| dc.description.abstract | Construction disputes can occur in any phase of project’s lifecycle, not just during the construction phase. Opposing personalities between the project owner and the contractor often lead to differences of opinion, and human error on a construction project can escalate the spread of damage in cases of natural disaster, as happened during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan and during the August 2004 flooding caused by a typhoon in Taipei. Multidisciplinary researchers have attempted to develop methodologies for the effective mitigation of disputes. Disputes could be resolved through one or a combination of these methods.
Dispute settlement methods fall into two main categories, litigation and alternative the resolution of disputes (ADR). In most civil law countries, litigation involves civil, criminal and state compensation. ADR methods include but are not limited to negotiation, amiable conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. In a common law system, disputes are often resolved based on the outcomes of previous cases, whereas resolving disputes according to laws and regulations is a characteristic of the continental legal system. Regardless of the method, all legal systems share a common objective; they are applied to the resolution of disputes.
When making decisions or solving everyday problems, most people take similar previous experiences into consideration. Case-based Reasoning (CBR) is a the resolution of disputes methodology that provides a logical model similar to that used by many people to resolve everyday problems.
This thesis is an investigation of the feasibility of Case-based Reasoning (CBR) as a mechanism to facilitate the resolution of construction disputes. We began with a review of common ADR methods and their application in the settling of claims in Taiwan. After evaluating CBR methodology, particularly the R5 model, we integrated the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (ISO 9241-210) and ADR mechanisms in the development of a user-centered prototype CBR mechanism (UCBR) for the resolution of disputes, applicable at any point in the life cycle of a construction project. We further investigated CBR systems by examining cases associated with the flooding in Taipei in August 2004 and obtained data from the Taipei mediation database and Taiwan official law and regulations database. The prototype system was then tested using the aforementioned cases of conciliation, mediation and litigation. Due to privacy concerns, arbitration cases were excluded.
Previous researchers demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating multiple methods for the resolution of disputes. A stepwise ADR approach has proven effective in resolving construction disputes. Empirical findings have demonstrated the effectiveness of dynamic, recursive ADR systems in the retrieval of suitable reference cases. As a result, this approach is able to predict the outcome of target cases successfully. Unlike traditional methodologies, the CBR mechanism does not establish attributes or their respective weights in advance. Previous investigations of relevant systems have not taken the needs of end users into consideration when formulating mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. One objective of this empirical study was to fill this gap in the research by formulating a systematic dispute resolution process capable of handling the large volume of disputes that commonly arise in the aftermath of disasters. | en_US |