The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Held at Dauphine Université, Paris, 2-3 September 2010 ISBN 978-1-84219-619-9 © RICS 12 Great George Street London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom www.rics.org/cobra September 2010 The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform for the dissemination of original research and new developments within the specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:
Management of the construction process
• Cost and value management • Building technology • Legal aspects of construction and procurement • Public private partnerships • Health and safety • Procurement • Risk management • Project management
The built asset
• Property investment theory and practice • Indirect property investment • Property market forecasting • Property pricing and appraisal • Law of property, housing and land use planning • Urban development • Planning and property markets • Financial analysis of the property market and property assets • The dynamics of residential property markets • Global comparative analysis of property markets • Building occupation • Sustainability and real estate • Sustainability and environmental law • Building performance
The property industry
• Information technology • Innovation in education and training • Human and organisational aspects of the industry • Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management • Professional education and training
Peer review process All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing process. Referees were drawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from the construction and building research community. The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the following members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA. Rifat Akbiyikli Sakarya University, Turkey Rafid Al Khaddar Liverpool John Moores University, UK Ahmed Al Shamma’a Liverpool John Moores University, UK Tony Auchterlounie University of Bolton, UK Kwasi Gyau Baffour Awuah University of Wolverhampton, UK Kabir Bala Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria Juerg Bernet Danube University Krems, Austria John Boon UNITEC, New Zealand Douw Boshoff University of Pretoria, South Africa Richard Burt Auburn University, USA Judith Callanan RMIT University, Australia Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa Antoinette Charles Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Fiona Cheung Queensland University of Technology, Australia Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong Samuel Chikafalimani University of Pretoria, South Africa Ifte Choudhury Texas A and M University, USA Chris Cloete University of Pretoria, South Africa Alan Coday Anglia Ruskin University, UK Michael Coffey Anglia Ruskin University, UK Nigel Craig Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Ayirebi Dansoh KNUST, Ghana Peter Davis Curtin University, Australia Peter Defoe Calford Seaden, UK Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia Hemanta Doloi University of Melbourne, Australia John Dye TPS Consult, UK Peter Edwards RMIT, Australia Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK Ola Fagbenle Covenant University, Nigeria Ben Farrow Auburn University, USA Peter Fenn University of Manchester, UK Peter Fewings University of the West of England, UK
Peter Fisher University of Northumbria, UK Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK Valerie Francis University of Melbourne, Australia Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK Abdulkadir Ganah University of Central Lancashire, UK Seung Hon Han Yonsei University, South Korea Anthony Hatfield University of Wolverhampton, UK Theo Haupt Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Dries Hauptfleisch University of the Free State, South Africa Paul Holley Auburn University, USA Danie Hoffman University of Pretoria, South Africa Keith Hogg University of Northumbria, UK Alan Hore Construction IT Alliance, Ireland Bon-Gang Hwang National University of Singapore Joseph Igwe University of Lagos, Nigeria Adi Irfan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia Javier Irizarry Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Usman Isah University of Manchester, UK David Jenkins University of Glamorgan, UK Godfaurd John University of Central Lancashire, UK Keith Jones University of Greenwich, UK Dean Kashiwagi Arizona State University, USA Nthatisi Khatleli University of Cape Town, South Africa Mohammed Kishk Robert Gordon’s University, UK Andrew Knight Nottingham Trent University, UK Scott Kramer Auburn University, USA Esra Kurul Oxford Brookes University, UK Richard Laing Robert Gordon’s University, UK Terence Lam Anglia Ruskin University, UK Veerasak Likhitruangsilp Chulalongkorn University, Thailand John Littlewood University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK Junshan Liu Auburn University, USA Champika Liyanage University of Central Lancashire, UK Greg Lloyd University of Ulster, UK S M Lo City University of Hong Kong Mok Ken Loong Yonsei University, South Korea Martin Loosemore University of New South Wales, Australia David Manase Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Donny Mangitung Universitas Tadulako, Malaysia Patrick Manu University of Wolverhampton, UK Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa Hendrik Marx University of the Free State. South Africa Ludwig Martin Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Wilfred Matipa Liverpool John Moores University, UK Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK Annie McCartney University of Glamorgan, UK Andrew McCoy Virginia Tech, USA Enda McKenna Queen’s University Belfast, UK Kathy Michell University of Cape Town, South Africa Roy Morledge Nottingham Trent University, UK
Michael Murray University of Strathclyde, UK Saka Najimu Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Stanley Njuangang University of Central Lancashire, UK Henry Odeyinka University of Ulster, UK Ayodejo Ojo Ministry of National Development, Seychelles Michael Oladokun University of Uyo, Nigeria Alfred Olatunji Newcastle University, Australia Austin Otegbulu Beliz Ozorhon Bogazici University, Turkey Obinna Ozumba University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Robert Pearl University of KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa Srinath Perera Northumbria University, UK Joanna Poon Nottingham Trent University, UK Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK Elena de la Poza Plaza Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain Matthijs Prins Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hendrik Prinsloo University of Pretoria, South Africa Richard Reed Deakin University, Australia Zhaomin Ren University of Glamorgan, UK Herbert Robinson London South Bank University, UK Kathryn Robson RMIT, Australia Simon Robson University of Northumbria, UK David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Steve Rowlinson University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Paul Royston Nottingham Trent University, UK Paul Ryall University of Glamorgan, UK Amrit Sagoo Coventry University, UK Alfredo Serpell Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa Yvonne Simpson University of Greenwich, UK John Smallwood Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa Heather Smeaton-Webb MUJV Ltd. UK Bruce Smith Auburn University, USA Melanie Smith Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Hedley Smyth University College London, UK John Spillane Queen’s University Belfast, UK Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK Kenneth Sullivan Arizona State University, USA Joe Tah Oxford Brookes University, UK Derek Thomson Heriot-Watt University, UK Matthew Tucker Liverpool John Moores University, UK Chika Udeaja Northumbria University, UK Basie Verster University of the Free State, South Africa Francois Viruly University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa John Wall Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia Trefor Williams University of Glamorgan, UK
Bimbo Windapo University of Cape Town, South Africa Francis Wong Hong Kong Polytechnic University Ing Liang Wong Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Andrew Wright De Montfort University, UK Peter Wyatt University of Reading, UK Junli Yang University of Westminster, UK Wan Zahari Wan Yusoff Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia George Zillante University of South Australia Benita Zulch University of the Free State, South Africa Sam Zulu Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed papers for the COBRA session arranged by CIB W113 John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK Julie Adshead University of Salford, UK Alison Ahearn Imperial College London, UK Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel Deniz Artan Ilter Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Jane Ball University of Sheffield, UK Luke Bennett Sheffield Hallam University, UK Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK Alice Christudason National University of Singapore Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong Julie Cross University of Salford, UK Melissa Daigneault Texas A&M University, USA Steve Donohoe University of Plymouth, UK Ari Ekroos University of Helsinki, Finland Tilak Ginige Bournemouth University, UK Martin Green Leeds Metropolitan University, UK David Greenwood Northumbria University, UK Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore Jan-Bertram Hillig University of Reading, UK Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK Wayne Lord Loughborough University, UK Sarah Lupton Cardiff University Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK Frits Meijer TU Delft, The Netherlands Jim Mason University of the West of England, UK Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Francis Moor University of Salford, UK Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK John Pointing Kingston University, UK Razani Abdul Rahim Universiti Technologi, Malaysia Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA Paul Tracey University of Salford, UK Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia Julian Sidoli del Ceno Birmingham City University, UK Keren Tweeddale London South Bank University, UK Henk Visscher TU Delft, The Netherlands Peter Ward University of Newcastle, Australia
Dispute Resolution alternatives: Problems, Preference and Process
Carl van Zyl1, Prof Basie Verster1, Stephan Ramabodu1
1Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein,
South Africa
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Abstract:
Purpose of the paper: This paper serves to identify some professionals’ opinions of various
dispute resolution methods, the problems related to project communication which may cause
differences and disputes in respect of construction projects and suggested processes.
Methodology/Approach: Two studies were conducted. A case study (Study 1) was
undertaken with 10 construction professionals who worked on a large shopping centre
development project, which experienced problems with communication and disputes. This
study enabled the identification of communication problems that may lead to disputes in
answering problems, preference and process questions.
Study 2 was a follow-up to previous studies. Part of this study was also conducted to further
test opinions regarding dispute resolution processes and preferences as well as the reasons for
selecting Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods. A captured respondent group of 26
quantity surveyors were requested to respond. The response rate was 100%.
These studies enabled the researchers to identify communication problems, preferences as
well as methods and procedures that may assist project teams in resolving disputes in an
amicable manner. Various dispute resolution methods were analysed and reviewed to
determine problems, processes and preferences related to dispute generating issues and
Alternative Dispute Resolution methods.
Results: Results enabled the researchers to identify an approach to the methods that may be
used to influence effective dispute resolution between clients and contractors. The studies
also identified communication problems and elements of good dispute resolution processes
and strategies. Structured communication management and continuing interaction are basic
elements to avoid disputes; however, the implementation of a tested dispute resolution
method and process is important.
Value: The results of this study may assist professionals and contractors by enabling them
to identify problems and to select the most appropriate processes and forms of dispute
resolution methods. These processes or forms of dispute resolution methods should be agreed
upon in cases where differences and disputes arise and where the settlement of these disputes
has to be anticipated.
Key words: Claims, Communication, Construction Industry, Disputes, Professions.
1 Introduction
The beloved South African attorney, politician and writer, C.J. Langenhoven, quipped a century ago
“Litigate for a jacket, but keep the trousers ready for the legal costs”, admitting then that the litigation
route is a costly process and should be avoided if possible (Translation from Scanell, 1993:49).
It is proposed that a closer look at Alternative Dispute Resolution methods (ADR) should be
considered. They are less adversarial, time consuming and costly, and may become more valuable
(Finsen, 2005:221-222).
The objectives of this study are to firstly identify some dispute resolution problems and then to
analyse ADR methods in use and investigate the preferences in order to understand which processes
and methods may be used to resolve construction disputes.
2 The goals of claims and dispute resolution The goals of claims and dispute resolution are firstly to establish the right of any party to submit a
claim, and secondly to enable the other party to consider the claim in terms of its validity, contractual
terms and possible outcome (Verster, 2006; Chappell, Powell-Smith & Sims, 2005:3).
Lodging or considering a claim does not mean that a dispute exists, but should the rejection of a
claim occur, or agreement not be reached, or a different interpretation of a claim or opinion exist, one
has to realise that a dispute may then be lodged. Dispute resolution should then assist the parties in
resolving such an impasse in a cost effective, satisfactory and timeous manner (Verster, 2006).
An alternative dispute resolution method, like mediation was developed for various reasons, but
mostly because the traditional processes, for instance litigation, were seen to be less favourable for
the following reasons:
• Cost – Attorneys, senior council and expert witnesses, all contribute to heavy costs being
incurred by both parties;
• Time – long waiting time for court dates where cases were often postponed for on-site visits,
calling for expert witnesses, etc.;
• Most magistrates or judges are not specialists in the field of construction; and
• The outcomes often cause more damage.
(Finsen, 2005:221-222; McKenzie & McKenzie, 2009:251-254; Mackie, 1991:66).
3 The processes: Alternate Dispute Resolution Methods
The following are some of the ADR methods used in the construction industry, all having the
common goal to resolve disputes voluntarily and initiated by the parties themselves:
• Agent resolution;
• Informal discussion;
• Negotiation;
• Mediation;
• Conciliation;
• The mini trial;
• Engineering expert assessment;
• Adjudication;
• Dispute Review Board;
• Partnering; and
• Dispute Resolution Advisor System (Tiruneh, Verster & Kotzé, 2007; Verster, Ramabodu & Van Zyl, 2010).
3.1 Choice of ADR Methods
For the purpose of this paper, the following five methods were investigated:
• Agent resolution;
• Adjudication;
• Conciliation;
• Mediation; and
• Arbitration.
The various ADR methods are briefly discussed to show the background of the elements and methods
covered by the surveys and what was understood by each method under consideration.
3.2 Agent Resolution (expert resolution) Traditionally, in the South African context, agent resolution (usually the architect) was the first stage
towards resolving differences and disputes. The resolution by this agent was final and binding unless
disputed within an agreed period (Quail, 1978:11-12, 166; Finsen, 2005:32-33). In terms of the Joint
Building Contracts Committee (JBCC) (2004:30), the principle agent shall give a decision, on request
by the contractor, should there be any disagreement between the parties. Such a decision shall be
final and binding unless timeously disputed. This clause has however been removed in the latest
editions of JBCC Series 2000 (JBCC, 2007:30)
3.3 Adjudication Adjudication is an accelerated form of dispute resolution in which a neutral, impartial and
independent third party deals with the dispute as an expert and not as an arbitrator, and whose
determination is binding unless and until invalidated or overturned by an arbitration award (Hibberd
& Newman, 2001). The adjudicator shall not advise the parties or their representatives regarding any
aspect of the agreement in respect of which he has been appointed other than in accordance with
stated rules (JBCC, 2005: cl. 1-7)
The adjudicator’s written determination of the dispute shall:
• be delivered to the parties, and
• outline reasons for his decisions (JBCC, 2005, cl. 6 -7).
• The decision is final and binding until and unless reversed by an arbitrator (JBCC, 2007:30)
3.4 Conciliation
Conciliation involves a process of bringing disputing parties together in a forum to investigate the
problem and assist the parties to formulate their own solutions; the conciliators may also be requested
to formulate their own opinion.
The parties decide who the conciliator will be. The conciliator should, however, be a person with
good communication skills and relevant knowledge (Loots, 1991:8-13).
3.5 Mediation
Mediation means different things to different people, but in the construction industry, it usually
denotes a procedure in which a neutral third party seeks to resolve a dispute between contracting
parties through mutual agreement, by conducting an enquiry, similar to arbitration, but less formal
and by giving a non-binding opinion. The parties represent themselves without calling in legal
professionals. The mediator should know the details of the dispute and should give each party the
opportunity to state their case. The mediator should decide on the best procedure, based on
circumstances (Eilenberg, 2002; Finsen, 2005:230-232; Hibberd & Newman, 2001; McKenzie &
McKenzie, 2009:174; Quail, 1978:11-12).
Quantity surveyors often perform mediation tasks for clients or other parties, be it informal as a
quantity surveyor, or a formal mediator by appointment. However, in terms of many contracts,
JBCC, the parties shall agree on the appointment of a mediator and meet with the mediator in an
effort to reach a settlement. If a settlement is reached, the mediator shall record such an agreement
which shall become binding on the parties on the signing thereof (JBCC, 2007:31).
3.6 Arbitration In some countries, arbitration is a process provided for by an act of law, adopted by parties through
mutual agreement, stipulating that they will submit any dispute that may arise between them to the
impartial judgement of some third party of their choice and that the award by this impartial person
will be final and binding. Arbitration is not a new process; in fact, it was known to the Romans, used
by the Dutch and English in the days of colonial expansion and is currently widely used in the
construction industry and further afield (Finsen, 1999: 203-204).
Binnington (2005:49-50) suggests approaching an arbitrator rather than a lawyer. He further
mentions the importance of securing a competent arbitrator, one well acquainted with the process of
arbitration.
In South Africa, arbitration is regulated by an act of parliament (South Africa 1969, Act 42).
Arbitration is a more formal process than other dispute-resolution processes mentioned earlier, but
arbitration has many advantages. Some of these are:
• Expert knowledge of a selected arbitrator;
• Possible savings in legal representation costs;
• Flexibility of the process;
• The decision is final and binding;
• Time and money are saved; and
• Arbitration is a private matter (Butler & Finsen, 1999; Eilenberg, 2002; Finsen, 2005:216-217; McKenzie & McKenzie, 2009:235-236).
Arbitration is sometimes also criticised as being only marginally quicker than litigation, especially
where FIDIC documents are used (Binnington, 2005:49-50).
4 The studies: Problems and Preferences
Two different studies related to communication, problems and dispute resolution methods were
undertaken by the University of the Free State and evaluated to identify problems related to
communication and disputes and to identify construction professionals’ opinions of various processes
and methods available to solve these problems. These studies followed previous surveys in respect of
the same problems, but were also aimed at understanding the problems related to communication that
lead to relationship disruptions and disputes.
4.1 Study 1: Case study related to communication problems Study 1 was a case study conducted with 10 quantity surveyors. The case study project (shopping
centre) investigated was not unique in respect of problems related to communication, communication
instruments, claims and counter claims, and differences of opinion. Due to many communication
problems, differences, claims and disputes related to the project, it was however seen as a good
example to investigate.
The original contract was concluded between the main contractor, an international company, and a
client who operates throughout South Africa. The amount involved was about ZAR500 million. This
amount was based on the provisional bills of quantities method, of which about 50% of costs were for
building and structural work and 50% for specialist installations included in the contract sum as
provisional sums. A project manager was appointed after the production process commenced and
communication systems were largely changed by him. Many sub- and direct contracts had to be
concluded with specialists. The complexity of many contracts and changes in communication
systems added to the difficulties.
The research project aimed at analysing the opinions and perceived frustrations of the quantity
surveyors who, on behalf of the client, had to develop tender and contract documents, cost reports,
notifications, payment valuations and general cost and cost planning communications during the
design and construction process.
The 10 quantity surveyors who were involved in the project in various capacities were interviewed,
and responded to a specific questionnaire related to the main aspects that were identified as quantity
surveying elements. These aspects are: communication instruments (13 questions) and the
effectiveness of these instruments (8 questions).
The responses to the questions enabled the research group to identify the most serious problems and
suggested solutions. For this paper the most serious problems are identified.
Table 1 shows the identified communication instruments, related to this project, that were considered
as the most serious problem areas.
Table 1: Results in respect of some identified instruments used in the case study
Source: University of the Free State, 2007. (Ratings: 1= low, 3= intermediate, 5 = high)
OPINIONS ON COMMUNICATION INSTRUMENTS USED Average Result 1-5
%
• Employer’s instruction
• Packages (identification of work packages by project manager)
• Claims communication
1.6
2.1
2.4
34%
42%
48%
The 10 respondents’ opinions (100% response) on the communication instruments, used during the
project, were tested (on a scale of 1 = poor and 5 = excellent).
It is clear that the employer’s instructions and the identification of packages (tenant installations,
refuse removal, shop-fronts, etc.) lead to disruption and eventual disputes linked to pricing, delays,
uncertainty and frustration. Notification of claims was also, according to the survey, not managed
well and timeously.
Table 2 shows the results in respect of general communication elements. It is also clear that the
following communication processes performed below average in respect of expectations of quality
procedures, and thus also influences effective management and claims communication.
Table 2: Results in respect of all general communication elements
Source: University of the Free State, 2007. (Ratings: 1= low, 3= intermediate, 5 = high)
COMMUNICATION ELEMENT STATEMENTS Average Result %
• Drawing distribution was managed well and on time 46%
• Professional team had an effective relationship within the team 48%
• The Project manager’s communication was effective and well managed 44%
• Owner/professional team relationship was managed effectively 32%
• Time and programming was managed well 34%
• Budget was clear and met the owner’s strategy 44%
• Professional agents empowered to do their work well 40%
The respondents were clear on their opinions related to the effectiveness and quality of
general communication in respect of the specific project and the problems identified. (Tables
1 and 2). The overall opinion was that these problems were not identified early and managed
well, leading to disputes.
Clear problems were thus identified. The elements that stand out in respect of
communication disruptions are:
• Site, employers and contract instructions;
• Identification of work packages by project managers;
• Drawing distribution and design availability;
• Professional teams’ relationships;
• Project Manager’s project communication;
• Owner / professional team relationships and empowerment;
• Time and programme management was not done well; and
• Strategy of budget and scope management.
The current situation regarding the project is that the final account cannot be settled and many claims
and resolutions are outstanding. Many claims for delays are not resolved. The above-mentioned
communication disruptions and problems influenced communications negatively. A clear
communication strategy was absent and this contributed further towards the unacceptable state of
affairs. These results show not only the importance and need for a structured communication process
to avoid disputes, but also a model to deal with disputes once disputes are evident. This model
should enable stakeholders to identify problem areas early, manage these problems through a tested
process and taking the preference of the parties into account.
4.3 Study 2: Quantity Surveyors and ADR reference Study 2, conducted among 26 quantity surveyors, aimed at establishing the preference rating of
various dispute resolution methods (processes), their opinions in respect of the reason why a specific
method is selected, and the success rate of the methods actually used. All responded, reflecting a 100
% response.
Table 3 shows the preference rating of respondents related to the tested dispute resolution methods.
Table 3: Preferred dispute resolution methods (1 = Not preferred, 5 = most preferable)
Preferred dispute resolution methods Quantity Surveyors
average
Previous study
(2006)
• Resolution by Principal agent
• Conciliation
• Mediation
• Adjudication
• Arbitration
• Litigation
4.39
3.88
3.86
3.82
3.10
2.00
4.3
3.4
4.0
3.2
3.0
-
The responses indicate that the processes allowing for communication and early solutions are
preferred, and that it should be done by people who are closely linked to the project. Resolution in
terms of negotiations by Quantity Surveyor / Principal Agent, are seen as the most preferred method.
This study is fairly consistent with previous studies, although previously mediation was ranked higher
and also received a better average score.
4.4 Study 2: Reasons for selecting an ADR method This study was also conducted to show the reasons why an ADR method was selected. The reason
for this study was also to identify the reasons linked to the preference of methods and by doing so, to
enable parties to select the best claims and dispute resolution communication procedure.
Table 4 shows the reasons for choosing a specific ADR method
Table 4: Reasons why method is preferred: percentage average allocated
Reasons Percentage
Control 86%
Cost effective 85%
Time effective 84%
Consensus 84%
Satisfactory end result 82%
Continuity 82%
Confidentiality 82%
Percentages allocated to the reasons why a specific ADR method should be used are important and
consistent. Although control and cost effectiveness received the highest percentage from the
respondents, the results show little difference of opinion, and all the reasons should be seen as
important, leaving the selection of a most beneficial method to the parties concerned.
5 Findings
The results show the importance of quality and effective communication instruments, and also that
these should be well managed to avoid communication problems, disruptions and disputes.
The most serious problems in respect of communication that may lead to disputes were identified. In
the study the following problems were seen as very serious.
• Employer’s instructions;
• Employer/professional team relationship;
• Mismanagement of time and programming; and
• Professional agents’ non-empowerment.
It is evident from this study that the professionals prefer the following ADR methods. The studies
related to preferences show a consistent result.
• Agent resolution/negotiation type of process;
• Conciliation;
• Mediation; and
• Adjudication.
The above- mentioned results suggest that dispute resolution methods and the selection of a method
could possibly address the above-mentioned reasons why some ADR methods are preferred, or at
least a combination of the reasons, to ensure the risk and interests of the parties are taken into account
and managed well. Resolution methods that do not address these issues should be avoided.
6 Conclusion The studies had the objective of identifying the most serious problems related to communications that
may lead to disputes and the extent to which various dispute resolution methods are preferred and
used in South Africa, as well as the perceived reasons why an ADR method should be used.
According to the majority of the respondents, ADR methods are preferred to traditional litigation to
solve disputes. Of the various types of ADR methods that respondents were involved in, mediation,
negotiation type methods and expert (agent) resolution stood out as the most preferred methods.
Respondents also identified the reasons why they prefer ADR to traditional methods. The selection
was mostly motivated by control by the parties and time- and cost-effectiveness. The case study
showed that bad communication and communication instruments may lead to disruption and disputes.
The management of communication is therefore fundamental to avoiding disputes.
7. Recommendations
7.1 Problems
Important problems were identified and it is thus recommended that the possible occurrence of these
problem areas should receive special attention. This will lead to better communication, less
disruption, lower costs and a decline in the number of disputes. A dispute resolution with strong
supporting communication enhancing procedure is recommended.
7.2 Preferences
If the strong preferences for specific ADR methods are considered, it is clear that these methods
should form part of the contractual and communication arrangements. It is thus specifically
recommended that contracts should include clauses that allow continuous communication to avoid
disputes and include methods that will enhance the settlement of differences rather than an early
formalised dispute resolution process in a court-type situation.
7.3 Processes
The reasons why a specific ADR method is selected should be considered to lead parties to a
contract to design a communication, claims and dispute resolution procedure that best suit
their needs and that will be effectively communicated and managed by their professional
teams.
The following organogram (Figure 1) reflects a provisional proposed model that shows the
relationship and link between the three P’s; namely problems, preferences and processes.
Figure 1: Proposed Model
The aim of the proposed model is to assist parties to a contract to seek a procedure that best suit their
needs, but that will also take the problems that may become evident during the construction process,
based on past experience, into account and to select the best ADR method applicable to them.
DISPUTES AND CLAIMS AVOIDANCE
PROBLEM MANAGEMENT
PROCESSES: COMMUNICATION AND SELECTION
PREFERENCES: CLIENT & PARTIES
INSTRUCTIONS WORK PACKAGES
DRAWING & DESIGN RELATIONSHIPS
COMMUNICATION EMPOWERMENT
TIME MANAGEMENT BUDGET
AGENT RESOLUTION MEDIATION
CONCILIATION
CONSIDER THE MOST PREFERRED REASON
(COST, ETC.)
AGENT RESOLUTION ADJUDICATION CONCILIATION
MEDIATION ARBRITATION
An approach to enhance communication and a management and contractual system that identifies
problems early and that helps with the selection of an applicable process based on business principles
preferred by the parties is thus proposed. The above-mentioned model therefore shows a
recommendation in respect of these considerations.
8 References Binnington, C. 2005. Arbitration – a cost effective mechanism? Legal matters. Civil Engineering
Contractor, 39(11), p. 49-50, September. Butler, D.B. and Finsen, E. 1993. Arbitration in South Africa: law and practice. Cape Town: Juta. Chappell, D., Powell-Smith, V. and Sims, J. 2005. Building contract claims. 4th ed. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. Eilenberg, I. 2002. Dispute Resolution in Construction Management. Sydney: UNSW. Finsen, E. 1999. The building contract: A commentary on the JBCC Agreements. Cape Town: Juta. Finsen, E. 2005. The building contract: A commentary on the JBCC Agreements. 2nd ed. Cape Town:
Juta. Hibberd, P. and Newman, P. 2001. ADR and Adjudication in Construction Disputes. Oxford:
Blackwell Science. Loots, P. 1991. Alternative methods of dispute resolution in the construction industry. SA Builder, p.
8-13, May. Mackie, K.J. 1991. A handbook of dispute resolution: ADR in action. London & New York:
Routledge and Sweet & Maxwell. McKenzie, H.S. and McKenzie, S.D. 2009. The law of building and engineering contracts and
arbitration. 5th Ed. South Africa: Juta. Quail, P. 1978. Die boukontrak. Pretoria: Boupublikasies. Scanell, J. 1993. Spreuke van Langenhoven. 6th Ed. Cape Town: Tafelberg. Tiruneh, G.G., Verster, J.J.P. and Kotzé, B.G. 2007. A study on the application of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) methods in South Africa. Proceedings of Paciffic Association of Quantity Surveyors (PAQS) 2007 Congress: Construction from a different perspective. Auckland, New Zealand, June.
University of the Free State (UFS). Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management 2006. Survey on Procurement, communication and dispute resolution. . Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
University of the Free State (UFS). Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management. 2007. Survey on communication and communication instruments used in the construction industry. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
University of the Free State (UFS). Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management. 2010. Survey on dispute resolution and preferences., Bloemfontein: University of the Free State,
Verster, J.J.P. 2006. Managing cost, contracts, communication and claims: A Quantity Surveying perspective on future opportunities. In: Proceedings of 1st ICEC & IPMA Global Congress on Project Management, 5th World congress on Cost Engineering, Project Management and Quantity Surveying. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 23-26 April.
Verster, J.J.P., Ramabodu, M.S. and Van Zyl, C.H. 2010. Construction dispute resolution as seen by Quantity Surveyors and Construction Managers. Proceedings of the 7th International Cost Engineering Council World and 14th Pacific Association of Quantity Surveyors Congress. Singapore. 23-27 July.
South African Principal Building Agreement Documents and South African Acts Joint Building Contracts Committee (JBCC). 2004. Principal building agreement. 4th ed. Houghton:
Joint Building Contracts Committee Inc. (Series 2000 Code 2101), March, p. 30. Joint Building Contracts Committee (JBCC). 2005. Adjudication Rules: for use with the JBCC
Principal Building Agreement and Nominated / Selected Subcontract Agreement. Ed. 4.1, cl. 1.1 3.2, 6.0-7.0. Houghton: Joint Building Contracts Committee Inc. (Series 2000 Code 2019), March.
Joint Building Contracts Committee (JBCC). 2007. Adjudication Rules: for use with the JBCC Principal Building Agreement & Nominated / Selected Subcontract Agreement. 5th ed. cl 1 – 7. Houghton: Joint Building Contracts Committee Inc. (Series 2000 Code 2101). July. Cl. 1 – 7. p. 30 - 31.
South Africa. 1969. The Arbitration Act, Act 42 of 1969. Pretoria: Government printer.