The Experts below are selected from a list of 48387 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Henry C H Suen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Disputes and Dispute Resolution systems in sino foreign joint venture construction projects in china
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 2005Co-Authors: Edwin H W Chan, Henry C H SuenAbstract:There has been a sharp increase in the number of Sino-Foreign Joint Venture (SFJV) construction projects in the People’s Republic of China since the 1990s. Despite the Chinese Government’s new measures for boosting foreign involvements, entering into the construction market remains problematic for many foreign contractors. One of the problems concerns construction Disputes. In light of this, this paper reports a study on Disputes and Dispute Resolution systems in SFJVs. A questionnaire survey of 41 practitioners in the field was carried out. The main purpose was to identify the most common sources of Disputes and the most commonly used Dispute Resolution methods in SFJVs. Results show that the sources of construction Disputes can be classified into three categories: contractual, cultural, and legal matters. The most commonly used Dispute Resolution methods are mediation and arbitration. These findings will give both Chinese and foreign contractors invaluable insights into Disputes and Dispute Resolution s...
-
a multi attribute utility model for Dispute Resolution strategy selection
Construction Management and Economics, 2002Co-Authors: Sai On Cheung, Henry C H SuenAbstract:Disputes are inevitable in construction projects. Skills in Dispute Resolution should be part of the toolkit of any practitioner in a managerial position. Dispute Resolution procedures such as litigation, arbitration, mediation, Dispute adviser and negotiation are widely practised. However, frequently the question is how to systematically determine which Dispute Resolution strategy to adopt given the nature of Disputes. Even though the topic of Dispute Resolution has been widely discussed and heavily researched, few studies have been conducted with respect to this question. A decision-making model has been developed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT). The model comprises four parts: selection criteria, Dispute Resolution strategies, collection of utility factors and selection criteria weightings. These were developed from empirical data collected through an interview survey with selected experts in the field. The model is designed to identify in a systematic manner an appropriate Dispute Resolution strategy for a given Dispute, rather than relying on subjective decisions. The model is tested using a hypothetical scenario in which three case studies are evaluated.
-
a multi attribute utility model for Dispute Resolution strategy selection
Construction Management and Economics, 2002Co-Authors: Sai On Cheung, Henry C H SuenAbstract:Disputes are inevitable in construction projects. Skills in Dispute Resolution should be part of the toolkit of any practitioner in a managerial position. Dispute Resolution procedures such as litigation, arbitration, mediation, Dispute adviser and negotiation are widely practised. However, frequently the question is how to systematically determine which Dispute Resolution strategy to adopt given the nature of Disputes. Even though the topic of Dispute Resolution has been widely discussed and heavily researched, few studies have been conducted with respect to this question. A decision-making model has been developed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT). The model comprises four parts: selection criteria, Dispute Resolution strategies, collection of utility factors and selection criteria weightings. These were developed from empirical data collected through an interview survey with selected experts in the field. The model is designed to identify in a sys...
-
fundamentals of alternative Dispute Resolution processes in construction
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-asce, 2002Co-Authors: Sai On Cheung, Henry C H SuenAbstract:With the surge of increasingly complex and fast-track construction projects, Disputes are inevitable. Skills in Dispute Resolution should be part of the tool kit of any practitioner in a managerial position. The perceived shortcomings of litigation and arbitration, with their concomitant rise in costs, delays, and adversarial relationships, have encouraged the rapid growth of alternative Dispute-Resolution processes, namely, conciliation, mediation, adjudication, and other hybrid processes that have been widely used and well received by the Hong Kong construction industry. For example, mediation is now an integral part of most conditions of contracts published by the government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. However, the last decade evidenced the incorporation of increasingly complex Dispute-Resolution clauses in construction contracts, typically involving several alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques and arbitration arranged in sequential tiers. These Dispute-Resolution procedures render the supposedly more economic and speedy ADR process ineffective. In this study, a hierarchical model is developed to organize attributes of ADR processes. This presentation fits with the use of analytical hierarchy process methodology by a panel of experts to prioritize ADR process attributes. The top-ranked attributes identified as critical include, among others, preservation of relationships, enforceability, neutrality, and consensus. The experts also suggested means to establish these attributes. By focusing on these critical attributes, the Dispute-Resolution process can be kept simple and effective.
Carrie Menkelmeadow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mediation arbitration and alternative Dispute Resolution adr
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015Co-Authors: Carrie MenkelmeadowAbstract:This entry for the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. defines and describes modern processes of Dispute Resolution beyond court adjudication, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration and a variety of new hybrid forms of Dispute Resolution (e.g. med-arb, summary jury trial, public policy consensus building) that are sued in both public and private Disputes. The article reviews the history and theory behind these processes, outlining quantitative and qualitative reasons for their use and then reviews a variety of controversies association with their use, including the privatization of Dispute Resolution, difficulty in evaluating their effectiveness and power imbalances in their use. The aspirational qualities of process pluralism are contrasted to the realities of their use and cooptation in some contexts, such as when powerful private and public parties dictate the form that Dispute Resolution takes, without party consent.
-
regulating Dispute Resolution adr and access to justice at the crossroads
2013Co-Authors: Felix Steffek, Hannes Unberath, Hazel G. Genn, Reinhard Greger, Carrie MenkelmeadowAbstract:Part 1: Fundamental Issues 1 Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution (GRDR): Principles Felix Steffek and Hannes Unberath (coordinators), Lin Adrian, Aldo De Matteis, Giuseppe De Palo, Frederique Ferrand, Reinhard Greger, Jana Hartling, Ulrike Janzen, Shusuke Kakiuchi, Lars Kirchhoff , Peter G Mayr, Isaak Meier, Kristin Nemeth, Machteld Pel, Anneken K Sperr and Ivan Verougstraete 2 Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution (GRDR): Principles and Comments Felix Steff ek and Hannes Unberath (coordinators), Lin Adrian, Aldo De Matteis, Giuseppe De Palo, Frederique Ferrand, Reinhard Greger, Jana Hartling, Ulrike Janzen, Shusuke Kakiuchi, Lars Kirchhoff , Peter G Mayr, Isaak Meier, Kristin Nemeth, Machteld Pel, Anneken K Sperr and Ivan Verougstraete 3 Principled Regulation of Dispute Resolution: Taxonomy, Policy, Topics Felix Steffek Part 2: Regulation of Dispute Resolution 4 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Austria: A Traditional Litigation Culture Slowly Embraces ADR Peter G Mayr and Kristin Nemeth 5 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Belgium: Workable Solutions? Ivan Verougstraete 6 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Denmark: Mediation, Arbitration, Boards and Tribunals Lin Adrian 7 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in England and Wales: A Sceptical Analysis of Government and Judicial Promotion of Private Mediation Hazel Genn, Shiva Riahi and Katherine Pleming 8 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in France: Evolutions and Challenges Frederique Ferrand 9 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Germany: Cautious Steps towards the Construction of an ADR System Burkhard Hess and Nils Pelzer 10 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Italy: The Bumps in the Road to Successful ADR Giuseppe De Palo and Ashley E Oleson 11 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Japan: Alternative Dispute Resolution and its Background Shusuke Kakiuchi 12 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in the Netherlands: Does Regulation Support or Hinder the Use of ADR? Machteld Pel 13 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Norway: Vertical and Horizontal Regulatory Strategies Anneken Kari Sperr 14 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Switzerland: Mediation, Conciliation and Other Forms of ADR in Switzerland Isaak Meier in cooperation with Miguel Sogo, Sotirios Kotronis, Sarah Scheiwiller, David Siegwart, Claudia Wyss, Dheden Zotsang and Carlo Hamburger 15 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in the United States of America: From the Formal to the Informal to the 'Semi-formal' Carrie Menkel-Meadow
-
regulating Dispute Resolution adr and access to justice at the crossroads
2013Co-Authors: Felix Steffek, Hannes Unberath, Hazel G. Genn, Reinhard Greger, Carrie MenkelmeadowAbstract:Part 1: Fundamental Issues 1 Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution (GRDR): Principles Felix Steffek and Hannes Unberath (coordinators), Lin Adrian, Aldo De Matteis, Giuseppe De Palo, Frederique Ferrand, Reinhard Greger, Jana Hartling, Ulrike Janzen, Shusuke Kakiuchi, Lars Kirchhoff , Peter G Mayr, Isaak Meier, Kristin Nemeth, Machteld Pel, Anneken K Sperr and Ivan Verougstraete 2 Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution (GRDR): Principles and Comments Felix Steff ek and Hannes Unberath (coordinators), Lin Adrian, Aldo De Matteis, Giuseppe De Palo, Frederique Ferrand, Reinhard Greger, Jana Hartling, Ulrike Janzen, Shusuke Kakiuchi, Lars Kirchhoff , Peter G Mayr, Isaak Meier, Kristin Nemeth, Machteld Pel, Anneken K Sperr and Ivan Verougstraete 3 Principled Regulation of Dispute Resolution: Taxonomy, Policy, Topics Felix Steffek Part 2: Regulation of Dispute Resolution 4 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Austria: A Traditional Litigation Culture Slowly Embraces ADR Peter G Mayr and Kristin Nemeth 5 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Belgium: Workable Solutions? Ivan Verougstraete 6 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Denmark: Mediation, Arbitration, Boards and Tribunals Lin Adrian 7 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in England and Wales: A Sceptical Analysis of Government and Judicial Promotion of Private Mediation Hazel Genn, Shiva Riahi and Katherine Pleming 8 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in France: Evolutions and Challenges Frederique Ferrand 9 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Germany: Cautious Steps towards the Construction of an ADR System Burkhard Hess and Nils Pelzer 10 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Italy: The Bumps in the Road to Successful ADR Giuseppe De Palo and Ashley E Oleson 11 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Japan: Alternative Dispute Resolution and its Background Shusuke Kakiuchi 12 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in the Netherlands: Does Regulation Support or Hinder the Use of ADR? Machteld Pel 13 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Norway: Vertical and Horizontal Regulatory Strategies Anneken Kari Sperr 14 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Switzerland: Mediation, Conciliation and Other Forms of ADR in Switzerland Isaak Meier in cooperation with Miguel Sogo, Sotirios Kotronis, Sarah Scheiwiller, David Siegwart, Claudia Wyss, Dheden Zotsang and Carlo Hamburger 15 Regulation of Dispute Resolution in the United States of America: From the Formal to the Informal to the 'Semi-formal' Carrie Menkel-Meadow
-
women in Dispute Resolution parties lawyers and Dispute resolvers what difference does gender difference make
Dispute Resolution Magazine, 2012Co-Authors: Carrie MenkelmeadowAbstract:For a symposium on Women In ADR, this article reviews the existing and controversial literature on whether gender difference makes a difference in Dispute Resolution. In addition to focusing on the more conventional literature on whether women negotiate differently from men, this article reviews the complexity of women in additional roles in Dispute Resolution, including as parties, lawyers, third party neutrals (including as judges, mediators and arbitrators), witnesses, clients and experts. Not surprisingly, the role of gender salience and performance in modern Dispute Resolution is ever more complex as context and role matter and most Dispute Resolution “events” now involve many participants in many different roles, providing greater complexity for both academic analysis and practice. The author, one of the earliest commentators on the role of gender in Dispute Resolution, reviews the early theoretical claims, including her own, and deepens our understanding of when and how gender might be salient in Dispute Resolution and when it may be only one of many factors affecting how Disputes are resolved and what people expect of Dispute Resolution processes. Ultimately, role, context and complexity of matter may structure how salient gender is in Dispute Resolution.
Alexander J S Colvin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Forthcoming, Industrial Relations IMPROVED METRICS FOR WORKPLACE Dispute Resolution PROCEDURES:
2015Co-Authors: John W Budd, Alexander J S ColvinAbstract:Many debates surround systems for resolving workplace Disputes. In the United States, traditional unionized grievance procedures, emerging nonunion Dispute Resolution systems, and the court-based system for resolving employment law Disputes have all been criticized. What is missing from these debates are rich metrics beyond speed and satisfaction for comparing and evaluating Dispute Resolutions systems. In this paper, we develop efficiency, equity, and voice as these standards. Unionized, nonunion, and employment law procedures are then qualitatively evaluated against these three metrics. We are grateful to Mike Bognanno and Hoyt Wheeler for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The design and operation of workplace Dispute Resolution systems are longstanding issues in human resources and industrial relations. But what are the metrics for evaluating workplace Dispute Resolution systems? For human resource managers to design effective Dispute Resolutions systems, for union leaders to advocate certain systems, for policymakers to promote or restrict various systems, and for researchers to know what to analyze we must identify the importan
-
improved metrics for workplace Dispute Resolution procedures efficiency equity and voice
Industrial Relations, 2008Co-Authors: John W Budd, Alexander J S ColvinAbstract:Many debates surround systems for resolving workplace Disputes. In the United States, traditional unionized grievance procedures, emerging nonunion Dispute Resolution systems, and the court-based system for resolving employment law Disputes have all been criticized. What is missing from these debates are rich metrics beyond speed and satisfaction for comparing and evaluating Dispute Resolution systems. In this paper, we develop efficiency, equity, and voice as these standards. Unionized, nonunion, and employment law procedures are then qualitatively evaluated against these three metrics.
-
institutional pressures human resource strategies and the rise of nonunion Dispute Resolution procedures
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 2003Co-Authors: Alexander J S ColvinAbstract:The author investigates factors influencing the adoption of Dispute Resolution procedures in the nonunion workplace. Various explanations are tested using data from a 1998 survey of Dispute Resolution procedures in the telecommunications industry. The results suggest that both institutional pressures and human resource strategies are factors driving the adoption of nonunion procedures. Among institutional factors, rising individual employment rights litigation and expanded court deferral to nonunion arbitration have led to increased adoption of mandatory arbitration procedures in the nonunion workplace. At the same time, an older institutional factor—union substitution by nonunion employers aimed at avoiding union organizing—continues to inspire the adoption of nonunion Dispute Resolution procedures, especially peer review. Finally, the results provide some support for a link between the use of high performance work systems and the adoption of nonunion Dispute Resolution procedures.
Colvin Alexander - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
American Workplace Dispute Resolution in the Individual Rights Era
'Informa UK Limited', 2012Co-Authors: Colvin AlexanderAbstract:This article presents a theoretical conceptualization of the rise of alternative Dispute Resolution and its impact on American employment relations in the individual rights era. The idea of an industrial relations system advanced by Dunlop is no longer a plausible general approach for understanding American employment relations given the decline of organized labor. This article examines the question of whether a new individual employment rights-based system of employment relations has replaced it. The old New Deal industrial relations system was based on three pillars: labor contracts that provided a web of rules governing the workplace; economic strikes, actual or threatened, which provided the bargaining power for unions to negotiate these contracts; and labor arbitration, which provided the workplace Dispute Resolution mechanism for enforcing these contracts. The institutions of the new individual employment rights era can be seen as based on three parallel elements: individual employment rights provide the new web of rules; litigation, actual or threatened, provides the new source of bargaining power for employees; and alternative Dispute Resolution procedures provide the new workplace-based mechanism for enforcing individual rights. However, each of these elements contains substantial limitations, which makes the institutional structures of the new individual employment rights era something different from a new Dunlopian integrated system.Colvin4_American_Workplace_Dispute_Resolution_postprint.pdf: 3237 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020
-
American Workplace Dispute Resolution in the Individual Rights Era
DigitalCommons@ILR, 2012Co-Authors: Colvin AlexanderAbstract:This article presents a theoretical conceptualization of the rise of alternative Dispute Resolution and its impact on American employment relations in the individual rights era. The idea of an industrial relations system advanced by Dunlop is no longer a plausible general approach for understanding American employment relations given the decline of organized labor. This article examines the question of whether a new individual employment rights-based system of employment relations has replaced it. The old New Deal industrial relations system was based on three pillars: labor contracts that provided a web of rules governing the workplace; economic strikes, actual or threatened, which provided the bargaining power for unions to negotiate these contracts; and labor arbitration, which provided the workplace Dispute Resolution mechanism for enforcing these contracts. The institutions of the new individual employment rights era can be seen as based on three parallel elements: individual employment rights provide the new web of rules; litigation, actual or threatened, provides the new source of bargaining power for employees; and alternative Dispute Resolution procedures provide the new workplace-based mechanism for enforcing individual rights. However, each of these elements contains substantial limitations, which makes the institutional structures of the new individual employment rights era something different from a new Dunlopian integrated system
-
Adoption and Use of Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Nonunion Workplace
DigitalCommons@ILR, 2004Co-Authors: Colvin AlexanderAbstract:[Excerpt] This paper investigates the adoption, structure, and function of Dispute Resolution procedures in the nonunion workplace. Whereas grievance procedures in unionized workplaces have been an important area of study in the field of industrial relations, research on Dispute Resolution procedures in nonunion workplaces has lagged behind. As a result, our knowledge of the development of nonunion procedures remains relatively limited. Similarly, with a few noteworthy exceptions (e.g. Lewin, 1987, 1990), our knowledge of workplace grievance activity is almost entirely based on research conducted in unionized settings. Given the major differences in the institutional contexts of union and nonunion workplaces in the United States, existing ideas about workplace Dispute Resolution developed in the unionized setting will likely require significant modification in order to understand Dispute Resolution procedures and activity in the nonunion workplace. Issues relating to Dispute Resolution in the nonunion workplace are of increasing importance to public policy given the combination of continued stagnation in levels of union representation and mounting concerns over rising levels of employment litigation in the courts. Knowing what nonunion Dispute Resolution procedures look like and how they function will help answer the question of what role these procedures may play in the future governance of the workplace
-
Institutional Pressures, Human Resource Strategies, and the Rise of Nonunion Dispute Resolution Procedures
2003Co-Authors: Colvin AlexanderAbstract:The author investigates factors influencing the adoption of Dispute Resolution procedures in the nonunion workplace. Various explanations are tested using data from a 1998 survey of Dispute Resolution procedures in the telecommunications industry. The results suggest that both institutional pressures and human resource strategies are factors driving the adoption of nonunion procedures. Among institutional factors, rising individual employment rights litigation and expanded court deferral to nonunion arbitration have led to increased adoption of mandatory arbitration procedures in the nonunion workplace. At the same time, an older institutional factor—union substitution by nonunion employers aimed at avoiding union organizing—continues to inspire the adoption of nonunion Dispute Resolution procedures, especially peer review. Finally, the results provide some support for a link between the use of high performance work systems and the adoption of nonunion Dispute Resolution procedures.Colvin21_Institutional_Pressures.pdf: 439 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020
Sai On Cheung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a multi attribute utility model for Dispute Resolution strategy selection
Construction Management and Economics, 2002Co-Authors: Sai On Cheung, Henry C H SuenAbstract:Disputes are inevitable in construction projects. Skills in Dispute Resolution should be part of the toolkit of any practitioner in a managerial position. Dispute Resolution procedures such as litigation, arbitration, mediation, Dispute adviser and negotiation are widely practised. However, frequently the question is how to systematically determine which Dispute Resolution strategy to adopt given the nature of Disputes. Even though the topic of Dispute Resolution has been widely discussed and heavily researched, few studies have been conducted with respect to this question. A decision-making model has been developed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT). The model comprises four parts: selection criteria, Dispute Resolution strategies, collection of utility factors and selection criteria weightings. These were developed from empirical data collected through an interview survey with selected experts in the field. The model is designed to identify in a sys...
-
a multi attribute utility model for Dispute Resolution strategy selection
Construction Management and Economics, 2002Co-Authors: Sai On Cheung, Henry C H SuenAbstract:Disputes are inevitable in construction projects. Skills in Dispute Resolution should be part of the toolkit of any practitioner in a managerial position. Dispute Resolution procedures such as litigation, arbitration, mediation, Dispute adviser and negotiation are widely practised. However, frequently the question is how to systematically determine which Dispute Resolution strategy to adopt given the nature of Disputes. Even though the topic of Dispute Resolution has been widely discussed and heavily researched, few studies have been conducted with respect to this question. A decision-making model has been developed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT). The model comprises four parts: selection criteria, Dispute Resolution strategies, collection of utility factors and selection criteria weightings. These were developed from empirical data collected through an interview survey with selected experts in the field. The model is designed to identify in a systematic manner an appropriate Dispute Resolution strategy for a given Dispute, rather than relying on subjective decisions. The model is tested using a hypothetical scenario in which three case studies are evaluated.
-
fundamentals of alternative Dispute Resolution processes in construction
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-asce, 2002Co-Authors: Sai On Cheung, Henry C H SuenAbstract:With the surge of increasingly complex and fast-track construction projects, Disputes are inevitable. Skills in Dispute Resolution should be part of the tool kit of any practitioner in a managerial position. The perceived shortcomings of litigation and arbitration, with their concomitant rise in costs, delays, and adversarial relationships, have encouraged the rapid growth of alternative Dispute-Resolution processes, namely, conciliation, mediation, adjudication, and other hybrid processes that have been widely used and well received by the Hong Kong construction industry. For example, mediation is now an integral part of most conditions of contracts published by the government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. However, the last decade evidenced the incorporation of increasingly complex Dispute-Resolution clauses in construction contracts, typically involving several alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques and arbitration arranged in sequential tiers. These Dispute-Resolution procedures render the supposedly more economic and speedy ADR process ineffective. In this study, a hierarchical model is developed to organize attributes of ADR processes. This presentation fits with the use of analytical hierarchy process methodology by a panel of experts to prioritize ADR process attributes. The top-ranked attributes identified as critical include, among others, preservation of relationships, enforceability, neutrality, and consensus. The experts also suggested means to establish these attributes. By focusing on these critical attributes, the Dispute-Resolution process can be kept simple and effective.
