Theoretical framework to enhance the level of achieving desired outcomes of alternative dispute resolution in the construction industry

The success or failure of dispute resolution depends largely on implementing a proper mechanism to resolve the particular dispute while having a sound understanding of the ideologies and features of each dispute resolution method. Even though the issues of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the construction industry have been addressed adequately in length, the actual scenario of ADR's success with respect to achieving its desired outcomes is less researched. This research aimed to fill this knowledge gap by enhancing the success level of using ADR in building projects in Sri Lanka with respect to the level of achieving the desired outcomes of using ADR. The research employed predominantly a qualitative research design, entailing both survey and case study strategies followed by semi-structured interviews and document reviews as the main data collection techniques. Manual content analysis and cognitive mapping were used to capture primary data findings. Parties' ability to control over proceeding is identified as the most successfully achieved desired outcome. Faster resolution, least transaction cost, preservation of relationship between the parties and the inability to ignore the decision after a time bar, are found to be the next in order. However, it was elicited that the parties rarely achieve the desired outcomes as expected, on five key reasons, namely being restricted to following the standard bidding documents, unawareness of the initial stages of ADR practices, attitudes of the parties, malpractices in the industry, and incapacity and inadequacy of professionals. Recommendations were made to enhance the level of achieving desired outcomes of using ADR while minimizing the loopholes identified in the case study findings.