Presented by

Mansour Ali Al-Zahrani

Author:Ajibade Ayodeji Aibinu

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH METHODRESEARCH METHOD

DATA ANALYSISDATA ANALYSIS

FINDINGS

CRITIQUES & LIMITATIONS

Q & AQ & A

Delay and disruption claims often generate conflict and contract dispute.

Avoiding construction delay climes lead to substantial financial saving projects

Explores the effect of precontract negotiation as a means of avoiding or mitigating delay and disruption claim conflict

Why Delay and Disruption Claims Are Contentious

The complex nature of Delay and Disruption claims

The inconsistency of the available techniques/ methods for quantifying and analyzing delay and disruption claims.

The position of the owner-appointed contractor administratorin the traditional contracting system.

The nature of the conflicts in delay and disruption claims.

Role of Precontract Negotiation in Delay and Disruption Claims

ResolutionSeek to enhance mutual understanding

among parties regarding methodologies, techniques, and procedure for assessing and quantifying anticipated delay and disruption claims.

Seek to improve the quality of information needed for assessing the impact of anticipated delay and disruption

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis

Primary HypothesisPrecontract Negotiation between the owner and

contractor on the rules of assessment and quantification for anticipated delays would moderate the relationship between the outcome favorability and the intensity of conflict on delay.

Secondary HypothesisHigh precontract negotiation- High perceive the

quality of decision making.High perceive the quality of decision making-

lower the intensity of conflict

Using data obtained from a questionnaire survey was adopted to test the research hypotheses.

The constructs of hypothesis were operational zed into measurable indicators.

The items investigated the antecedents of construction conflicts and dispute.

Items developed in form of statements to measure individual construct of the main hypothesis

Of 200 contractors contacted, 41 responded representing a response rate of 20.5%.

Three procedure for testing the interaction hypothesis:

Multigroup procedureTwo-step construct score procedureProduct indicator approach with (PLS-SEM)

Product indicator approach with (PLS-SEM)

DATA ANALYSISReliability of constructs

The minimum Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.6Discriminate Validity:

Used Analysis of cross loading.

DATA ANALYSISCorrelation Analysis

Test of Interactive Effect HypothesisEarly participation of parties through precontract

discussion mitigate the parties reaction to unfavorable decision on the claim when they arise during construction

Whether administrator's decision favorable or not the contractor reported lower intensity of conflicts when there is clear precontrac negotiation and agreement.

Higher levels of precontract negotiation were also associated with higher quality of decision making.

While higher levels of the quality of the decision-making process were associated with a lower intensity of conflict.

Positive:

1- Article shows the benefit of prcontract negotiation and its importance.

Negative:

1- The number of participants in survey questionnaire is very small and response based on their experience. 2- use many previous research model, scales and statistical analysis that are not clear in his article.

Q & A