Journals / Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation (Online) / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Drivers for construction stakeholders to adopt smart contracts

Pages
101–112
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)

The results indicate that (i) simple layout to read, (ii) reduction in risks of clients, (iii) clarity in responsibility and risk allocation, (iv) easy to comprehend from various stakeholders, and (v) conflict, claim and dispute reduction were the top five drivers to implement smart contracts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Construction contracts are always regarded as complex and voluminous documents that make it harder to extract required information, preventing its smooth functioning.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Due to the recent technological advancements, automated and smart contracts can be considered as an alternative to the traditional contract documents that manage its provisions, obligations and clauses by itself.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that (i) simple layout to read, (ii) reduction in risks of clients, (iii) clarity in responsibility and risk allocation, (iv) easy to comprehend from various stakeholders, and (v) conflict, claim and dispute reduction were the top five drivers to implement smart contracts.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Construction contracts are always regarded as complex and voluminous documents that make it harder to extract required information, preventing its smooth functioning. Due to the recent technological advancements, automated and smart contracts can be considered as an alternative to the traditional contract documents that manage its provisions, obligations and clauses by itself. Since the adoption of smart contracts, which can only be performed with the whole participation of involved stakeholders, is limited in the construction industry, this study aims to investigate the stakeholder-associated drivers to implementing smart contracts. For this purpose, a framework based on fuzzy technique for order of preference by the similarityto-ideal-solution (TOPSIS) is developed consisting of eighteen drivers to be prioritized. A number of eighteen experts, who have adequate experience in both construction industry and contract administration, contributed to this study. The results indicate that (i) simple layout to read, (ii) reduction in risks of clients, (iii) clarity in responsibility and risk allocation, (iv) easy to comprehend from various stakeholders, and (v) conflict, claim and dispute reduction were the top five drivers to implement smart contracts. The findings imply that other than its own advantages, the reasons to seek the adoption of smart contracts are mainly the deficiencies of the traditional contract documents. The findings of this study are expected to assist research and development departments of the firms seeking to implement smart contract, while addressing the gap in the literature in this context.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOC, K., GURGUN, A. P. (2020). Drivers for construction stakeholders to adopt smart contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation (Online), Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 101–112. https://ajindex.com/articles/166590

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Nguyen DA, Garvin MJ, Gonzalez EE (2018). Risk Allocation in U.S. Public-Private Partnership Highway Project Contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144(5):04018017
  2. Zhang SB, Fu YF, Gao Y, Zheng XD (2016). Influence of trust and contract on dispute negotiation behavioral strategy in construction subcontracting. Journal of Management in Engineering 32(4):04016001
  3. Mitropoulos P, Howell G (2001). Model for Understanding, Preventing, and Resolving Project Disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127(3):223–231
  4. Lee J, Ham Y, Yi JS, Son J (2020). Effective Risk Positioning through Automated Identification of Missing Contract Conditions from the Contractor’s Perspective Based on FIDIC Contract Cases. Journal of Management in Engineering 36(3):05020003
  5. Mason J (2017). Intelligent Contracts and the Construction Industry. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 9(3):04517012
  6. Hassan FU, Le T (2020). Automated Requirements Identification from Construction Contract Documents Using Natural Language Processing. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 12(2):04520009
  7. Besaiso H, Fenn P, Emsley M, Wright D (2018). A comparison of the suitability of FIDIC and NEC conditions of contract in Palestine: A perspective from the industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 25(2):241–256
  8. Mason J, Escott H (2018). Smart Contracts in Construction: Views and Perceptions of Stakeholders. Proc. FIG Conf. 8-11 May 2018, Istanbul, Turkey
  9. Zaneldin EK (2018). Investigating the types, causes and severity of claims in construction projects in the UAE. International Journal of Construction Management 1:1–17
  10. Jagannathan M, Delhi VSK (2019). Litigation Proneness of Dispute Resolution Clauses in Construction Contracts. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 11(3):04519011
  11. Youssef A, Osman H, Georgy M, Yehia N (2018). Semantic Risk Assessment for Ad Hoc and Amended Standard Forms of Construction Contracts. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 10(2):04518002
  12. Rameezdeen R, Rajapakse C (2007). Contract interpretation: The impact of readability. Construction Management and Economics 25(7):729–737
  13. Szabo N (1994). Smart Contracts. Available from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/Informati onInSpeech/CDROM/Liter