Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJohn W. Hinchey
dc.contributor.authorJeffrey H. Perry
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:20:54Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:20:54Z
dc.date.copyrightApril 2008
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.other%28asce%291052-3928%282008%29134%3A2%28231%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47923
dc.description.abstractFor over 2 decades, and in response to complaints that arbitration was too expensive and too time consuming, the American construction bar has been energetic and innovative in developing a broad array of dispute resolution tools for resolving construction disputes. These “tools” have included “partnering,” mandatory negotiations, interim decision making by design professionals, mediation, standing neutrals and dispute resolution boards, minitrials, early neutral evaluation, and expert determinations, all developed as alternatives to arbitration and litigation. More recently, in 2006, a voluntary “fast track” process for resolving construction disputes within
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titlePerspective from the United States: Tensions between “Getting It Done” and “Getting It Right”
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume134
dc.journal.issue2
dc.journal.titleJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2008)134:2(231)
dc.treeJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2008:;Volume ( 134 ):;issue: 002
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record