SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Teknik Dergi / 2022 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 5

Comparing Performances of Machine Learning Techniques to Forecast Dispute Resolutions

Murat AYHAN
İrem TOKER
Talat BİRGÖNÜL
Pages
12577–12600
Publication Date
2022-09-01
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)

Findings revealed that resolution cost and duration, contractor type, dispute source, and occurrence of changes were the most influential factors on dispute resolution method (DRM) preferences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper compares classification performances of machine learning (ML) techniques for forecasting dispute resolutions in construction projects, thereby mitigating the impacts of potential disputes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The promising accuracy of the majority voting classifier (89.44%) indicates that the proposed model can provide decision-support in identification of potential resolutions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings revealed that resolution cost and duration, contractor type, dispute source, and occurrence of changes were the most influential factors on dispute resolution method (DRM) preferences.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dispute resolution · machine learning · multiclass classification

Abstract

This paper compares classification performances of machine learning (ML) techniques for forecasting dispute resolutions in construction projects, thereby mitigating the impacts of potential disputes. Findings revealed that resolution cost and duration, contractor type, dispute source, and occurrence of changes were the most influential factors on dispute resolution method (DRM) preferences. The promising accuracy of the majority voting classifier (89.44%) indicates that the proposed model can provide decision-support in identification of potential resolutions. Decision-makers can avoid unsatisfactory processes using these forecasts. This paper demonstrated the effectiveness of ML techniques in classification of DRMs, and the proposed prediction model outperformed previous studies.

Özet

This paper compares classification performances of machine learning (ML) techniques for forecasting dispute resolutions in construction projects, thereby mitigating the impacts of potential disputes. Findings revealed that resolution cost and duration, contractor type, dispute source, and occurrence of changes were the most influential factors on dispute resolution method (DRM) preferences. The promising accuracy of the majority voting classifier (89.44%) indicates that the proposed model can provide decision-support in identification of potential resolutions. Decision-makers can avoid unsatisfactory processes using these forecasts. This paper demonstrated the effectiveness of ML techniques in classification of DRMs, and the proposed prediction model outperformed previous studies.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYHAN, M., TOKER, İ., BİRGÖNÜL, T. (2022). Comparing Performances of Machine Learning Techniques to Forecast Dispute Resolutions. Teknik Dergi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 5, 12577–12600. https://ajindex.com/articles/703175

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Alaloul, W. S., Hasaniyah, M. W., Tayeh, B. A., A Comprehensive Review of Disputes Prevention and Resolution in Construction Projects. 2nd Conference for Civil Engineering Research Networks, Bandung, Indonesia, 2019.
  2. Chong, H. Y., Zin, R. M., Selection of Dispute Resolution Methods: Factor Analysis Approach. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 19(4), 428–443, 2012.
  3. Awwad, R., Barakat, B., Menassa, C., Understanding Dispute Resolution in the Middle East Region from Perspectives of Different Stakeholders. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(6), 2016.
  4. Parikh, D., Joshi, G. J., Patel, D.A., Development of Prediction Models for Claim Cause Analyses in Highway Projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 11(4), 2019.
  5. Ustuner, Y. A., Tas, E., An Examination of the Mediation Processes of International ADR Institutions and Evaluation of the Turkish Construction Professionals’ Perspectives on Mediation. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4),11–27, 2019.
  6. Kisi, K. P., Lee, N., Kayastha, R., Kovel, J., Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices in International Road Construction Contracts. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 12(2), 2020.
  7. Lee, C. K., Yiu, T. W., Cheung, S.O., Selection and Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Construction Projects - Past and Future Research. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3), 494–507, 2016.
  8. Cheung, S. O., Au-Yeung, R. F., Wong, V. W. K, A CBR Based Dispute Resolution Process Selection System. International Journal of IT in Architecture Engineering and Construction, 2(2),129-145, 2004.
  9. Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C. H., A Multi-Attribute Utility Model for Dispute Resolution Strategy Selection. Construction Management and Economics, 20(7), 557–568, 2002.
  10. Chou, J. S., Cheng, M. Y., Wu, Y. W., Improving Classification Accuracy of Project Dispute Resolution using Hybrid Artificial Intelligence and Support Vector Machine Models. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(6), 2263–2274, 2013.
  11. İlter, D., Opinions of Legal Professionals Regarding the Selection of Appropriate Resolution Method in Construction Disputes. RICS COBRA Annual Construction Building and Real Estate Research Conference, Paris, France, 2010.
  12. Siam, A., Ezzeldin, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., Machine Learning Algorithms for Structural Performance Classifications and Predictions: Application to Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls. Structures, 22, 252–265, 2