investigating the critical success factors of claims management in construction contracts.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 15 (2): 04522066. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-921.
Colin, J., D. Langford, and P. Kennedy. 1996. “The relationship between construction procurement strategies and construction contract conflicts.” In Proc., CIB W-92 Procurement Symp., North Meets West. Ontario: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Fenton, N. E., M. Neil, and J. G. Caballero. 2007. “Using ranked nodes to model qualitative judgments in Bayesian networks.” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 19 (10): 1420–1432. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2007.1073.
Gabus, A., and E. Fontela. 1972. World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center.
Hansen, S. 2021. “Developing a model of construction contract management competency in a developing country: Quantitative approach.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 13 (4): 04521030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000504.
Jiao, J., M. Wei, Y. Yuan, and T. Zhao. 2019. “Risk quantification and analysis of coupled factors based on the DEMATEL model and a Bayesian network.” Appl. Sci. 10 (1): 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010317.
Kaya, R., and B. Yet. 2019. “Building Bayesian networks based on DEMATEL for multiple criteria decision problems: A supplier selection case study.” Expert Syst. Appl. 134 (Nov): 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.053.
Kisi, K., R. Kayastha, and Y. Chitrakar. 2023. “Construction claims and payment disputes analysis: Alternative dispute resolution to litigation.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 15 (1): 06522005. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-908.
Koc, K., and A. P. Gurgun. 2022. “Ambiguity factors in construction contracts entailing conflicts.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 29 (5): 1946–1964. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2020-0254.
Kumaraswamy, M. M. 1997. “Conflicts, claims and disputes in construction.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 4 (2): 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-232X.1997.00087.x.
Kumar Viswanathan, S., A. Panwar, S. Kar, R. Lavingiya, and K. N. Jha. 2020. “Causal modeling of disputes in construction projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (4): 04520035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000432.
Liao, L., N. Wei, C. Zheng, Y. Ye, and Y. Chen. 2023. “Understanding causes for construction claims in hydropower projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 39 (5): 04023032. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5247.
Liu, J., H. Li, M. Skitmore, and Y. Zhang. 2019. “Experience mining based on case-based reasoning for dispute settlement of international construction projects.” Autom. Constr. 97 (Apr): 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.11.006.
Mahamid, I. 2016. “Micro and macro level of dispute causes in residential building projects: Studies of Saudi Arabia.” J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 28 (1): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2014.03.002.
Marzouk, M., A. Othman, M. Enaba, and M. Zaher. 2018. “Using BIM to identify claims early in the construction industry: Case study.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (3): 05018001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000254.
Naji, K. K., M. M. Mansour, and M. Gunduz. 2020. “Methods for modeling and evaluating construction disputes: A critical review.” IEEE Access 8 (Feb): 45641–45652. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2976109.
Røed, W., A. Mosleh, J. E. Vinnem, and T. Aven. 2009. “On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94 (2): 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.04.003.
Shieh, J.-I., and H.-H. Wu. 2016. “Measures of consistency for DEMATEL method.” Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 45 (3): 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2013.875564.
Tajul Ariffin, H. L., and M. Sutrisna. 2010. “Developing a framework to minimize the occurrence of construction conflict and disputes in different procurement strategies: An initial review of literature.” In Proc., 26th Annual Conf. on Association of Researchers in Construction Management. London: Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
Tanriverdi, C., G. Atasoy, I. Dikmen, and M. T. Birgonul. 2021. “Causal mapping to explore emergence of construction disputes.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 27 (5): 288–302. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.14900.
Wang, J., S. Zhang, R. Jin, P. Fenn, D. Yu, and L. Zhao. 2023. “Identifying critical dispute causes in the construction industry: A cross-regional comparative study between China and the UK.” J. Manage. Eng. 39 (2): 04022072. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-4943.
Wu, H.-H., and S.-Y. Chang. 2015. “A case study of using DEMATEL method to identify critical factors in green supply chain management.” Appl. Math. Comput. 256 (Jun): 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.01.041.
Yazdi, M., F. Khan, R. Abbassi, and R. Rusli. 2020. “Improved DEMATEL methodology for effective safety management decision-making.” Saf. Sci. 127 (Jul): 104705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104705.
Yiu, K., and S. Cheung. 2004. “Significant dispute sources of construction mediation.” In Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on the World of Construction Project Management. Bern, Switzerland: International Construction Project Management Association.
Zhao, T. 2023. “Correlation and causation in construction claims.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 15 (3): 04523028. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-979.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 25, 2023
Accepted: Jun 25, 2024
Published online: Sep 27, 2024
Published in print: Feb 1, 2025
Discussion open until: Feb 27, 2025
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.