Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.680475
Title: Apportioning liability in construction delay claims : an evaluation of contemporary practices in the U.A.E. and a proposal for improvements
Author: Perera, N. A.
Awarding Body: University of Salford
Current Institution: University of Salford
Date of Award: 2012
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Access through Institution:
Abstract:
Various theories, concepts and methodologies exist for apportioning liabilities in construction delay claims. Yet, there is no much consensus among the practitioners towards them. Often, the implementation of these theories, concepts and methodologies in a project is based on Decision Makers' (DMs) individual judgments. Individual judgments are generally intuitive and subjective. That brings scepticism on the outcome yielded by either party's approaches or methods. This would most possibly result in further escalation of dispute. This research was inspired by the findings of initial surveys and peer discussions which indicated this situation as a major problem area in delay claims resolution, requiring improvements to the contemporary practices. Thus, the principal aim of this research is set out 'to investigate the problems involved in the contemporary practices of apportioning liability in construction delay claims and propose a Framework for Improvements'. This 'Framework of Improvements' is expected to enable consensus and uniformity among the DMs for appropriate application of essential theory, concepts and delay analysis methodology in order to minimise/ reduce the negative impacts of such problematic issues and enhance efficiency and fairness in delay claims resolution process. The research objectives were set out in order to fulfil this aim. Accordingly, the research undertook to investigate the perceptions, approaches and methods adopted by the practitioners in carrying out apportioning liabilities, and the problem issues that may stem from such practices. This inquiry was carried out implementing mixed methods approach which was consistent with the philosophical stand of the research. Thus, both semi-structured interviews (qualitative strand) and in-depth surveys (quantitative strand) were extensively used for the necessary data collection. The analysed findings and the merged results of this inquiry and the findings of a comprehensive literature review enabled developing the intended 'Framework of Improvements'. As the main outcome of the study, this Framework consists of (1) improvements to be adopted through changes to contract documentation and procedures and (2) improvements (through a Model) to the process of selection of a most appropriate method of delay analysis under objective circumstances of a construction project. These components of the Framework have been subject to necessary validation. Thus, if consciously implemented, it has the potential to bring forth substantial corporate benefits to both employers and contractors, by eliminating waste of time and money in unnecessary disputes in delay claims resolution process. The research has also contributed to the domain knowledge by providing a comprehensive data base as to the current practices and established a knowledge base of essential theory, legal position and practice in delay claims resolution; this can be used as a repository by practitioners and potential researchers. At the conclusion, while accomplishing the research objectives and the aim, the study has identified the potential limitations of the research and recommended areas for further research.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.680475  DOI: Not available
Share: