Search results

While off-site construction (OSC) offers a promising solution to many problems plaguing traditional construction (e.g. low productivity, waste and safety risks), a lack of standards and knowledge about OSC, especially regarding disputes, hinders its wider adoption. This study aims to address this gap by identifying and analyzing the importance levels of technical, managerial and external disputes specific to OSC projects.

Three steps methodology was employed in the study. Focus group discussion (FGD) technique was used to identification and finalize dispute causes found from literature and collect data for the next step. In the study, two multi-criteria decision-making MCDM (methods) [a hybrid approach-Pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)] were employed. While Pythagorean fuzzy AHP was used to calculate the weights of criteria, fuzzy TOPSIS analysis was used to calculate the weights of main and sub-dispute causes. Instead of using the classical AHP method, the Pythagorean fuzzy AHP method was employed due to its superiority in capturing the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity of decision-makers, giving flexibility to decision-makers with linguistic variables instead of expecting exact evaluation scores and flexibility in the integration with other methods. During the analysis of the weights of the main and sub-dispute causes, the fuzzy TOPSIS method was preferred. The fuzzy TOPSIS method involves a quicker and more straightforward decision-making process. Also, the fuzzy TOPSIS method allows the consideration of numerous alternatives and evaluation criteria and uncertainty in the decision-making process.

The analysis reveals that technical disputes pose the biggest challenge in off-site construction compared to managerial or external disputes. Specifically, “late completion, delivery and installation of components” emerged as the most significant technical dispute. Within managerial disputes, “poor planning and management of the project” ranked highest, while “the complexity of legal expressions” was the most prominent external dispute factor.

In the literature, three studies offer some insight on OSC disputes by analyzing the litigation cases. Nonetheless, the results can be misleading, because some disputes can be resolved before the litigation process. Therefore, the study findings can aid in foreseeing technical, managerial and external factors and in generating robust OSC contracts by considering these issues.

The purpose of this study is to develop a decision-support framework that can be used by decision-makers to suspend public infrastructure projects. Additionally, the study also investigates how to select the most convenient infrastructure project for suspension.

The proposed framework includes an extensive set of factors and a novel comparison mechanism that can reveal the most convenient infrastructure project to be suspended. A comprehensible literature review and focus group discussion (FGD) sessions were conducted to identify factors that should be considered for suspension. Then, the neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process (N-AHP) method was used to determine the relative importance of the factors. Finally, the proposed comparison mechanism was demonstrated through a hypothetical case study and Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis.

Results showed that suspension decisions cannot be made merely based on “financial” factors. Instead, the other aspects, namely “Technical and managerial” and “Social and Environmental”, should also be taken into consideration. Second, factors related to the initial investment, cost of refinancing, cash flow, permits and approvals, insufficiency of bidders, degradation of the components, reputation, impact on stakeholders and criticality of the infrastructure were particularly elaborated as the most significant, needing the utmost attention of the decision-makers. Lastly, the results demonstrated that the proposed comparison mechanism has considerable potential to identify the most convenient infrastructure project for suspension.

Public infrastructure projects are often under pressure due to the inflationary state and economic stagnation of countries after major crises. The suspension decision for infrastructure projects necessitates comprehensible assessments to consider all consequences. Studies have widely investigated the contractual and legal aspects of project suspension in light of existing literature. However, little effort has been devoted to identifying the factors that decision-makers should consider before suspending a particular infrastructure project. Furthermore, existing literature does not investigate how to select the most convenient infrastructure project for suspension either. Thus, by developing a specific suspension framework for infrastructure projects by considering various factors, this study is the earliest attempt to examine the contract suspension mechanism of public infrastructure projects. In this respect, the study significantly contributes to the theory of contract management domain and has important managerial implications.