SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

Causes of disputes in the Turkish construction industry: Case of public sector projects

Pınar IRLAYICI ÇAKMAK
Pages
109–118
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These dispute categories are analyzed comprehensively, and finally, main causes of disputes in each dispute category are identified and discussed in detail.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Disputes are inevitable in construction projects.
📊
Key Findings & Data:They pose serious risks for the project participants and if not managed properly, disputes prevent the completion of construction projects within the desired cost, time and quality.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These dispute categories are analyzed comprehensively, and finally, main causes of disputes in each dispute category are identified and discussed in detail.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Disputes are inevitable in construction projects. They pose serious risks for the project participants and if not managed properly, disputes prevent the completion of construction projects within the desired cost, time and quality. Therefore, it is vital to determine the factors that contribute to construction disputes. The main purpose of this study is to identify the primary causes of disputes in the Turkish construction industry. In this context, the public construction disputes among the parties during the execution of the contract are examined. The findings show that the problem areas giving rise to disputes are mainly related to seven dispute categories as unit prices, delays and extension of time, contractual matters, variations, contract documents, payments, and other disputes. These dispute categories are analyzed comprehensively, and finally, main causes of disputes in each dispute category are identified and discussed in detail.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAKMAK, P. I. (2016). Causes of disputes in the Turkish construction industry: Case of public sector projects. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 109–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/147220

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abeynayake, M. D. T. E. (2008). Special features and experiences of the construction industry- arbitration in Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the meeting of International Conference on Building Education and Research, Salford, United Kingdom. Acharya, N. K., Dai Lee, Y., Man Im, H. (2006). Conflicting factors in construction projects: Korean perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(6), 543-566.
  2. Bates Jr, A., Holt, L. T. (2011). Large, complex construction disputes: dynamics of multiparty mediation. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 3(2), 58-62.
  3. Bristow, D. J., Vasilopoulos, R. (1995). The new CCDC 2: facilitating dispute resolution of construction projects. Construction Law Journal, 11, 95-117.
  4. Cakmak, P. I., Cakmak, E. (2013). An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction industry using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Paper presented at the meeting of Architectural Engineering Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA. Cakmak, E., Cakmak, P. I. (2014). An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction industry using analytical network process (ANP). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 183- 187. Chan, E. H., Suen, H. C. (2005a). Disputes and dispute resolution systems in Sino-foreign joint venture construction projects in China. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131(2), 141-148.
  5. Chan, E. H., Suen, H. C. (2005b). Dispute resolution management for international construction projects in China. Management Decision, 43(4), 589-602.
  6. Cheung, S. O., Ng, S. T., Lam, K. C., Sin, W. S. (2001). A fuzzy sets model for construction dispute evaluation. Construction Innovation, 1(2), 117-127.
  7. Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C. (2002). A multi-attribute utility model for dispute resolution strategy selection. Construction Management and Economics, 20(7), 557-568.
  8. Cheung, S. O., Yiu, T. W., Yeung, S. F. (2006). A study of styles and outcomes in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), 805-814.
  9. Cheung, S. O., Yiu, K. T. (2007). A study of construction mediator tactics - Part I: taxonomies of dispute sources, mediator tactics and mediation outcomes. Building and Environment, 42(2), 752-761.
  10. Chong, H. Y., Mohamad Zin, R. (2012). Selection of dispute resolution methods: factor analysis approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(4), 428-443. Diekmann,