Abstract
Construction disputes represent a persistent and costly phenomenon within the global built environment sector, despite widespread adoption of organisational “lessons learned” policies. This dissertation investigates why similar dispute causes recur across projects and organisations, despite ostensible knowledge capture mechanisms. Employing a literature synthesis methodology, this study analyses peer-reviewed research to identify the systemic factors perpetuating dispute recurrence. The findings reveal four interconnected explanatory mechanisms: the predominant focus on symptomatic rather than root causes; the tacit nature of experiential knowledge and its poor reuse across organisations; structural and contractual incentives that prioritise speed and cost over risk mitigation; and the fragmented, project-based culture of the construction industry that inhibits cross-project learning. The analysis demonstrates that lessons learned initiatives typically capture discrete events rather than addressing the underlying competencies, incentive structures, and organisational cultures that generate disputes. This dissertation concludes that meaningful reduction in dispute recurrence requires fundamental shifts towards competence development, proactive pre-contract prevention strategies, and systematic organisational approaches to knowledge management. The implications extend to policy-makers, industry practitioners, and academic researchers seeking to understand and address this persistent industry challenge.
Introduction
The construction industry occupies a position of fundamental importance within national and global economies, contributing significantly to gross domestic product, employment, and infrastructure development. However, the sector remains characterised by an endemic propensity for disputes, which consume substantial resources, damage professional relationships, and frequently result in project delays and cost overruns. Despite decades of research attention and the widespread implementation of lessons learned policies across construction organisations, remarkably similar dispute causes continue to manifest across successive projects, jurisdictions, and time periods.
The concept of organisational learning, whereby entities capture, codify, and apply knowledge from past experiences to improve future performance, has been extensively promoted within construction management literature and practice. Lessons learned systems, post-project reviews, and knowledge management databases have become standard features of project governance frameworks within major construction organisations. Yet the empirical evidence suggests that these mechanisms have failed to achieve their intended purpose of preventing dispute recurrence.
This phenomenon presents a significant paradox worthy of academic investigation. If organisations are genuinely capturing lessons from disputed projects, why do the same fundamental causes—design errors, payment disputes, scope changes, and contractual ambiguities—continue to feature prominently in construction conflicts? The persistence of this pattern suggests that current approaches to organisational learning within the construction context may be fundamentally flawed in their conception, implementation, or both.
The academic significance of this inquiry extends beyond the immediate practical concerns of the construction industry. Understanding why knowledge capture mechanisms fail to translate into behavioural and systemic change has implications for organisational learning theory more broadly. The construction sector, with its project-based organisational structures, multi-party contractual relationships, and complex technical-commercial interfaces, provides a particularly instructive context for examining the limitations of conventional knowledge management approaches.
From a practical perspective, the financial implications of construction disputes are substantial. Legal costs, arbitration fees, management time, and project disruption collectively represent billions of pounds in annual expenditure globally. The adversarial relationships that disputes engender also compromise the collaborative working essential for successful project delivery. Understanding why disputes recur despite lessons learned efforts therefore has significant practical value for industry practitioners, policy-makers, and clients who commission construction works.
This dissertation addresses this research gap by synthesising contemporary literature to identify the systemic factors that perpetuate dispute recurrence. The analysis moves beyond cataloguing immediate dispute causes to examine the deeper mechanisms that generate them, thereby contributing to both theoretical understanding and practical intervention strategies.
Aim and objectives
Aim
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine why construction disputes continue to repeat similar root causes despite the widespread implementation of lessons learned policies within construction organisations.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives have been established:
1. To identify and categorise the proximate causes of construction disputes as documented in contemporary academic literature.
2. To analyse the deeper systemic mechanisms that generate and perpetuate dispute recurrence beyond immediate causal factors.
3. To evaluate the limitations of current lessons learned practices in addressing root causes of construction disputes.
4. To examine the relationship between organisational structures, contractual arrangements, and dispute recurrence patterns.
5. To propose evidence-based recommendations for more effective approaches to dispute prevention that address underlying systemic factors.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology to address the stated research aim and objectives. Literature synthesis represents an established approach within construction management research, enabling the systematic integration of findings from multiple primary studies to develop comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena.
The methodological approach involved the systematic identification, selection, and critical analysis of peer-reviewed academic sources addressing construction dispute causation, lessons learned practices, and organisational knowledge management within the construction sector. Sources were identified through structured searches of academic databases, with selection criteria emphasising currency, methodological rigour, and relevance to the research questions.
The synthesis process involved extracting key findings from identified sources and categorising these according to emerging thematic patterns. This inductive approach enabled the identification of explanatory mechanisms that transcend the findings of individual studies. The analysis particularly focused on distinguishing between proximate dispute causes and underlying systemic factors, thereby addressing the central research question concerning dispute recurrence.
Critical evaluation of sources considered methodological limitations, contextual factors affecting generalisability, and potential biases in research design or interpretation. The synthesis sought to identify areas of convergence across studies from different jurisdictions and project types, thereby strengthening the validity of conclusions.
This methodological approach is appropriate for the research questions posed, as understanding dispute recurrence requires integrating insights from diverse empirical contexts and theoretical perspectives. While primary data collection might provide depth in specific contexts, the synthesis approach enables broader pattern identification essential for addressing systemic explanations.
Literature review
Proximate causes of construction disputes
The construction management literature contains extensive documentation of immediate dispute causes across diverse geographical and project contexts. Research consistently identifies categories including delays, variations, design errors, poor documentation, and late payments as prominent triggers for formal disputes (El-Sayegh et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023; Matarneh, 2024; Silva, Domingo and Ali, 2023; Malkanthi and Buraitha, 2023).
Comparative analysis across jurisdictions reveals remarkable consistency in these proximate causes. Wang et al. (2023) conducted cross-regional comparative research between China and the United Kingdom, identifying common critical dispute causes despite significant differences in legal frameworks, cultural contexts, and industry structures. This cross-jurisdictional pattern suggests that underlying factors transcend local circumstances.
El-Sayegh et al. (2020) examined dispute causes and resolution methods within the United Arab Emirates context, finding that design changes, delayed payments, and unclear contract terms featured prominently. Similar findings emerged from Matarneh’s (2024) case study research in developing country contexts, where construction disputes were attributed to contractual ambiguities, scope variations, and financial difficulties.
Silva, Domingo and Ali (2023) conducted a systematic literature review of dispute causes, synthesising findings across multiple primary studies. Their analysis confirmed the recurrence of similar causal categories across time periods and contexts, implicitly raising questions about why such well-documented causes continue to generate disputes despite industry awareness.
The focus on symptoms rather than root mechanisms
A significant limitation of dispute cause research lies in its predominant focus on immediate, observable triggers rather than the deeper mechanisms generating them. Many studies catalogue symptomatic causes without examining why organisations repeatedly create conditions conducive to such disputes.
Kyalisiima et al. (2024) provided important empirical evidence on this distinction through causal analysis of a megaproject. Their research identified limited stakeholder competence in contracts, procurement, administration, and governance as a core root cause behind repeated disputes. This finding suggests that superficial lessons—such as “avoid design errors”—fail to address the underlying competence deficits that generate design errors across successive projects.
The distinction between symptoms and root causes has significant implications for intervention strategies. If lessons learned capture only that a design error caused a dispute, without addressing why design processes produced errors, organisations have no basis for preventing similar errors on future projects. The documented recurrence of design-related disputes across the industry suggests that symptom-focused learning predominates in practice.
Liyanawatta, Francis and Ranadewa (2023) emphasised the importance of pre-contract planning as a dispute avoidance mechanism, implicitly recognising that many dispute causes originate in early project phases where fundamental decisions about design, procurement, and risk allocation occur. Their framework approach highlights how rushed design processes and limited early contractor involvement create conditions for later disputes.
Tacit knowledge and poor knowledge reuse
Construction projects generate substantial experiential knowledge among participants, yet this knowledge frequently remains tacit and inaccessible to the wider organisation or industry. Lee, Ham and Yi (2021) examined this phenomenon through analysis of UK adjudication case law, employing text mining techniques to identify patterns in contractual disputes.
Their research revealed recurrent patterns of similar disputes over extended time periods, indicating that available legal and contractual knowledge was not being systematically embedded into industry practice. This finding is particularly striking given that adjudication decisions are publicly available, meaning that knowledge of common dispute patterns exists within the public domain yet fails to influence behaviour.
The tacit nature of experiential knowledge presents particular challenges within construction contexts. Project teams typically disperse upon completion, taking their accumulated understanding of what generated problems and how they were resolved. Without systematic mechanisms for capturing and transferring this knowledge, each new project begins with limited benefit from predecessor experiences.
Organisational structures within construction exacerbate knowledge transfer difficulties. Many construction workers operate across multiple employers throughout their careers, and project-based organisations rarely maintain stable teams across successive projects. Knowledge that might accumulate within individuals fails to translate into organisational capability.
Structural and contractual incentives
The persistence of dispute-prone practices despite lessons learned efforts reflects, in part, structural incentives that prioritise competing objectives. Commercial pressures for rapid project delivery and competitive pricing frequently override considerations of dispute risk in procurement and contract design decisions.
Matarneh (2024) identified poor contractual arrangements, unclear risk allocation, ambiguous clauses, and incomplete documents as persistent dispute drivers. Arar, Papineau and Poirier (2023) reached similar conclusions through empirical evaluation of causes leading to binding dispute resolution in Quebec’s construction industry. Silva, Domingo and Ali (2023) and Amoah and Nkosazana (2022) further documented how contractual deficiencies generate disputes.
These findings suggest that organisations continue reproducing risky contract structures despite documented lessons about their dispute potential. The explanation likely lies in incentive structures: procurement decisions emphasise immediate cost and speed considerations, whilst dispute costs manifest later and may affect different organisational units or individuals than those making procurement decisions.
Malkanthi and Buraitha (2023) examined regulatory frameworks for dispute minimisation, finding inadequacies in governance structures intended to prevent contractual disputes. Their research highlights how systemic factors beyond individual organisational control contribute to dispute patterns.
Payment-related disputes illustrate the incentive dimension clearly. Shash and Habash (2020) documented divergent perspectives between owners and contractors regarding payment dispute causes and remedies. Alrasheed, Soliman and AlMesbah (2023) analysed litigation cases involving payment disputes, revealing chronic patterns in financing practices and cash-flow management.
Despite widespread recognition that late payment causes disputes, construction industry payment practices remain problematic. This persistence reflects entrenched commercial practices and cash-flow management norms that prioritise payer interests despite documented consequences. Lessons about payment disputes do not translate into changed behaviour because the underlying incentive structures remain unchanged.
Fragmented project-based culture
Construction industry organisation fundamentally differs from manufacturing or service sectors where continuous operations enable cumulative learning. The project-based nature of construction creates inherent fragmentation that inhibits knowledge transfer and perpetuates dispute-prone practices.
Sabri, Dovland and Daae (2025) analysed owner-contractor conflicts in Norwegian state building and infrastructure projects, identifying how technical, contractual, managerial, and behavioural factors interact within reinforcing feedback loops. Their systems perspective reveals how multiple dispute contributors interconnect in ways that single-factor lessons cannot address.
Wang et al. (2023) noted that multi-party causes including relationships, communication norms, and adversarial culture remain unchanged despite project-specific lesson capture. Arar, Papineau and Poirier (2023) similarly identified relational and cultural factors in dispute causation.
The project-by-project storage of lessons creates a structural barrier to learning. Knowledge about how relationship dynamics contributed to disputes on one project may be documented within that project’s records, but subsequent projects involving different party configurations begin without this contextual understanding.
Salami, Ajayi and Oyegoke (2021) examined dispute avoidance measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding that construction firms adapted contractual approaches in response to unprecedented circumstances. This adaptive capacity suggests that behavioural change is possible when circumstances compel it, raising questions about why similar adaptation does not occur in response to repeated dispute experiences.
Technological and procedural interventions
Contemporary research has examined technological and procedural approaches to dispute prevention, offering potential mechanisms for more effective knowledge capture and application.
Tantawy et al. (2025) investigated the potential of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for proactive dispute avoidance, finding that digital coordination tools could prevent disputes arising from design coordination failures and information gaps. However, BIM adoption requires significant organisational investment and cultural change, limiting its penetration particularly among smaller contractors.
Lee, Ham and Yi (2021) demonstrated the potential of text mining techniques for extracting knowledge from unstructured dispute records. Their analysis of adjudication case law revealed patterns that could inform preventive strategies if systematically applied. Similarly, Alrasheed, Soliman and AlMesbah (2023) developed dispute classification approaches based on litigation case analysis.
These technological approaches represent advances over traditional lessons learned practices by enabling systematic pattern identification across multiple dispute instances. However, technology alone cannot address the underlying competence, incentive, and cultural factors that generate disputes.
Liyanawatta, Francis and Ranadewa (2023) proposed a comprehensive framework for pre-contract planning as dispute avoidance. Their approach emphasises proactive intervention during project phases where fundamental decisions are made, rather than reactive learning from completed projects. This temporal shift—from post-project lessons to pre-contract prevention—represents a significant conceptual reorientation.
Amoah and Nkosazana (2022) examined effective management strategies for contract disputes, emphasising the importance of clear contractual documentation and competent contract administration. Their findings reinforce the competence dimension identified by Kyalisiima et al. (2024) as fundamental to dispute prevention.
Discussion
Synthesis of explanatory factors
The literature synthesis reveals four interconnected mechanisms explaining why construction disputes repeat similar root causes despite lessons learned policies. These mechanisms operate simultaneously and reinforce each other, creating a systemic pattern that isolated interventions cannot disrupt.
First, the predominant focus on symptomatic rather than root causes ensures that lessons capture what happened without adequately explaining why or how to prevent recurrence. When lessons identify “design error” as a dispute cause without addressing the competence deficits, rushed processes, or inadequate coordination mechanisms that generated the error, subsequent projects remain equally vulnerable. The research by Kyalisiima et al. (2024) on competence as a causal mechanism provides empirical support for this interpretation.
Second, the tacit nature of experiential knowledge and poor mechanisms for knowledge reuse mean that valuable insights from completed projects fail to influence future practice. The recurrent patterns identified by Lee, Ham and Yi (2021) in UK adjudication cases demonstrate that publicly available dispute knowledge does not translate into industry learning. This knowledge-practice gap reflects both the tacit character of experiential understanding and the absence of systematic knowledge management infrastructure.
Third, structural and contractual incentives frequently prioritise objectives that compete with dispute prevention. Procurement decisions emphasising speed and price over risk mitigation reproduce dispute-prone contract arrangements despite documented lessons. The persistence of payment-related disputes despite universal recognition of their causes illustrates how entrenched commercial practices resist change. Incentive alignment between lesson generation and behavioural change is conspicuously absent.
Fourth, the fragmented, project-based culture of construction inhibits the cumulative organisational learning that characterises other sectors. Knowledge remains project-specific while the multi-party relational and cultural factors that generate disputes persist across projects. The systems perspective offered by Sabri, Dovland and Daae (2025) reveals how interconnected factors create reinforcing feedback loops that project-specific lessons cannot address.
Critical evaluation of lessons learned practices
The evidence suggests that conventional lessons learned practices within construction suffer from fundamental conceptual and practical limitations. These practices typically assume that capturing information about past problems enables future prevention—an assumption that the persistent recurrence of similar disputes demonstrates to be flawed.
The conceptual limitation lies in treating lessons learned as an information problem when the actual barriers to dispute prevention involve competence, incentives, and culture. Documenting that ambiguous contract clauses caused a dispute provides little value if subsequent contracts continue to contain ambiguities due to inadequate drafting competence, time pressure during procurement, or standard form modifications made without legal review.
The practical limitations include the project-based storage of lessons that inhibits cross-project learning, the tacit nature of much relevant knowledge that resists codification, and the absence of mechanisms linking lesson capture to behavioural change. Lessons learned databases may accumulate extensive records whilst organisational practices remain unchanged.
This analysis aligns with broader organisational learning literature recognising that knowledge capture differs fundamentally from knowledge application. The construction context presents particular challenges due to industry fragmentation, project-based organisation, and multi-party relationships, but the fundamental insight—that information availability does not guarantee utilisation—has wider applicability.
Implications for intervention strategies
The findings have significant implications for how organisations and the industry might more effectively address dispute recurrence. Rather than enhanced lesson capture, the evidence points towards interventions targeting the underlying mechanisms generating disputes.
Competence development emerges as a priority from the research by Kyalisiima et al. (2024) and supporting literature. Building organisational and individual capability in contracts, procurement, administration, and governance addresses root causes rather than symptoms. This requires sustained investment in professional development and recognition that competence deficits represent a fundamental dispute driver.
The temporal focus of intervention requires reorientation from post-project lessons to pre-contract prevention. The framework proposed by Liyanawatta, Francis and Ranadewa (2023) exemplifies this approach, emphasising proactive planning during phases where fundamental decisions are made. Early contractor involvement, thorough design development before contract, and careful risk allocation represent preventive interventions superior to post-hoc lesson capture.
Technological approaches including BIM for coordination and text mining for pattern identification offer mechanisms for systematic knowledge management that transcend traditional lessons learned limitations (Tantawy et al., 2025; Lee, Ham and Yi, 2021; Alrasheed, Soliman and AlMesbah, 2023). However, technology must be embedded within organisational systems that apply insights to practice.
Perhaps most challenging, addressing incentive structures requires recognising that current procurement and commercial practices systematically generate disputes. Without realigning incentives—so that those making procurement decisions face consequences of dispute-prone choices—behavioural change remains unlikely regardless of lessons captured.
Relationship between proximate and systemic causes
The analysis reveals a consistent pattern whereby frequently cited proximate dispute causes connect to deeper systemic issues that lessons learned practices typically leave unchanged. This pattern is illustrated in Table 1.
**Table 1: Relationship between proximate causes and unchanged systemic factors**
| Proximate cause | Underlying systemic issue |
|—————–|—————————|
| Design errors and scope changes | Weak early-stage planning, rushed design processes, limited early contractor involvement |
| Payment delay disputes | Chronic financing practices, industry cash-flow norms, contractual risk transfer culture |
| Ambiguous contract interpretation | Ad hoc modification of standard forms, low contract literacy, inadequate drafting controls |
This pattern demonstrates why symptom-focused lessons fail to prevent recurrence. Addressing design errors requires systemic changes to how projects are planned and procured; addressing payment disputes requires changes to industry financing practices and contractual norms; addressing contractual ambiguity requires improved competence and quality controls in contract preparation.
Limitations and considerations
Several limitations warrant acknowledgement. The literature synthesis methodology enables broad pattern identification but cannot provide the contextual depth that primary research within specific organisational settings might achieve. The sources synthesised predominantly employ qualitative and case study approaches, with limited quantitative analysis of dispute recurrence rates over time.
Geographical concentration of research in particular regions—notably the Middle East, United Kingdom, and Asian contexts—may limit generalisability, although the cross-jurisdictional consistency of findings suggests underlying patterns transcend local factors. Industry sub-sector variation receives limited attention in the synthesised literature, leaving open questions about whether dispute patterns differ between building, infrastructure, and specialist construction.
The analysis necessarily relies on published research, which may not fully represent industry practice or the perspectives of parties who prefer not to publicise dispute experiences. Commercial sensitivities surrounding dispute information may bias available evidence towards publicly resolved matters.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined why construction disputes continue to repeat similar root causes despite widespread implementation of lessons learned policies. The literature synthesis methodology has enabled identification of four interconnected explanatory mechanisms that together account for the persistent recurrence of dispute patterns.
**Objective 1** sought to identify and categorise proximate dispute causes. The literature consistently documents design errors, scope changes, payment delays, contractual ambiguities, and documentation deficiencies as prominent immediate causes across diverse jurisdictions and project types.
**Objective 2** aimed to analyse deeper systemic mechanisms. The research reveals that these proximate causes connect to underlying factors including competence deficits, tacit knowledge that resists codification, structural incentives prioritising competing objectives, and fragmented industry culture inhibiting cumulative learning.
**Objective 3** required evaluation of lessons learned limitations. The evidence demonstrates that conventional lessons learned practices capture events rather than the underlying competencies, incentives, and structures generating disputes. Information capture fundamentally differs from the competence development and behavioural change required for prevention.
**Objective 4** examined relationships between organisational structures, contracts, and dispute recurrence. The project-based organisation of construction, combined with multi-party contractual relationships and commercial incentive structures, creates systematic barriers to cross-project learning and perpetuates dispute-prone practices.
**Objective 5** sought evidence-based recommendations. The literature points towards competence development in contracts and governance, temporal reorientation from post-project lessons to pre-contract prevention, systematic organisational approaches to knowledge management, and fundamental reconsideration of procurement incentives.
The central conclusion is that construction disputes repeat because lessons learned capture symptoms rather than root causes. Without addressing the underlying competencies, incentive structures, and organisational cultures that generate disputes, the same root causes predictably reproduce similar disputes on successive projects.
This finding has significance for construction industry practice, suggesting that investment in enhanced lessons learned systems will likely yield limited returns without accompanying attention to competence development, procurement reform, and cultural change. For academic research, the analysis highlights the need for intervention studies examining whether addressing systemic factors reduces dispute recurrence.
Future research might productively examine organisations that have achieved measurable reductions in dispute rates, identifying the mechanisms through which systemic change was accomplished. Longitudinal studies tracking dispute patterns within organisations implementing different intervention approaches would provide valuable evidence on effectiveness. Cross-industry comparison with sectors that have achieved more effective organisational learning might identify transferable practices.
The persistence of construction disputes despite lessons learned efforts represents both an industry challenge and an opportunity for meaningful improvement. The research synthesised here provides a foundation for more sophisticated understanding of dispute causation and more effective strategies for prevention.
References
Alrasheed, K., Soliman, E. and AlMesbah, F. (2023) ‘Dispute classification in construction projects based on litigation cases’, *Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction*, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/jladah.ladr-910
Amoah, C. and Nkosazana, H. (2022) ‘Effective management strategies for construction contract disputes’, *International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation*, 41(3), pp. 638–656. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-01-2022-0004
Arar, A., Papineau, C. and Poirier, E. (2023) ‘An empirical evaluation of the causes leading to binding dispute resolution mechanisms in the Quebec construction industry’, *International Journal of Construction Management*, 24(7), pp. 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2022.2159632
El-Sayegh, S., Ahmad, I., Aljanabi, M., Herzallah, R., Metry, S. and El-Ashwal, O. (2020) ‘Construction disputes in the UAE: causes and resolution methods’, *Buildings*, 10(10), 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10100171
Kyalisiima, C., Tutesigensi, A., Kayondo, M. and Mutikanga, H. (2024) ‘Competence as a key factor in causal mechanisms of construction disputes’, *Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction*, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/jladah.ladr-1191
Lee, J., Ham, Y. and Yi, J. (2021) ‘Construction disputes and associated contractual knowledge discovery using unstructured text-heavy data: legal cases in the United Kingdom’, *Sustainability*, 13(17), 9403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179403
Liyanawatta, T., Francis, M. and Ranadewa, K. (2023) ‘Avoiding construction disputes: a comprehensive framework for pre-contract planning’, *International Journal of Construction Management*, 24(12), pp. 1282–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2023.2276652
Malkanthi, S. and Buraitha, A. (2023) ‘Adequacy of regulatory framework to minimize disputes in construction projects’, *Journal of the University of Ruhuna*, 11(1), pp. 34–48. https://doi.org/10.4038/jur.v11i1.8000
Matarneh, S. (2024) ‘Construction disputes causes and resolution methods: a case study from a developing country’, *Journal of Construction in Developing Countries*, 29(1), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc-04-23-0043
Sabri, O., Dovland, M. and Daae, F. (2025) ‘Understanding owner–contractor conflicts in state building and infrastructure projects: a case study of Norway’, *Buildings*, 15(7), 1135. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071135
Salami, B., Ajayi, S. and Oyegoke, A. (2021) ‘Tackling the impacts of Covid-19 on construction projects: an exploration of contractual dispute avoidance measures adopted by construction firms’, *International Journal of Construction Management*, 23(7), pp. 1196–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1963561
Shash, A. and Habash, S. (2020) ‘Disputes in construction industry: owners and contractors’ views on causes and remedies’, *Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management*, 11(1), pp. 37–51. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2021-0005
Silva, P., Domingo, N. and Ali, N. (2023) ‘Causes of disputes in the construction industry – a systematic literature review’, *Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction*, 29(1), pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmpc-03-2023-0012
Tantawy, M., Kosbar, M., Nour, S., Mansour, N. and Ehab, A. (2025) ‘Leveraging BIM for proactive dispute avoidance in construction projects’, *Buildings*, 15(9), 1401. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15091401
Wang, J., Zhang, S., Jin, R., Fenn, P., Yu, D. and Zhao, L. (2023) ‘Identifying critical dispute causes in the construction industry: a cross-regional comparative study between China and the UK’, *Journal of Management in Engineering*, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/jmenea.meeng-4943
