Causal Relationships of Readability Risks in Construction Contracts

Öz

Issues related to readability risks in contracts could exacerbate conflict, claim and dispute occurrences in construction projects. Determination of root causes of readability risks by defining casual relationships in construction contracts is essential to improve contract documentation and enable successful risk management. This paper aims to differentiate net causes from net effect factors of readability risks in construction contracts. Most significant readability risks in construction contracts were analyzed using fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method, which is known for its wide implementation in similar problems. Root cause degree (RCD) diagram was drawn to illustrate the differentiation of these factors by adopting maximum mean de-entropy (MMDE) algorithm. Analysis results indicated that poor grammar use, legal terminology, visual representation, and negative language were the major underlying cause factors; while lengthy document, use of abbreviations, scope complexity, controversial uses, repetitions, and ambiguous words were the net effect factors. The results are expected to improve readability of contract documents, which would contribute to more effective risk management and better allocation of project resources.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Construction projects
• Contract readability
• Contract drafting
• Construction conflicts
• Risk management

Kaynakça

1. Chong, H. Y. and Zin, R. M., A case study into the language structure of construction standard form in Malaysia, International Journal of Project Management 28, 601–608 2010.
2. Besaiso, H., Fenn, P., Emsley, M., and Wright, D., A comparison of the suitability of FIDIC and NEC conditions of contract in Palestine: A perspective from the industry, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 25, 241–256 2018.
3. El-Sayegh, S. M. and Mansour, M. H., Risk assessment and allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE, Journal of Management in Engineering 31, 04015004 2015.
4. Zhang, L., Fenn, P., and Fu, Y., To insist or to concede? Contractors’ behavioural strategies when handling disputed claims, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 26, 424–443 2019.
5. Cheung, S. O. and Yiu, T. W., Are construction disputes inevitable?, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53, 456–470 2006.
6. Saseendran, A., Bigelow, B. F., Rybkowski, Z. K., and Jourdan, D. E., Disputes in Construction : Evaluation of Contractual Effects of ConsensusDOCS, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 12, 04520008 2020.
7. El-Adaway, I. H., Abotaleb, I. S., Eid, M. S., May, S., Netherton, L., and Vest, J., Contract Administration Guidelines for Public Infrastructure Projects in the United States and Saudi Arabia: Comparative Analysis Approach, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144, 04018031 2018.
8. Love, P. E. D., Davis, P. R., Cheung, S. O., and Irani, Z., Causal discovery and inference of project disputes, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58, 400–411 2011.

9. Chong, H. Y. and Zin, R. M., Construction contract administration- an approach on clarity, Clarity 60, 6–10 2008.
10. Arcadis, Global Construction Disputes Report: Collaborating to achieve project excellence, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2020.
11. Cheung, S. O. and Pang, K. H. Y., Anatomy of construction disputes, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139, 15–23 2013.
12. Maqsoom, A., Wazir, S. J., Choudhry, R. M., Thaheem, M. J., and Zahoor, H., Influence of Perceived Fairness on Contractors’ Potential to Dispute: Moderating Effect of Engineering Ethics, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146, 04019090 2020.
13. Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, W., Chen, Y., and Jin, M., Revisiting the Relationship Between Contract Governance and Contractors’ Opportunistic Behavior in Construction Projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1, 1–13 2019.
14. Cevikbas, M. and Koksal, A., An Investigation of Litigation Process in Construction Industry in Turkey, Teknik Dergi 29, 8715–8729 2018.
15. Rameezdeen, R. and Rajapakse, C., Contract interpretation: The impact of readability, Construction Management and Economics 25, 729–737 2007.
16. Gunduz, M. and Elsherbeny, H. A., Operational Framework for Managing Construction-Contract Administration Practitioners ’ Perspective through Modified Delphi Method, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146, 040191110 2020.
17. Yao, M. et al., Optimal Incentive Contract with Asymmetric Cost Information, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146, 04020054 2020.
18. Yiu, T. W., Cheung, S. O., and Lok, C. L., A fuzzy fault tree framework of construction dispute negotiation failure, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 62, 171–183 2015.
19. Beaumont, B., Dispute Resolution in NEC3—User Unfriendly?, Construction Law Journal 25, 591–613 2009.
20. Murphy, S. E., Spillane, J. P., Hendron, C., and Bruen, J., NEC Contracting: Evaluation of the Inclusion of Dispute Review Boards in lieu of Adjudication in the Construction Industry in the United Kingdom, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 6, 04514002 2014.
21. Raj, S., Hillig, J. B., and Hughes, W., Responsiveness to change by standard-form contract drafters in the construction industry: A case study of the FIDIC White Book, International Journal of Law in the Built Environment 1, 205–220 2009.
22. Rameezdeen, R. and Rodrigo, A., Modifications to standard forms of contract: The impact on readability, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 14, 31–40 2014.
23. Mitropoulos, P. and Howell, G., Model for Understanding, Preventing, and Resolving Project Disputes, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127, 223–231 2001.
24. Schuhmann, R. and Eichhorn, B., Reconsidering contact risk and contractual risk management, International Journal of Law and Management 59, 504–521 2017.
25. Koc, K. and Gurgun, A. P., Assessment of Readability Risks in Contracts Causing Conflicts in Construction Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 147, 04021041 2021.
26. Hassan, F. U. and Le, T., Automated Requirements Identification from Construction Contract Documents Using Natural Language Processing, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 12, 04520009 2020.
27. Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuels, S. J., Readability, Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association, 1988.
28. Abotaleb, I. S., El-Adaway, I. H., and Moussa, M. B., Guidelines for Administrating and Drafting Nonpayment Owners’ Obligation Provisions under Design-Build Contracts, Journal of Management in Engineering 35, 04019010 2019.
29. Broome, J. C. and Hayes, R. W., A comparison of the clarity of traditional construction contracts and of the New Engineering Contract, International Journal of Project Management 15, 255–261 1997.
30. Lau, C. H., Mesthrige, J. W., Lam, P. T. I., and Javed, A. A., The challenges of adopting new engineering contract: a Hong Kong study, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 26, 2389–2409 2019.
31. Youssef, A., Osman, H., Georgy, M., and Yehia, N., Semantic Risk Assessment for Ad Hoc and Amended Standard Forms of Construction Contracts, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 10, 04518002 2018.
32. Lee, J., Ham, Y., Yi, J. S., and Son, J., Effective Risk Positioning through Automated Identification of Missing Contract Conditions from the Contractor’s Perspective Based on FIDIC Contract Cases, Journal of Management in Engineering 36, 05020003 2020.
33. Shi, L., He, Y., Onishi, M., and Kobayashi, K., Double Moral Hazard and Risk-Sharing in Construction Projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1, 1–11 2019.
34. Zeng, W., Wang, H., Li, H., Zhou, H., Wu, P., and Le, Y., Incentive Mechanisms for Supplier Development in Mega Construction Projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 66, 252–265 2019.
35. Ameer Ali, N. A. N. and Wilkinson, S., Modernising Construction Contracts Drafting – A Plea for Good Sense, 2010.
36. Chong, H. Y. and Oon, C. K., A practical approach in clarifying legal drafting: Delphi and case study in Malaysia, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 23, 610–621 2016.
37. Menches, C. L. and Dorn, L., Emotional Reactions to Variations in Contract Language, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 5, 97–105 2013.
38. Cutts, M., Oxford Guide to Plain English. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
39. Chong, H. Y., Balamuralithara, B., and Chong, S. C., Construction contract administration in Malaysia using DFD: A conceptual model, Industrial Management and Data Systems 111, 1449–1464 2011.
40. Clough, R. H., Sears, G. A., and Sears, S. K., Construction project management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
41. Ameer Ali, N. A. N., Modern Plain English Drafting and Construction: the Malaysian Subcontract Model Terms, Society of Construction Law D90, 1–67 2008.
42. Candlin, C. N., Bhatia, V. K., and Jensen, C. H., Developing legal writing materials for English second language learners: Problems and perspectives, English for Specific Purposes 21, 299–320 2002.
43. Argyres, N. and Mayer, K. J., Contract Design as a Firm Capability: An Integration of Learning and Transaction Cost Perspectives, The Academy of Management Review 32, 1060–1077 2007.
44. Azghandi-Roshnavand, A., Evaluation of construction contract documents to be applied in modular construction focusing ambiguities; A text processing approach, Concordia University, 2019.
45. Kumaraswamy, M. M., Consequences of Construction Conflict: A Hong Kong Perspective, Journal of Management in Engineering 14, 66–74 1998.
46. Acharya, N. K., Dai Lee, Y., and Man im, H., Conflicting factors in construction projects: Korean perspective, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13, 543–566 2006.
47. El-adaway, I. H., Vance, R. A., and Abotaleb, I. S., Understanding Extension of Time under Different Standard Design-Build Forms of Contract, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 12, 04519031 2020.
48. Costa, F., Denis Granja, A., Fregola, A., Picchi, F., and Portioli Staudacher, A., Understanding Relative Importance of Barriers to Improving the Customer-Supplier Relationship within Construction Supply Chains Using DEMATEL Technique, Journal of Management in Engineering 35, 04019002 2019.
49. Liu, H. and Long, H., Identification of critical factors in construction and demolition waste recycling by the grey-DEMATEL approach: a Chinese perspective, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27, 8507–8525 2020.
50. Negash, Y. T. and Hassan, A. M., Construction Project Success under Uncertainty: Interrelations among the External Environment, Intellectual Capital, and Project Attributes, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146, 1–13 2020.
51. Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., and Hosseini, M. R., Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in the construction industry: A qualitative study, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 23, 134–157 2016.
52. Zhang, X., Zhang, W., Jiang, L., and Zhao, T., Identification of Critical Causes of Tower-Crane Accidents through System Thinking and Case Analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146, 04020071 2020.
53. Nasirzadeh, F., Rostamnezhad, M., Carmichael, D. G., Khosravi, A., and Aisbett, B., Labour productivity in Australian building construction projects: a roadmap for improvement, International Journal of Construction Management 1, 1–10 2020.
54. Zhou, S., Sun, J., Li, K., and Yang, X., Development of a Root Cause Degree Procedure for measuring intersection safety factors, Safety Science 51, 257–266 2013.
55. Kumar, A. and Dixit, G., An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-waste management practices in India: A novel ISM-DEMATEL approach, Sustainable Production and Consumption 14, 36–52 2018.
56. Wang, D., Wang, X., Liu, M., Liu, H., and Liu, B., Managing public – private partnerships: a transmission pattern of underlying dynamics determining project performance, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2020.
57. Chen, C.-A., Using DEMATEL method for medical tourism development in Taiwan, American journal of tourism research 1, 26–32 2012.
58. Lin, C. L. and Tzeng, G. H., A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications 36, 9683–9697 2009.
59. Ghoddousi, P., Nasirzadeh, F., and Hashemi, H., Evaluating Highway Construction Projects’ Sustainability Using a Multicriteria Group Decision-Making Model Based on Bootstrap Simulation, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144, 2018.
60. Charkhakan, M. H. and Heravi, G., Risk Manageability Assessment to Improve Risk Response Plan: Case Study of Construction Projects in Iran, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144, 2018.
61. Hasan, A., Elmualim, A., Rameezdeen, R., and Marshall, A., An exploratory study on the impact of mobile ICT on productivity in construction projects, Built Environment Project and Asset Management 8, 320–332 2018.
62. Chang, B., Chang, C. W., and Wu, C. H., Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria, Expert Systems with Applications 38, 1850–1858 2011.
63. Li, C. W. and Tzeng, G. H., Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall, Expert Systems with Applications 36, 9891–9898 2009.
64. Alzahrani, A. I., Al-Samarraie, H., Eldenfria, A., and Alalwan, N., A DEMATEL method in identifying design requirements for mobile environments: students’ perspectives, Journal of Computing in Higher Education 30, 466–488 2018.
65. Lee, P. T. W. and Lin, C. W., The cognition map of financial ratios of shipping companies using DEMATEL and MMDE, Maritime Policy and Management 40, 133–145 2013.
66. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., and Li, C. W., Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications 32, 1028–1044 2007.
67. Barton, T., Berger-walliser, G., and Haapio, H., Visualization: Seeing Contracts for What They Are, and What They Could Become, Journal of Law, Business & Ethics 19, 47–64 2013.
68. Siegel, A. I., Lambert, J. V, and Burkett, J. R., Techniques for Making Written Material More Readable/Comprehensible, Texas, 1974.
69. Yildizel, S. A., Dogan, E., Kaplan, G., and Ergut, A., Major Constructional Dispute Causes in Turkey, Archives of Civil Engineering 62, 193–204 2016.
70. Jagannathan, M., Santosh, V., and Delhi, K., Litigation in Construction Contracts: Literature Review, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 12, 03119001 2020.
71. Coyle, J. F., The Butterfly Effect in Boilerplate Contract Interpretation, Law and Contempopary Problems 82, 1–13 2019.
72. Singh, R. and Bhanot, N., An integrated DEMATEL-MMDE-ISM based approach for analysing the barriers of IoT implementation in the manufacturing industry, International Journal of Production Research 58, 2454–2476 2020.
73. Rameezdeen, R. and Rodrigo, A., Textual complexity of standard conditions used in the construction industry, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 13, 1–12 2013.