The relationship between distribution of control, fairness and potential for dispute in the claims handling process
Parties' concern for fairness has been identified as one of the underlying causes of dissatisfaction and protracted dispute in the process for handling contractors' claims. Social psychology literature suggests that distribution of control over the various stages of any conflict resolution process is a factor that may influence concern for fairness. Despite the numerous studies in social psychology and management research, little or no attempt has been made to systematically investigate how distribution of control over the various stages of the process for handling a contractor's claims for delay and disruption could influence concern for fairness and potential for dispute. This should be a useful exercise in that it would suggest ways of reducing potential for disputes in construction project delivery. This study is an attempt to fill this research gap. Drawing on social psychology theory, this study proposes that, in order to enhance perceived fairness and thereby reduce potential for dispute, (1) the claims certifier needs to exercise a higher degree of process and content control over the early stages of process for handling claims than the control exercised by the employer and contractor; (2) the claims certifier must exercise total decision control so as to enhance the perceived impartiality and neutrality of the decision rendered on the claims. By examining two litigated cases, the study illustrates the relationship between distribution of control, perceived lack of fairness and dispute potential. By adopting the proposed principle for distributing control into the claims handling process and coupled with the use of an independent claims certifier, potential for dispute could be reduced on construction projects.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 24 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RCME20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:24:y:2006:i:1:p:45-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.