The Effective Use of ADR Processes in Construction

Abstract

The formality of litigation and arbitration, with its concomitant escalation in costs, delays and adversarial relationship, have encouraged the rapid growth of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, namely conciliation, mediation, adjudication and other hybrid processes (Brown and Marriott 1999; Fenn and Gameson 1992; Kaplan et al. 1991). These processes have been widely used and well received. For example, mediation is an integral part of dispute settlement clause in all conditions of contract for Hong Kong Government construction projects. Moreover, use of multiple-tier of ADR renders it impossible to obtain speedy and economic resolution. Overtly complicated ADR based resolution procedures destroy the original intents of having flexible and direct dispute resolution. In this study, a hierarchical model is developed to organise the different attributes of an ADR process. This arrangement fits neatly with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. AHP can be used to prioritise the attributes. The top ten ranked attributes are identified as critical attributes. These include, among others, preservation of relationship, enforceability, neutrality and consensus. This study also reports suggestions by experts on the means to enshrine these attributes. It is recommended that by focusing on these critical attributes, the dispute resolution process can be kept simple and effective.