Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ramin Ansari
 -- 1655 2022-04-20 15:45:11 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
 Meta information modification 1655 2022-04-22 07:04:14 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Ansari, R.; Antucheviciene, J.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Taherkhani, R.; Migilinskas, D.; , . Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22032 (accessed on 05 September 2024).
Ansari R, Antucheviciene J, Khalilzadeh M, Taherkhani R, Migilinskas D,  . Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22032. Accessed September 05, 2024.
Ansari, Ramin, Jurgita Antucheviciene, Mohammad Khalilzadeh, Roohollah Taherkhani, Darius Migilinskas,  . "Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22032 (accessed September 05, 2024).
Ansari, R., Antucheviciene, J., Khalilzadeh, M., Taherkhani, R., Migilinskas, D., & , . (2022, April 20). Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22032
Ansari, Ramin, et al. "Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims." Encyclopedia. Web. 20 April, 2022.
Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14074138

Conflict in human relations is unavoidable; therefore, it can occur in construction projects that are full of many human relationships. These conflicts can lead to claims if interlocutors do not agree. The main result of the claims is the delay and overrun of costs in construction projects. Additionally, poor management of claims affects the success of construction projects and their budget and schedule. Moreover, controlling claims ensures the successful completion of construction projects and minimizes delays and disputes. 

performance management construction projects modeling

1. Claim Management Models

Considering the negative effects of possible claims on the final goals and success of the project, in the last two decades more studies have been conducted on the management of construction claims [1][2][3][4][5]. One of the studies showed that the causes of claims often include poor forecasting and review of site conditions, tender with a set of incomplete maps, the untimely introduction of design revisions, and construction disruption [6]. Half of the contractual claims are related to design errors [7]. Another study showed that claims of construction delays or delivery of materials, weather, changes by the owner, poor site management, changes in site conditions, insufficient specifications and plans, lack of disclosure of important information during the construction phase, and acceleration in work and timing issues are created [8]. Another study in Canada found that the most common causes of all claims were project acceleration, limited access, climate, and increased scope [9].
Similarly, studies have been conducted in different countries to examine the reasons for claims, the types of claims, and the claim management process. One study in the United Arab Emirates found that the reasons for the claim, according to the study, were, in order of priority: changes, extra work, delays, different site conditions, acceleration, and contract ambiguity. In this study, the methods of settling claims were also examined and the priority of use in projects was classified (negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation) [10]. Another study was conducted to examine the process of managing construction claims in Thailand [11]. Hassanein and El Nemr (2008) investigated the claim management in the Egyptian construction sector. They concluded that the reasons for the claim include changes, delays by the owner, insufficient information about the tender, recalculations, unprincipled delivery of designs, and unpredictable cases [12].
Most research emphasizes the two factors of delay and change as the main factors in construction projects. According to a study in Colorado, delays are the main reason for claims in the projects under consideration and are even more important than the order of change and additional orders. It also proved that projects that have fixed completion dates are more prone to claims than projects that have more flexible programming [13]. Additionally, other research has been carried out in this field and has been proven that changes in the owner’s demands are one of the most important reasons for creating claims [14]. Other claims and claims management studies have been conducted in countries such as Pakistan, Malaysia, Bhutan, Oman, and Addis Ababa [15][16][17][18][19]. In the last two years, there have been many studies on claiming and managing it, and all of them share the need of a good documentation system and recording and maintaining reports to control and manage claims in construction [20].
Because claim management is a process that requires the analysis of a large amount of diverse information, the old methods of documentation developed by industry experts can be considered one of the most important challenges for successful claim management. The feasibility of existing claim management systems is questionable due to problems with input information and documents. For this reason, studies have been conducted to establish a claim management system with BIM capability [21]. Additionally, a quantitative study was conducted to investigate the effect of construction claims on project performance in Ghana [22]. Currently, construction claims have become an unavoidable concern and have a major impact on project performance. Completing construction projects on time is an important criterion for measuring the success of projects. However, construction projects are often delayed due to problems with claims and their management, which will degrade project performance [23]. Claims also have a large impact on the cost of construction projects and lead to negative cost performance. In addition, the relationship between conflict management, team coordination, and project performance was examined [24].

2. Performance Assessment Models

The primary project goals and objectives defined for achieving project success are mainly categorized into financial, technical, social, educational, and professional aspects [25].
Later, with the progress of research, the success of the project was divided into two parts: (1) the success of the project management and (2) the success of the project product. Heravi and Ilbeigi (2012) proposed a comprehensive evaluation model comprising of project management and deliverables for the construction projects’ success [26].
Different criteria such as time, quality, and cost have been used to evaluate the success of projects so far. However, many researchers believe that success cannot be measured considering merely the project iron triangle as the other criteria should be taken into consideration for achieving project success [27].
Recent research works have indicated that the conventional project iron triangle cannot meet all the prerequisites of project performance, because in today’s complex projects, it is necessary to consider other performance criteria such as stakeholders’ satisfaction, health, safety, and the environment [28]. Banihashemi et al. (2021) considered environmental impacts in developing project schedules [29]. Additionally, Naghizadeh Vardin et al. (2021) addressed the sustainability indicators for contractor selection in the construction industry [30].
Ward et al. (1991) stated that the conventional project iron triangle is not sufficient and other factors such as having a good relationship with project stakeholders and the adaptability to changes can have an effect on customer satisfaction and eventually project success and failure [31].
Studies have addressed multidimensional and non-financial KPIs in construction projects [32][33][34].
Chan and Chan (2004) categorized the KPIs into objective and subjective (quantitative and qualitative) indicators [35]. Hwang et al. (2009) assessed the effect of rework on project performance in terms of both owner and the contractor [36]. Owolabi et al. (2014) examined the impacts of delay on the delivery and performance of construction projects [37]. Nassar and AbouRizk (2014) investigated the practical application of integrated performance appraisal of construction projects. They considered performance indicators including billing, profitability, scheduling, cost, safety, quality, and customer and team satisfaction and finally presented a general indicator for evaluating the project performance [38].
Nilashi et al. (2014) evaluated the literature on project critical success factors. They introduced five criteria and 43 sub-criteria and ranked the sub-criteria using decision-making methods ANP (Analytic Network Process) and DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) [39]. Yun et al. (2016) studied the performance indexes of construction projects regarding the project implementation phases [40]. Omar and Fayek (2016) addressed the performance of construction projects [41]. Wibowo et al. (2017) applied the system dynamics method to model the effects of the conflict strategy on the performance of construction projects [42]. Leon et al. (2018) presented a system dynamics model to predict the construction projects’ performance [43].
Al-Zwainy and Mezher (2018) presented and diagnosed twenty causes of cost deviation in highway projects in the Republic of Iraq, which they divided into three main groups (planning causes, designing causes, and execution causes). Pareto analysis showed that eleven causes out of twenty causes represented the most important causes of cost deviation [44].
Cha and Kim (2018) measured construction project performance considering optimal best management practices in South Korea. They proposed an algorithm in which the project stakeholders can effectively measure and analyze the performance level of a building project in conjunction with project characteristics and the identified BMPs (Best Management Practices) [45]. Mohammadi et al. (2018) investigated the factors affecting safety performance in construction projects. They developed a hierarchical framework to demonstrate how the extracted factors influence the safety aspect of the construction projects [46]. Tripathi et al. (2019) evaluated the performance measurement of construction firms using a fuzzy preference relation technique [47]. Sharma et al. (2020) investigated the effects of delays of several highway construction projects on their completion time and cost. They categorized the causes of time overruns and provided a mathematical model for predicting the time overrun percentage, using highway projects in Northern India as a case study [48]. Additionally, Shafieezadeh et al. (2020) proposed a system dynamics model to show how dynamic changes can affect project’s KPIs during its lifecycle [49].
Project performance forecasting is extremely important for project management. Several studies have been conducted on the performance prediction methods in construction projects, particularly the Earned Value Management (EVM) method. However, the EVM has been criticized by many researchers [50][51]. It has also been shown that the EVM indicators are inappropriate and unreliable for projects, especially those that have a nonlinear cumulative cost curve [52]. Additionally, the planned value method for projects that continue and run after the scheduled completion date yields unreliable and bizarre results [50].
The well-known system dynamics method introduced by Forster in 1958 has been widely employed to recognize, visualize, and analyze complicated dynamic systems. System dynamics is a set of conceptual tools that enable to understand the structure and dynamics of complex systems, and ultimately be able to design more effective policies by careful modeling and computer simulation [53]. This method can examine the systems’ behavior based on a comprehensive perspective that focuses particularly on the interactions between the system’s components [54]. Sterman (1992) introduced the system dynamics method as a modeling tool and technique for project management [55]. Since then, several studies utilized system dynamics approach in construction projects. For example, Nasir and Hadikusumo (2019) proposed a system dynamics model for the owner-contractor relationship [56]. Al-Kofahi et al. (2020) assessed the impacts of change orders using a system dynamics approach [57]. Gerami Seresht and Fayek (2020) developed a fuzzy system dynamics model for defining the relationships between the variables of the construction systems [58]. Mohammadi and Tavakolan (2020) determined the behavioral safety pattern of construction labor using the system dynamics approach [59]. Asiedu and Ameyaw (2021) presented a system dynamics model to investigate the roots and causes of overrun costs in the construction projects of developing countries [60]. Etemadinia and Tavakolan (2021) developed a hybrid system dynamics method to analyze the design-phase risks of construction projects [61]. Dabirian et al. (2021) investigated the effects of financial policies on the performance of construction projects using a system dynamics model [62].

References

  1. Enshassi, A.; Choudhry, R.M.; El-Ghandour, S. Contractors’ perception towards causes of claims in construction projects. Int. J. Proj. 2009, 9, 79–92.
  2. Kauffmann, P.; Keating, C.; Considine, C. Using earned value methods to substantiate change-of-scope claims. Eng. Manag. J. 2002, 14, 13–20.
  3. Le-Hoai, L.; Dang, C.N.; Lee, S.B.; Lee, Y.D. Benchmarking claim causes against contractors in emerging markets: Empirical case study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 307–316.
  4. Sibanyama, G.; Muya, M.; Kaliba, C. An overview of construction claims: A case study of the Zambian construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2012, 12, 65–81.
  5. Stamatiou, D.R.I.; Kirytopoulos, K.A.; Ponis, S.T.; Gayialis, S.; Tatsiopoulos, I. A process reference model for claims management in construction supply chains: The contractors’ perspective. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 382–400.
  6. Revay, S.G. Can construction claims be avoided? Building owners and engineers frequently occurring claims identified. Build. Res. Inf. 1993, 21, 56–58.
  7. Jergeas, G.F.; Hartman, F.T. Contractors’ construction-claims avoidance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1994, 120, 553–560.
  8. Ip, S. An Overview of Construction Claims: How They Arise and How to Avoid Them; Clark Wilson LLP: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2005; 31p.
  9. Semple, C.; Hartman, F.T.; Jergeas, G. Construction claims and disputes: Causes and cost/time overruns. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1994, 120, 785–795.
  10. Zaneldin, E.K. Construction claims in United Arab Emirates: Types, causes, and frequency. Int. J. Proj. 2006, 24, 453–459.
  11. Tochaiwat, K.; Chovichien, V. A survey of Thai contractors’ construction claim management. In Proceedings of the 10th National Convention on Civil Engineering, Pattaya, Thailand, 2–4 May 2005; Engineering Institute of Thailand: Bangkok, Thailand, 2005; pp. 2–4.
  12. Hassanein, A.A.; El Nemr, W. Claims management in the Egyptian industrial construction sector: A contractor’s perspective. Eng. Constr. Archit. 2008, 15, 456–469.
  13. Hashem, M.; Mehany, M.S.; Grigg, N. Causes of road and bridge construction claims: Analysis of Colorado department of transportation projects. J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2015, 7, 04514006.
  14. Hayati, K.; Latief, D.Y. Risk analysis and prevention system to minimize claim and dispute on construction projects. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 365, 012030.
  15. Al-Mohsin, M. Claim analysis of construction projects in Oman. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2012, 2, 73–78.
  16. Farooqui, R.U.; Azhar, S.; Umer, M. Key causes of disputes in the Pakistani construction industry-assessment of trends from the viewpoint of contractors. In Proceedings of the 50th ASC Annual International Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 26–28 March 2014; The Associated Schools of Construction: Cheyenne, WY, USA, 2014.
  17. Bakhary, N.A.; Adnan, H.; Ibrahim, A. A study of construction claim management problems in Malaysia. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 63–70.
  18. Hadikusumo, B.H.; Tobgay, S. Construction claim types and causes for a large-scale hydropower project in Bhutan. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2015, 20, 49–63.
  19. Zenebe, E.; Quezon, E.T.; Mosisa, A. Contract claim Analysis on Building Construction Project in Addis Ababa: A case study at Yeka Sub City. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2016, 7, 1154–1160.
  20. Hayati, K.; Latief, Y.; Rarasati, A.D. Causes and problem identification in construction claim management. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 469, 012082.
  21. Shahhosseini, V.; Hajarolasvadi, H. A conceptual framework for developing a BIM-enabled claim management system. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 21, 208–222.
  22. Gyadu-Asiedu, W. Assessing Construction Project Performance in Ghana: Modelling Practitioners’ and Clients Perspectives. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, North Brabant, The Netherlands, December 2009.
  23. Yusuwan, N.M.; Adnan, H. Issues associated with extension of time (EoT) claim in Malaysian construction industry. Proc. Technol. 2013, 9, 740–749.
  24. Tabassi, A.A.; Abdullah, A.; Bryde, D.J. Conflict management, team coordination, and performance within multicultural temporary projects: Evidence from the construction industry. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 101–114.
  25. Chovichien, V.; Nguyen, T.A. List of indicators and criteria for evaluating construction project success and their weight assignment. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Engineering, Project and Production (EPPM 2013), Bangkok, Thailand, 23–25 October 2013; Association of Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM): Clemson, SC, USA, 2013; pp. 130–150.
  26. Heravi, G.; Ilbeigi, M. Development of a comprehensive model for construction project success evaluation by contractors. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 526–542.
  27. Kennerley, M.; Neely, A. A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2002, 22, 1222–1245.
  28. Ogunlana, S.O. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 228–236.
  29. Banihashemi, S.A.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. Investigating the Environmental Impacts of Construction Projects in Time-Cost Trade-Off Project Scheduling Problems with CoCoSo Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10922.
  30. Naghizadeh Vardin, A.; Ansari, R.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Antucheviciene, J.; Bausys, R. An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6933.
  31. Ward, S.C.; Curtis, B.; Chapman, C.B. Objectives and performance in construction projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1991, 9, 343–353.
  32. Neely, A.; Mills, J.; Platts, K.; Richards, H.; Gregory, M.; Bourne, M.; Kennerley, M. Performance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2000, 20, 1119–1145.
  33. Industry Performance Report; Constructing Excellence: London, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.glenigan.com/sites/default/files/2014_UK_Construction_Industry_KPI_Report_FINAL.pdf?sid=56293 (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  34. Rankin, J.; Fayek, A.R.; Meade, G.; Haas, C.; Manseau, A. Initial metrics and pilot program results for measuring the performance of the Canadian construction industry. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2008, 35, 894–907.
  35. Chan, A.P.; Chan, A.P.L. Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking Int. J. 2004, 11, 203–221.
  36. Hwang, B.G.; Thomas, S.R.; Haas, C.T.; Caldas, C.H. Measuring the impact of rework on construction cost performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 187–198.
  37. Owolabi, J.D.; Amusan, L.M.; Oloke, C.O.; Olusanya, O.; Tunji-Olayeni, P.F.; Dele, O.; Omuh, I.O. Causes and effect of delay on project construction delivery time. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2014, 2, 197–208.
  38. Nassar, N.; AbouRizk, S. Practical application for integrated performance measurement of construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 04014027.
  39. Nilashi, M.; Zakaria, R.; Ibrahim, O.; Majid, M.Z.A.; Zin, R.M.; Farahmand, M. MCPCM: A DEMATEL-ANP-based multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate the critical success factors in construction projects. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40, 343–361.
  40. Yun, S.; Choi, J.; de Oliveira, D.P.; Mulva, S.P. Development of performance metrics for phase-based capital project benchmarking. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 389–402.
  41. Omar, M.N.; Fayek, A.R. Modeling and evaluating construction project competencies and their relationship to project performance. Autom. Constr. 2016, 69, 115–130.
  42. Wibowo, M.A.; Astana, I.N.Y.; Rusdi, H.A. Dynamic modelling of the relation between bidding strategy and construction project performance. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 341–347.
  43. Leon, H.; Osman, H.; Georgy, M.; Elsaid, M. System dynamics approach for forecasting performance of construction projects. J. Manag. Eng.—ASCE 2018, 34, 04017049.
  44. Al-Zwainy, F.M.; Mezher, R.A. Diagnose the causes of cost deviation in highway construction projects by using root cause analysis techniques. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2018, 43, 2001–2012.
  45. Cha, H.S.; Kim, K.H. Measuring project performance in consideration of optimal best management practices for building construction in South Korea. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 1614–1625.
  46. Mohammadi, A.; Tavakolan, M.; Khosravi, Y. Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects: A review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 382–397.
  47. Tripathi, K.K.; Hasan, A.; Neeraj Jha, K. Evaluating performance of construction organizations using fuzzy preference relation technique. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 21, 1287–1300.
  48. Sharma, V.K.; Gupta, P.K.; Khitoliya, R.K. Analysis of Highway Construction Project Time Overruns Using Survey Approach. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 4353–4367.
  49. Shafieezadeh, M.; Hormozi, M.K.; Hassannayebi, E.; Ahmadi, L.; Soleymani, M.; Gholizad, A. A system dynamics simulation model to evaluate project planning policies. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2020, 40, 201–216.
  50. Henderson, K. Earned schedule: A breakthrough, extension to earned value management. In Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress Asia Pacific, Hong Kong, China, 29–31 January 2007; Available online: https://www.earnedschedule.com/docs/earned%20schedule%20-%20a%20breakthrough%20extension%20to%20evm.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  51. Lipke, W. Schedule Is Different. Available online: https://earnedschedule.com/docs/schedule%20is%20different.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  52. Corovic, R. Why EVM Is Not Good for Schedule Performance Analyses (and How It Could Be…). Available online: https://www.earnedschedule.com/Docs/Why%20EVM%20is%20not%20Good%20for%20Schedule%20Performance%20Analyses%20-%20Corovic.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  53. Sterman, J. System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; Report no. ESD Working Papers; ESD-WP-2003-01.13-ESD Internal Symposium; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/102741 (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  54. Ding, Z.; Yi, G.; Tam, V.W.; Huang, T. A system dynamics-based environmental performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 130–141.
  55. Sterman, J.D. System Dynamics Modeling for Project Management. Unpublished Manuscript, Cambridge, MA, USA. 1992. Available online: http://scripts.mit.edu/~jsterman/docs/Sterman-1992-SystemDynamicsModeling.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  56. Nasir, M.K.; Hadikusumo, B.H.W. System dynamics model of contractual relationships between owner and contractor in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04018052.
  57. Al-Kofahi, Z.G.; Mahdavian, A.; Oloufa, A. System dynamics modeling approach to quantify change orders impact on labor productivity 1: Principles and model development comparative study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 2020, 1–12.
  58. Gerami Seresht, N.; Fayek, A.R. Neuro-fuzzy system dynamics technique for modeling construction systems. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 93, 106400.
  59. Mohammadi, A.; Tavakolan, M. Identifying safety archetypes of construction workers using system dynamics and content analysis. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104831.
  60. Asiedu, R.O.; Ameyaw, C. A system dynamics approach to conceptualise causes of cost overrun of construction projects in developing countries. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2021, 39, 831–851.
  61. Etemadinia, H.; Tavakolan, M. Using a hybrid system dynamics and interpretive structural modeling for risk analysis of design phase of the construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 21, 93–112.
  62. Dabirian, S.; Ahmadi, M.; Abbaspour, S. Analyzing the impact of financial policies on construction projects performance using system dynamics. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, article in press.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Civil
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Ramin Ansari
,
Jurgita Antucheviciene
,
Mohammad Khalilzadeh
,
Roohollah Taherkhani
,
DARIUS MIGILINSKAS
,
View Times: 786
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback