Closure to “Dispute Resolution Strategy Selection” by Thomas Haugen and Amarjit Singh

Abstract

The authors are appreciative of the suggestions by the discussers. However, an example application by them using fuzzy set theory is lacking, which would have helped reinforce their position, if possible. At present, their discussion is purely theoretical, and possibly, hypothetical. Next, the authors believe that the uncertainties associated with the adoption of game theory and fuzzy sets are also substantive, such that the discussers are unable to certainly prove that uncertainties in strategy selection are eliminated using game theory or fuzzy set theory. In addition, game theory is so heavily dependent on sampling unreliability and stochastic operations and approximations that the output is not always robust and credible. Fuzzy logic is still largely considered theoretical, despite the heavy research and advances made in it, and is not ready yet for use in practical decision making in all cases owing to its complexity and impractical assumptions. Various basic assumptions belie fuzzy set theory. In the dynamic nature of management systems, the crisp or fuzzy assumption of the bivalent condition of membership may be good enough for mathematical intellectual applications, but in real life, elements may belong to multiple sets, or could belong now to a specific set but not belong later, which the single fuzzy set cannot model. In addition, varying conditions of continuity and monotonicity also render the applications of fuzzy set theory inapplicable. Furthermore, the authors wish to state that even though some of the systems used by them rely on subjective input, such subjective input is not altogether arbitrary. First, this subjective input is obtained from those who have track records behind them. Next, the data are run through objective checking such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and pairwise analysis, which tend to normalize the data input, if not eliminate uncertainty. Certainly, the numerical checks serve to eliminate severely asymmetric data, and so place upper and lower bounds on the data that can be accepted for input to the system. However, when objective data is hard to come by—and this happens often—mathematical techniques such as fuzzy set theory or game theory are unable to perform effectively, despite claims to the contrary. In such cases, it is well known that qualitative analysis provides great context, applicability, and reliability. Finally, it must be understood that in an industry already plagued by too many disputes, a simple and easy-to-use method is usually preferable compared to heavily mathematical methods. Even engineers in the construction industry do not understand fuzzy set theory, let alone apply them, not to mention that architects and attorneys working in the construction area would have little knowledge of fuzzy set theories. In contrast, the method proposed by the authors can be much more simply applied by engineers engaged in the construction industry. All that said, the authors encourage the discussers to actually develop new techniques for strategy selection and take the science of this to the next level.