Dispute resolution across platforms : offshore gambling industry & EVE online

Contemporary online environments suffer from a regulatory gap; that is there are few options for participants between customer service departments and potentially expensive court cases in foreign jurisdictions. Whatever form of regulation ultimately fills that gap will be charged with determining whether specific behavior, within a specific environment, is fair or foul; whether it’s cheating or not. However, cheating is a term that, despite substantial academic study, remains problematic. Is anything the developer doesn’t want you to do cheating? Is it only if your actions breach the formal terms of service? What about the community norms, do they matter at all? All of these remain largely unresolved questions, due to the lack of public determination of cases in such environments, which have mostly been settled prior to legal action. In this paper, I propose a re-branding of participant activity in such environments into developer-sanctioned, advantage play, and cheating. Advantage play, ultimately, is activity within the environment in which the player is able to turn the mechanics of the environment to their advantage without breaching the rules of the environment. Such a definition, and the term itself, is based on the usage of the term within the gambling industry, in which advantage play is considered betting with the advantage in the players’ favor rather than that of the house. Through examples from both the gambling industry and the Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game Eve Online, I consider the problems in defining cheating, suggest how the term ‘advantage play’ may be useful in understanding participants behavior in contemporary environments, and ultimately consider the use of such terminology in dispute resolution models which may overcome this regulatory gap.

An exploration of the extent, use and success in the application of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the UK construction industry

Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been regarded as a one stop shop capable of addressing the ills of the construction industry. Yet, while some firms have accepted BIM as a new way to work and gone on to record success, others (which have not so done) have raised such questions as: ‘How is BIM defined? Is it a tool or a process? Which kinds and sizes of organisations stand to benefit from BIM?’ These questions form the basis of this research. Hence, having explored the relevant body of literature, this research investigates three organisations within the UK – described as the earliest adopters of BIM – and considers how they have fared in terms of project performance in the years since adopting BIM; focusing on project cost, delivery time and quality achievement. This investigation also probed two of the leading voices in BIM in the UK in search of the much needed answers. The findings of the research show that successful projects executed in the organisations that have used BIM is predicated on its adoption as a process, rather than as a tool of technology; a process that changes the way work in the construction industry is typically done. Moreover, the successes recorded in the firms researched give credence to project success consequent upon adopting BIM. Nevertheless, the findings of this research show that the cornerstone of this success is leadership-driven innovation.

Blacklisting and its legacy in the UK construction industry: employment relations in the aftermath of exposure of the Consulting Association

This paper explores responses to the exposure of blacklisting in the UK construction industry in the period following the closure of the Consulting Association (CA) in 2009. It asks whether employer collusion to blacklist in this way has been terminated and concludes that it is now largely of historical interest although other forms of anti-union activity continue. It highlights particularly the historic and continuing importance of ‘double breasting’ and reports on divergent employer paths in the aftermath of the exposure and subsequent closure of the activities of the CA.

An analysis of dispute review boards and settlement mediation as used in the Australian construction industry

If there is a silver lining to the adversarial, dispute-prone nature of the building and construction industry, it can be found in the concomitant rise of innovative dispute resolution mechanisms. Time, cost and relationship concerns have meant that the formal adversarial system holds little appeal for disputing parties. As these alternative forms of dispute avoidance/resolution have matured in Australia over the last 20 years, attention has turned to the key characteristics of each process and their suitability to the building and construction industry. This article considers the role of dispute review boards (DRBs) and mediation as two alternative methods for avoiding/resolving disputes in the construction industry. Criteria are established for evaluating the efficacy of these procedures and their sensitivity to the needs of construction industry disputants. The ultimate conclusion reached is that DRBs represent a powerful, yet underutilised dispute resolution tool in Australia, and possess many industry-specific advantages that more traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution (particularly mediation) do not provide.

A Review of Meditation in the Irish Construction Industry: Critical Success Factors in Competencies and Processes

The construction industry notoriously excels at dispute creation – both in Ireland and world wide. This paper exams mediation in the Irish construction industry based around critical success factors in the competencies and processes required by mediators operating in the construction industry. Through conducting the relevant analysis, it was possible to extract and outline the resulting critical success factors in process and competencies of mediators in the Irish construction industry. This was achieved through a review of the literature, followed by detailed interviews from industry experts to elicit and highlight the core competencies required. To aid in the study, qualitative analysis using mind mapping software was adopted, thus assisting the identification of the key factors. Following analysis, facilitative mediation was identified as best suited for the industry in question; recommendations and experience were key for mediator selection and five and six factors were identified for mediator skills and mediation critical success factors respectively. The results returned are similar to those determined by authors in other countries and provide a good reference point for the development the industry. By following the findings of this report mediators and parties in dispute can improve processes and be more successful in outcomes. In this study the author shows that mediation is an effective and appropriate method of resolving disputes within the Irish construction industry.

Construction Dispute Resolution in Ireland during Recession: Best Practice for Small-to-Medium Enterprises

The purpose of this paper is to identify best practice construction dispute resolution in small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) within Ireland during the recent economic recession. A sequential mixed methodology encompassing a detailed literature review, case studies, and questionnaire survey is adopted, with results analyzed using both exploratory (data reduction) and confirmatory (structural equation modelling) factor analysis. The results show that four core aspects should be adopted by SMEs to achieve best practice construction dispute resolution in recession: third-party intervention, adoption of a streamlined process, proactive party characteristics, and the use of legal professionals. Numerous studies of this subject have been conducted; however, no research has been done to date documenting best practice in construction dispute resolution within SMEs, particularly in light of the economic recession in Ireland. It is clear that dispute resolution in Ireland is currently undergoing fundamental changes, and time is necessary to see if the new Construction Contracts Act 2013 will help this practice. Therefore, it is a fundamental requirement for project management and legal professionals to acknowledge the changing environment attributable to the economic downturn and the resultant SME best practices in dispute resolution. This paper fulfills a gap in knowledge with the emergence of the economic recession and the evolution of best practice in dispute resolution within SMEs in the Irish construction sector.

designing + (dis)assembling disputes: an ethnography of disputes & lawyers in the construction industry

The UK construction industry is notorious for the sheer amount of disputes which are likely to arise on each building and engineering project. Despite numerous creative attempts at “dispute avoidance” and “dispute resolution”, this industry is still plagued with these costly disputes. Whilst both academic literature and professional practices have investigated the causes of disputes and the mechanisms for avoidance/resolution of these disputes, neither has studied in any detail the nature of the construction disputes and why they develop as they do once a construction lawyer is engaged. Accordingly, this research explores the question of what influences the outcome of a construction dispute and to what extent do construction lawyers control or direct this outcome? The research approach was ethnographic. Fieldwork took place at a leading construction law firm in London over 18 months. The primary focus was participant observation in all of the firm’s activities. In addition, a database was compiled from the firm’s files and archives, thus providing information for quantitative analysis. The basis of the theoretical framework, and indeed the research method, was the Actor‐Network Theory (ANT). As such, this research viewed a dispute as a set of associations – an entity which takes form and acquires its attributes as a result of its relations with other entities. This viewpoint is aligned with relational contract theories, which in turn provides a unified platform for exploring the disputes. The research investigated the entities and events which appeared to influence the dispute’s identity, shape and outcome. With regard to a dispute’s trajectory, the research took as its starting point that a dispute follows the transformation of “naming, blaming, claiming…”, as identified by Felstiner, Abel and Sarat in 1980. The research found that construction disputes generally materialise and develop prior to any one of the parties approaching a lawyer. Once the lawyer is engaged, we see the reverse of the trajectory “naming, blaming, claiming…” this being: “claiming, blaming, naming…” The lawyers’ role is to identify or name (or rename) the dispute in the best possible light for their client in order to achieve the desired outcome – the development of which is akin to the design process. The transformation of a dispute and the reverse trajectory is by no means linear, but rather, iterative and spatial as it requires alliances, dependencies and contingencies to assemble and take the shape it does. The research concludes that construction disputes are rarely ever completely “resolved” as such. Whilst an independent third party may hand down a judgment, or the parties may reach a settlement agreement, this state is only temporal. Some construction disputes dissipate whist others reach a state of hibernation for a period of time only to pick up momentum and energy some years later. Accordingly, this research suggests that the concept of “dispute resolution” does not exist in the UK construction industry. The ultimate goal should be for parties to reach this ultimate and perpetual state of equilibrium as quickly and as cost effectively as possible: “dispute dissolution”, the slowing down of the dispute’s momentum. Rather than focusing on the design and assemblage of the dispute, the lawyers’ role therein is, or should be, to assist with the “disassembling” of the dispute.

A comparative study of construction industry size and structure between the UK and Australia and the significance of industry fragmentation

While comparing both the size and structure between the UK and Australian construction industries, this study reveals that the UK construction industry is about two and a half times larger than the Australian construction industry, and both industries are dominated by the proportion of small firms. The issue of fragmentation is characteristic of the construction industries in these two countries, and beyond. This study then develops a self recruiting-subletting cost indifference point model to explain why fragmentation occurs. Although the high proportion of small firms in the construction industry has been criticised as it prevents the exploitation of economies of scale, the self recruiting-subletting cost indifference point model theoretically proposes that subletting is usually profitable for construction firms. Thus the size distribution of the construction industry has a propensity to skew towards small firms.