Lifecycle-Based Analysis of Construction Dispute Causes: A Semi-Automated Systematic Review

Abstract

Construction disputes remain a major barrier to project success, particularly in international contexts characterized by diverse stakeholder expectations and high uncertainty. Although numerous studies have examined dispute causes, existing research is frequently limited by regional focus, phase-specific analysis, or delivery-method constraints. This study addresses these limitations by developing a lifecycle-based understanding of dispute causation through a semi-automated systematic literature review. A total of 6603 records were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science, and after applying PRISMA-aligned screening and citation tracking, 52 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2024 were included. Bibliometric analysis was used to map publication trends, geographic distribution, journal contribution, and keyword networks, while content analysis supported the identification and consolidation of dispute causes across lifecycle phases. The results show that early project stages are dominated by unfair risk allocation, ambiguous contract documents, design errors, and unclear technical specifications, whereas the Execution phase is driven by variation orders, payment delays, ineffective communication, and unforeseen site conditions. Disputes in the Close-out phase remain underexplored, indicating a clear research gap. By linking dispute causes to specific lifecycle stages, the study provides a structured foundation for proactive dispute-prevention strategies and supports more effective management of construction projects worldwide.

1. Introduction

The construction industry is a major contributor to national economies, accounting for approximately 8% of GDP in developing countries and around 5% in developed ones [1]. Despite its economic significance, the industry is characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and multi-stakeholder involvement, which frequently give rise to conflict [2,3]. When such conflicts are not effectively managed, they escalate into claims and, subsequently, disputes that adversely affect project cost, schedule, and performance [4]. Recent evidence underscores the magnitude of this problem. According to the 2022 Global Construction Disputes Report [5], the global average dispute value reached $52.6 million in 2021, with an average resolution time of 15.4 months, representing a 15% increase from the previous year. The financial burden of disputes includes direct costs, such as attorney fees, expert opinions, and alternative dispute resolution expenses, which range from 0.5% to 5% of a project’s contract value [6]. Indirect costs, as noted in prior research, include damaged business relationships, diverted company resources, and lost opportunities [7]. These negative outcomes can extend beyond the industry, potentially resulting in wider social and economic challenges [8].

Preventing disputes is widely recognized as more effective than resolving them after they emerge [8]. Early identification of dispute causes is therefore essential for implementing targeted prevention strategies [9]. However, survey results in the literature indicate that dispute causes identification and dispute risk assessment are rarely conducted before or after the construction phase, and instead occur predominantly during it [10,11,12]. This contradicts recommendations emphasizing early detection and lifecycle-based management of disputes [4,13]. Understanding when disputes emerge within the project lifecycle is essential for early intervention and proactive mitigation.

Moreover, existing methods for classifying dispute causes remain inconsistent. While several categorization schemes have been proposed, such as grouping causes by owner, contractor, consultant, contract, human behavior, or external factors [4,14], they rarely distinguish between causes arising in pre-construction, construction, and post-construction stages. As Naji et al. [4] observed, few universally accepted guidelines link dispute causes to specific project phases. This lack of phase-based classification limits the industry’s ability to understand when disputes originate within the project lifecycle and hinders the development of targeted, stage-appropriate mitigation strategies. To address this gap, the present study adopts a recognized project lifecycle framework to classify dispute causes by the stage at which they emerge.

Disputes occur globally, but their underlying causes vary across regions [15], indicating that disputes are a chronic and widespread challenge in the construction industry [16]. Most existing studies are region-specific and employ diverse methodologies, making cross-country comparison difficult and limiting the generalizability of findings [9]. A global synthesis is therefore needed to consolidate evidence and support international dispute-management practices.

Existing research is also fragmented. Some studies examine general causes [17,18,19], others focus on specific project types [20,21], and others investigate individual dispute drivers such as variation orders or extension-of-time claims [22,23]. More recent work explores the influence of delivery systems and emerging technologies [24,25]. While valuable, these studies remain isolated, underscoring the need for a systematic review to consolidate and harmonize findings.

Although several prior reviews have examined construction dispute causes [4,26], most have concentrated on either the pre-construction or construction stages, with limited or no attention to causes emerging during project close-out. These reviews typically classify causes by responsible party, thematic category (e.g., contractual, technical, managerial), or dispute type, but they do not adopt a lifecycle-oriented perspective that maps the causes across all project stages from initiation to close-out. Moreover, prior reviews generally rely on manual consolidation of causes, a process that is subjective, labor-intensive, and difficult to reproduce. In contrast, this study applies a semi-automated, NLP-assisted approach that combines semantic similarity analysis, keyword matching, synonym detection, and human verification to systematically consolidate 717 reported causes into 84 distinct ones. By integrating these consolidated causes into a standardized lifecycle framework, the study offers a comprehensive, phase-based synthesis that supports a deeper understanding of when disputes originate and enables the development of targeted, stage-appropriate mitigation strategies. Furthermore, the findings provide a foundation for future research seeking to examine how dispute causes evolve or interact across the project lifecycle.

Recent research highlights that disputes persist largely because their root causes are not systematically addressed [27]. Although many studies propose dispute-management strategies, these efforts lack a comprehensive foundation due to the absence of a consolidated, lifecycle-based understanding of dispute causation [15]. A systematic literature review can therefore provide a structured contribution by synthesizing existing knowledge and clarifying the landscape of dispute causes.

Accordingly, this study systematically examines the most frequently reported causes of construction disputes through a lifecycle-based lens within a global context. It synthesizes peer-reviewed evidence to identify the full range of dispute causes, their relative significance, and their organization within a lifecycle-based framework. To the best of current knowledge, this is among the first studies to adopt a lifecycle-oriented perspective, linking dispute causes to specific project stages from initiation to close-out. By proposing a structured phase-based classification and highlighting when disputes originate, the study supports the development of targeted mitigation strategies and provides a foundation for future research.

This study addresses the following research questions:

• What are the most frequently reported causes of construction disputes across different project phases?
• How can these causes be systematically categorized using a lifecycle-based framework to support the development of targeted mitigation strategies?

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Construction Project Lifecycle Framework

Construction projects are inherently complex, resource-intensive, and characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Their fragmented nature and increasing technical and organizational demands expose them to greater risk than many other project types [28]. Such complexity often leads to unanticipated events, coordination challenges, and misaligned expectations, all of which may escalate into claims and disputes if not effectively managed [29]. Consequently, construction project management plays a critical role in planning, coordinating, and controlling activities throughout the project lifecycle to ensure safe, timely, cost-effective, and quality-compliant delivery [28].

To support the aims of this study and to provide a consistent structure for examining dispute causation across project stages, the project lifecycle model developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI) was adopted [30]. The PMI framework organizes project work into five phases: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and close-out. These standardized definitions offer a coherent basis for understanding how project activities unfold and for identifying the stage at which dispute causes first become observable or actionable.

The initiation phase represents the formal start of a project and involves defining the project’s purpose, identifying key stakeholders, clarifying high-level requirements, establishing the preliminary scope, assessing initial risks and regulatory constraints, and securing financial and organizational authorization.

The planning phase translates the project’s high-level objectives into detailed, actionable plans. It includes defining and refining the project scope, preparing design documents and technical specifications, developing cost and schedule estimates, identifying risks, establishing quality and procurement requirements, and preparing contract and tender documentation.

The execution phase involves implementing the work defined in the project management plan and producing the project’s deliverables. This phase includes mobilizing and managing resources, coordinating subcontractors and suppliers, implementing quality assurance processes, managing communications and stakeholder interactions, and responding to emerging site conditions and operational challenges.

The monitoring and controlling phase focuses on tracking project performance, reviewing progress against approved baselines, and ensuring that construction activities comply with contractual, technical, and regulatory requirements. It includes evaluating claims and change requests, reviewing and approving extensions of time or compensation, controlling communications and documentation, and ensuring timely decision-making by project stakeholders.

Finally, the close-out phase marks the formal conclusion of the project and involves finalizing all contractual, technical, and administrative activities. This includes verifying deliverable acceptance, completing inspections and defect-correction processes, closing procurements, settling final payments, handing over documentation, and obtaining formal project closure.

This model was selected because it is widely recognized in international project management practice and provides a structured basis for linking dispute causes to specific project stages. Using this framework enables the development of a standardized, phase-based classification that addresses the lack of universally accepted guidelines identified in the literature.

2.2. Conceptual Hierarchy of Conflicts, Claims, and Disputes

The terms conflict, claim, and dispute frequently appear together in construction management literature, yet they represent distinct concepts with different implications for project performance. Their interrelationships have been widely examined, and scholars consistently emphasize the importance of distinguishing between them to understand how disagreements escalate during project delivery [31,32]. Some researchers view conflict as a broader or more fundamental concept [29], whereas others argue that the presence of conflict is a precondition for the emergence of claims or disputes. For instance, Acharya et al. [33] note that conflicts are often minor in their early stages but, if poorly managed, may evolve into claims and ultimately into legal disputes, damaging working relationships and project outcomes.

To clarify these distinctions, this study adopts standardized definitions from established literature. A conflict arises when two or more parties experience a divergence in interests, perceptions, or expectations, particularly when they perceive incompatible goals, limited resources, or interference from others in achieving their objectives [34]. Conflicts may remain informal and may not yet involve contractual rights or financial consequences.

A claim, by contrast, represents a formal request for additional time, payment, or relief due to an event that affects a party’s contractual obligations. Claims require documentation and justification and typically arise when conflicts remain unresolved [35]. As El-Sayegh et al. [2] explain, a claim is triggered when a contracting party seeks compensation for damages or impacts encountered during project execution.

A dispute occurs when a claim is rejected, contested, or not resolved through routine project communication and administrative procedures. Naji et al. [4] describe disputes as arising when the rejection of a claim is itself not accepted by the submitting party, thereby necessitating more formal mechanisms of resolution. Disputes, therefore, represent the escalation of unresolved claims and often require third-party intervention.

The escalation pathway linking these concepts has been well documented. Kumaraswamy [31] argues that disputes arise from unsettled claims and conflicts, illustrating how unhealthy conflict can trigger misunderstandings and generate unreasonable claims that escalate into disputes. Harmon [36] similarly notes that adversarial positions tend to intensify when attempts to resolve disagreements fail, potentially affecting project progress and requiring legal settlement. Acharya et al. [33] further emphasize that conflicts may stem from unassessed risks, which can subsequently transform into claims and disputes. Charehzehi et al. [37] depict this progression as a spectrum, demonstrating that disputes are the disruptive consequence of long-standing unresolved claims and unmanaged conflict.

In line with this literature, the present study adopts the position that conflicts and claims should be addressed proactively to prevent escalation, and that disputes should be avoided or effectively managed when they arise. For conceptual clarity and to maintain consistency throughout the review, this study follows Fenn’s [32] recommendation to use the term “dispute” as an umbrella term encompassing conflict and claim-related issues. Clarifying these definitions ensures terminological consistency across the review and supports the development of a coherent, lifecycle-based classification of dispute causation.

2.3. Construction Dispute Management

Construction projects operate in complex and dynamic environments, making it difficult to deliver them on time and within budget [38,39]. Disputes frequently arise under these conditions [17], disrupting project performance and generating broader economic and social impacts [8]. Understanding how disputes emerge and how they can be managed is therefore essential for improving project outcomes.

The literature on construction dispute management generally reflects two complementary perspectives: reactive approaches, which focus on resolving disputes after they occur, and proactive approaches, which emphasize early mitigation and prevention [9].

2.3.1. Dispute Resolution (Reactive Perspective)

Reactive approaches address disputes once they have materialized, typically through Legal Dispute Resolution (LDR) or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms [40]. LDR includes formal processes such as litigation and arbitration [41], while ADR offers more flexible, specialist-driven methods such as negotiation, mediation, and adjudication [42]. Prior studies highlight factors influencing method selection, such as settlement time [18], and show that negotiation remains the most preferred option in many regions [2,20]. More recently, a stakeholder-centric investigation in the Pakistani construction industry sought to identify the most critical dispute factor and the most suitable resolution method for each factor, using interviews, questionnaires, and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The study found that contractual issues were viewed as the most critical dispute factor, with arbitration and negotiation emerging as the most preferred resolution methods [43].

Recent research has also explored technology-enabled dispute resolution. Machine-learning models have been developed to predict litigation outcomes or recommend suitable resolution methods [44,45], while smart contracts and online dispute-resolution platforms have demonstrated potential to improve transparency and reduce time and cost [40].

2.3.2. Dispute Mitigation (Proactive Perspective)

In contrast, proactive approaches aim to prevent disputes before they arise, and typically focus on: (1) identifying causes of disputes and assessing their impacts, (2) developing dispute-management process models, and (3) modeling and evaluating disputes to understand their interrelationships.

Recent studies have examined the causes of claims and disputes [9,46,47,48] and evaluated their effects on project performance [49]. Others have proposed computer-aided frameworks to support early detection and prevention. For example, BIM-based models integrating AHP, MAUT, or claims-management tools have been shown to improve coordination and reduce dispute potential [22,37]. Blockchain-based systems have also been introduced to enhance document traceability and reduce time spent identifying cause-effect relationships [50].

Research on modeling and evaluating disputes has provided further insights into how dispute factors interact. Methods such as SEM, ISM, MICMAC, PLS-SEM, DEMATEL, and ANN have been used to quantify causal relationships, classify dispute drivers, and predict the likelihood of their occurrence [51,52,53,54].

Collectively, this body of research underscores the importance of both reactive and proactive approaches to dispute management. However, consistent with the principle that “prevention is better than cure,” this study emphasizes proactive dispute mitigation as the foundation for effective dispute management.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employed a semi-automated systematic literature review (SLR) to identify and classify the common causes of construction disputes across distinct project phases within a global context. The SLR approach provides a structured and transparent method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant studies [55], thereby reducing subjectivity and enhancing reliability [56]. In this regard, refs. [56,57,58] recommend developing a review protocol that specifies the review purpose, research questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategy, quality assessment procedures, data extraction methods, synthesis approach, and reporting mechanism.

The tasks of collecting, extracting, and synthesizing data for systematic reviews are typically manual, error-prone, and labor-intensive [59]. As a result, automating or even semi-automating these steps can significantly reduce the time required to complete reviews and shorten the delay in translating research evidence into practical applications [60]. In this study, semi-automation was achieved through the use of natural language processing (NLP) techniques to accelerate specific tasks while maintaining a human-in-the-loop approach, ensuring that human oversight remained integral to the workflow rather than being replaced entirely [61].

Accordingly, a review protocol was developed and followed to ensure the validity and replicability of the study. For presentation purposes, the purpose of the review and the associated research questions are outlined in the Introduction. The following subsections describe the lifecycle framework, search strategy, screening procedures, quality assessment, and data extraction and synthesis methods. The study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 framework for identifying, screening, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant studies [62].

3.1. Lifecycle Framework for Classification

To classify dispute causes according to the stages in which they emerge, this study adopted the project lifecycle model developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI) [30]. The PMI framework consists of five phases: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and close-out. This model is widely recognized in international project management practice and provides a coherent structure for mapping the emergence of dispute causes across the project lifecycle.

For classification purposes, the PMI phase definitions were operationalized to support consistent coding. Each phase was interpreted in terms of the activities, decisions, and information flows that typically occur within it. Each cause was assigned to the phase in which it first becomes observable or actionable, consistent with the lifecycle descriptions outlined in Section 2.1. This “earliest point of emergence” rule ensures that causes are classified based on the stage where they originate and where proactive management could most effectively mitigate their impact, rather than the phase in which their consequences may later manifest.

Although several dispute causes may influence more than one project phase, each cause was assigned to a single primary phase to ensure analytical clarity, avoid double-counting, and maintain comparability across studies. When a cause could plausibly span multiple phases, coders referred to the operational definitions and assigned it to the earliest phase in which the issue becomes identifiable or preventable. Most causes were assigned without disagreement; however, a small subset required joint review. Specifically, 11 of the 84 consolidated causes (13.1%) were initially coded differently by the two authors, typically because the cause could reasonably emerge in more than one phase. These cases were discussed and resolved through an iterative consensus process, with both authors reviewing the descriptions and applying the operationalized lifecycle definitions until agreement was reached, ensuring transparency, consistency, and replicability in the classification process.

The application of this rule is illustrated through several examples. Causes such as vague project scope, unrealistic feasibility estimates, or inadequate early budgeting were classified under initiation, as these issues arise during early project definition. Causes such as ambiguous contract provisions, design errors, incomplete tender documents, or insufficient site investigations were assigned to planning, where these activities occur. Causes such as variation orders, delayed payments, unforeseen site conditions, resource shortages, or subcontractor delays were assigned to execution as they emerge during construction activities. Causes such as delayed decisions on claims, inadequate documentation, or slow responses from the Engineer were assigned to monitoring and controlling, where oversight and performance review take place. Finally, causes such as delayed final payments, late-identified defects, or scope changes after practical completion were assigned to close-out, where contractual and financial closure occurs.

This operationalized lifecycle framework provided a consistent and replicable basis for assigning dispute causes to project phases and directly addressed the lack of standardized phase-assignment guidelines noted in prior literature.

3.2. Literature Search Strategy

The quality of a literature review depends heavily on the relevance and quality of the literature collected. Conducting an SLR, therefore, requires a well-structured search strategy, as the search process forms the foundation for identifying review materials. This study employed electronic database searches, along with backward and forward citation tracking, as primary techniques to locate relevant literature. The database searches were conducted on 17 February 2025 by Olaimat and independently verified by Marey-Perez to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Electronic databases are commonly the starting point for contemporary research, serving as primary sources for accessing peer-reviewed research. However, since no single database encompasses the entire collection of published works [57], relying on two or more databases is essential in systematic reviews to reduce the risk of overlooking relevant sources [63]. Searches were restricted to the TITLE-ABS-KEY field in Scopus and the TS field in Web of Science (WoS), and filtered to English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2024.

In this study, the literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases to ensure comprehensive coverage. Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were selected for their robust indexing capabilities, extensive diversity, and high volume of academic publications in engineering and management fields [64], as commonly adopted in similar systematic literature reviews on construction dispute research [26,65].

To ensure no relevant articles were missed, a combination of backward and forward searching techniques was employed. Backward searching involved examining the reference lists of selected articles to identify additional relevant studies, while forward searching identified more recent research by locating subsequent articles that cited the reviewed studies [56]. Tools such as Research Rabbit and Mendeley were employed to streamline these processes and efficiently manage references. Google Scholar was used solely as part of the supplementary search process. All records identified through citation searching were incorporated into the PRISMA flow diagram and screened using the same eligibility criteria as database-retrieved studies.

Following the recommendations of Xiao and Watson [57], keywords were directly derived from the research questions, with key concepts forming the basis of the search terms. These keywords were categorized into three main groups, as illustrated in Figure 1. Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”), wildcards (*), and exact-phrase searches (“ ”) were used to combine terms and capture variations. To ensure full reproducibility, the final database-ready search strings used in Scopus and WoS are presented in

Table 1. Final database-ready search strings used in Scopus and Web of Science.

Database	Search String (Final Boolean Expression)
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY(dispute* OR “construction claim*” OR conflict* OR “contractual risk” OR “dispute prevention” OR “dispute mitigation” OR “dispute resolution” OR “claim management” OR “contract management” OR “contractual dispute” OR “contractual problem”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(cause* OR reason* OR source* OR root* OR factor* OR “causative factor”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(construction* OR industry OR project* OR building OR “construction industry” OR “construction project” OR “construction management” OR “AEC sector” OR “built environment” OR “project management”)
Web of Science (WoS)	TS = (dispute* OR “construction claim*” OR conflict* OR “contractual risk” OR “dispute prevention” OR “dispute mitigation” OR “dispute resolution” OR “claim management” OR “contract management” OR “contractual dispute” OR “contractual problem”) AND TS = (cause* OR reason* OR source* OR root* OR factor* OR “causative factor”) AND TS = (construction* OR industry OR project* OR building OR “construction industry” OR “construction project” OR “construction management” OR “AEC sector” OR “built environment” OR “project management”).

.

3.3. Screening: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The screening process followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was conducted in two stages: an initial title-and-abstract screening, followed by a full-text eligibility assessment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined directly from the research questions and applied consistently throughout both stages [66].

Studies were included when they examined the causes of disputes within the construction industry, were published in peer-reviewed journals, were written in English, and fell within the publication period of 2000 to 2024. This restriction was adopted to ensure methodological rigor and consistency in reporting quality; however, it may exclude dispute causes documented in non-English publications or gray literature. Studies were excluded when they did not address the causes of construction disputes, were unrelated to the construction or AEC sectors, were not peer-reviewed journal articles, were written in languages other than English, or were published outside the specified timeframe.

All records retrieved from the databases were exported into Microsoft Excel, where duplicate entries were removed before screening. The first author conducted the screening, and all decisions were independently verified by the second author to ensure consistency and reduce potential bias. The flow of records through the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2), and this subsection describes the criteria used to guide those decisions.

3.4. Quality Assessment

Quality assessment was undertaken to ensure that the final body of literature consisted only of studies that demonstrated sufficient methodological rigor and direct relevance to the research questions. This step, often described as evaluating a study’s internal validity in systematic reviews [67], followed the guidelines provided by Kitchenham et al. [66].

Each article that passed the eligibility stage underwent a full-text examination in which its research objectives, methodological explanation, acknowledgment of limitations, and clarity of reported findings were evaluated. Particular attention was given to the transparency with which each study described its data-collection and analysis procedures, as well as the extent to which it addressed the causes of construction disputes in a conceptually meaningful way.

As detailed in

Table 2. Criteria For Quality Assessment and Scoring Rubric.

Criterion	Score	Description
Clear research objectives	1	The study clearly states its aims and research objectives.
	0.5	Objectives are mentioned but not clearly articulated.
	0	Objectives are unclear or not stated.
Transparent methodological explanation	1	Data collection and analysis procedures are described in sufficient detail.
	0.5	Methodology is partially described but lacks important details.
	0	Methodology is unclear or insufficiently explained.
Acknowledgment of limitations	1	The study explicitly identifies its limitations.
	0.5	Limitations are mentioned but not clearly explained.
	0	No limitations are acknowledged.
Clarity of reported findings	1	Findings are clearly presented and supported by evidence.
	0.5	Findings are presented but lack clarity or supporting detail.
	0	Findings are unclear or insufficiently reported.

, a structured scoring rubric was applied, with values of 1 (“criterion fully met”), 0.5 (“partially met”), and 0 (“not met”). The purpose of this evaluation was to ensure that the final selection included only studies with clear objectives, transparent methodologies, acknowledged limitations, and clearly reported findings.

The quality assessment score ranged from 0 to 4, with 4 representing the highest score for excellent-quality papers. To ensure the inclusion of only high-quality studies in the final list of included papers, a minimum score of 3 was required for inclusion. Studies scoring below this threshold were excluded from the final dataset.

All quality-assessment decisions were jointly reviewed by both authors to ensure consistency and reduce potential bias. As a result of this process, 52 out of 168 full-text studies met the quality-appraisal criteria and were included in the final synthesis.

3.5. Data Extraction, Analysis, and Synthesis

A total of 6603 records were initially identified from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. After applying automatic filtering based on language, document type, and publication year, 2060 records remained. These records were exported into Microsoft Excel (.xlsx format), where 755 duplicate entries were removed, resulting in 1305 unique records for screening.

These records underwent title–abstract–keyword screening, during which 1137 records were excluded for not being relevant to the research questions. The remaining 168 records were retrieved for full-text assessment. Following full-text evaluation, 123 reports were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria, leaving 45 reports that satisfied all eligibility requirements. An additional seven records were identified through backward and forward citation searching, resulting in a final dataset of 52 studies included in the review.

The selected studies employed a range of approaches to identify the causes of construction disputes, including literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, expert interviews, analyses of litigation case records, and case studies. Among the 52 studies included in this review, the largest proportion (21 studies) adopted survey-based approaches using structured questionnaires, while 16 studies relied on expert interviews and documentary evidence. Additionally, 15 studies utilized case study methods, and several incorporated the review of litigation case documents as a primary source for identifying dispute causes and understanding their underlying dynamics. The use of real-life project data, stakeholder inputs, and insights from litigation cases provides strong empirical grounding for the identified causes, ensuring they reflect practical project experience rather than theoretical abstraction. Prior research confirms that dispute factors derived from real-world projects, stakeholder feedback, and legal case analyses offer robust validation of their accuracy and relevance [68,69]. Moreover, expert consultations, whether through interviews or questionnaire rounds, strengthen the practical applicability of these factors, ensuring that they reflect industry realities and professional judgment. Collectively, the selected studies employed a wide range of qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques. Together, these diverse methodological approaches provide a comprehensive and empirically validated foundation for identifying, consolidating, and categorizing the causes of construction disputes.

To consolidate and produce a comprehensive dataset, Microsoft Excel was used to compile 717 causes reported across the 52 included studies. A preliminary filtering process using Excel’s conditional formatting function removed 63 direct duplicates, resulting in 654 causes. However, many causes with identical meanings remained because the filtering function could not detect semantically similar descriptions expressed using different terminology.

Because of this, a secondary NLP-supported consolidation stage was implemented. Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques were applied using Python 3.12.12 within the Google Colab environment to support the identification and merging of semantically similar dispute causes. The NLP workflow used Python libraries, including pandas for data handling, scikit-learn for text vectorization and similarity computation, and openpyxl for reading and writing Excel files. After importing the Excel file containing the 654 causes identified following preliminary duplicate removal, text preprocessing was performed to prepare the data for analysis. This included converting all text to lowercase, removing punctuation, trimming whitespace, and standardizing plural and singular forms where appropriate. The cause descriptions were then converted into TF–IDF vectors, and cosine similarity scores were computed for all pairs of causes. All pairs with non-zero similarity were extracted and manually reviewed, as no numeric threshold was imposed; this approach ensured that potentially meaningful semantic similarities were examined rather than excluded by an arbitrary threshold. Synonym handling was supported through keyword matching and inspection of semantically related terms highlighted by the TF–IDF similarity output.

The similarity output served as a decision-support tool rather than an automated clustering mechanism. Pairs identified through similarity analysis were first organized into preliminary conceptual groupings to facilitate manual review, after which each pair within a grouping was examined iteratively. Causes judged to represent the same underlying concept, based on both similarity scores and a close reading of their descriptions, were progressively merged. This iterative process occasionally produced clusters containing more than two original causes when multiple descriptions referred to the same underlying issue. The resulting clusters were independently reviewed by both authors, and any uncertainties were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. This combined use of computational similarity detection and systematic researcher review enhanced methodological transparency and supported conceptual validity in the consolidation process.

In addition to cosine similarity analysis, keyword matching was used to detect shared linguistic patterns, and synonym detection was applied to identify descriptions that used different terms but conveyed the same meaning. These complementary techniques supported the identification of conceptually similar causes prior to manual consolidation.

The identified pairs were analyzed, color-coded, and clustered into the following categories: Direct duplicates, Subtle variations, Expanded descriptions, and Phrase differences.

Table 3. Semantic similarity of some identified pairs of causes.

Cause 1	Cause 2	Similarity
Payments	Delay in payments	0.83
Availability of information	availability of information	1.00
Risk allocation	risk allocation	1.00
Risk allocation	Unfair allocation of risk	0.74
Project scope definition	project scope definition not clear	0.77
Lack of team spirit	lack of team spirit	1.00
Poor communications	Poor communications between project participants	0.72
Inadequate contract documentation	Inadequate design documentation	0.77
Inadequate design documentation	Incomplete design “Inadequate documentation”	0.83
Estimating errors (by contractor)	Estimating errors	0.93

illustrates representative examples of these categories. For instance, pairs like “Availability of information” and “availability of information” are exact duplicates, differing only in case, and are classified as Direct duplicates. Pairs such as “Risk allocation” and “Unfair allocation of risk” exhibit semantic similarity, indicating they address similar issues with slightly different wording, categorized as Subtle variations. Causes like “Project scope definition” versus “Project scope definition not clear” represent nuanced repetitions where the core concept is the same, classified as Expanded descriptions. Additionally, terms such as “Inadequate contract documentation” and “Inadequate design documentation” are close but may refer to different contexts, and were therefore categorized as Phrase differences.

Through this combined NLP-supported and manual consolidation process, 570 semantically overlapping causes were merged into broader conceptual clusters, resulting in 84 distinct causes of construction disputes. Each cause appeared between 1 and 43 times across the reviewed studies. Causes occurring only once were retained when they could be clearly assigned to a project lifecycle phase. To ensure consistency in the subsequent coding stage, the assignment of each consolidated cause to a project phase followed the operationalized PMI lifecycle definitions established in Section 3.1, which provided a structured and replicable basis for determining the earliest point at which each cause becomes identifiable or actionable. A brief pseudo-code summary of the NLP workflow is provided in Appendix A (Section NLP-Supported Consolidation Workflow (Pseudo-Code)) to support replicability. The overall methodological workflow is summarized in Figure 2.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Bibliometric Analysis

The bibliometric analysis provides an overview of publication trends, journal contributions, geographical distribution, and keyword co-occurrence within the selected dataset of 52 peer-reviewed articles. Data were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science and analyzed using VOSviewer 1.6.20, a widely used tool for bibliometric mapping [70].

4.1.1. Publication Trends

The annual distribution of publications (Figure 3) shows three broad periods of research activity. From 2000 to 2011, studies on construction dispute causes were limited, with most years producing no more than one or two publications. Research output increased substantially between 2012 and 2020, peaking in 2016 and again in 2020. Scholarly interest remained steady from 2021 to 2024, with five relevant papers published in 2021 and 2022, and two in each of the following years.

4.1.2. Journal Contribution

The final dataset comprises 52 high-relevance articles published across 32 peer-reviewed journals. More than half of these studies (27 articles; 52%) appeared in Q1 journals, including leading journals such as Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, International Journal of Project Management, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, and Journal of Management in Engineering. The remaining studies were distributed across Q2–Q4 journals, along with four additional non-indexed but relevant articles identified through snowballing.

Several journals showed notable influence in this domain: International Journal of Construction Management and International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology each contributed five articles, followed by Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction (four articles), and Buildings and Journal of Civil Engineering and Management (three articles each). The rest contributed one or two studies. This distribution demonstrates strong journal quality and broad disciplinary coverage, reinforcing the robustness and validity of the synthesized findings.

4.1.3. Geographical Distribution

As shown in Figure 4, research on construction dispute causes spans 25 countries. China contributed the highest number of publications (nine), followed by India (eight), Turkey (six), and Australia (five). This distribution reflects regional differences in construction industry challenges, regulatory frameworks, and research priorities. The prominence of studies from rapidly developing economies suggests heightened dispute incidence and growing academic interest in dispute management. However, the geographical distribution of the included studies is uneven and reflects the availability of published research rather than a balanced global sample. Consequently, the subsequent frequency analysis should be interpreted as a synthesis of patterns reported in the literature, rather than as a statistically representative picture of global dispute incidence.

4.1.4. Mapping of the Co-Occurrence of Keywords

A keyword co-occurrence network was generated using VOSviewer 1.6.20 to visualize the intellectual structure of research on construction dispute causes. From the bibliographic data retrieved from Scopus and WoS, 267 keywords were extracted. Applying a minimum occurrence threshold of two yielded 49 relevant terms; after removing generic keywords, the final network consisted of 38 nodes grouped into six clusters (Figure 5).

Node size reflects keyword frequency, while link proximity and thickness indicate the strength of relationships between terms. Dominant keywords such as construction industry, disputes, claims, project management, and construction disputes form the central nodes connecting the clusters. The clusters highlight recurring themes in the literature, with terms such as construction dispute, dispute causes, dispute resolution, and construction projects showing strong co-occurrence patterns.

4.2. Content Analysis

The content analysis synthesizes findings from studies employing diverse methodologies. This methodological variety provides strong empirical grounding and ensures that the consolidated dispute causes reflect real project experience rather than purely theoretical perspectives.

Across all project phases, 84 distinct causes of disputes were identified, each appearing at least once and up to 43 times in the reviewed literature. Because the geographical distribution of the included studies is uneven, these frequencies represent how often each cause appears in the published literature rather than its prevalence in any specific region or in the global construction industry. The frequency of occurrence highlights the level of scholarly attention each cause has received and helps reveal recurring patterns. A full list of causes, along with researcher attribution, is provided in Appendix A (

Table A1. Dispute causes extracted from the selected studies, organized by project phase and attributed to their respective sources.

Phase	Causes	Sources
Initiation	The project scope is vague or poorly defined, leading to misaligned expectations.	[2,17,21,37,52,53,71,82,84,85,137,138]
	The Owner provides inconsistent or incomplete project requirements.	[17,21,23,37,81,87,109,121,137]
	Cost or duration estimates during feasibility studies are unrealistic or inaccurate.	[45,47,81,82]
	Parties lack proficiency in legal requirements or jurisdictional constraints.	[37,84,85,109,138]
	Risks are unfairly or inappropriately allocated during early project definition.	[14,18,19,37,45,47,48,53,72,73,80,82,83,85,89,94,121,138,139]
	Difficulties in obtaining permits or understanding local regulations.	[2,9,20,21,25,45,72,80,81,82,83,84,85,109,137,138]
	The Owner fails to allocate an adequate budget or establish proper financial planning before project initiation.	[138]
Planning	Contract documents contain unclear, contradictory, or incomplete provisions (Ambiguous contract documents).	[2,7,9,14,17,18,19,21,23,37,45,47,48,51,54,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,89,94,95,98,109,121,138,140]
	Tender documents lack complete project information or Owner requirements.	[9,14,18,21,23,80,82,85,94,109,121,137,140]
	Technical specifications are unclear, incomplete, or non-constructible.	[2,7,14,17,19,20,21,24,37,48,53,71,80,81,83,84,85,89,90,91]
	Design documents contain errors, omissions, or lack coordination.	[2,9,14,17,20,21,24,25,37,47,48,51,71,80,81,82,84,87,90,94,98,109,137,139]
	Use of generic specifications or drawings without sufficient detail tailored to the specific contract.	[14,17,20,21,24,71,81,83,84,91,96]
	Insufficient time or budget for site investigation leads to subsurface issues.	[2,9,17,19,21,23,45,51,71,80,82,91,109,137,141]
	Detailed cost or duration estimates are based on unrealistic assumptions.	[17,21,37,73,80,81,82,83,84,87,96,109,137,138,139]
	Substantial increase in quantities leading to rate adjustments due to an inaccurate bill of quantities.	[9,20,21,24,37,51,71,81,83,84,90,93,96]
	Unbalanced bidding and contractors’ nondisclosure of quantity deviations.	[9,18,19,47,48,71,80,81,83,89]
	Contractors fail to fully understand project requirements during bidding, including failure to visit the site or properly review documents.	[9,14,24,37,48,72,80,84,121,138,139]
	The chosen procurement method or contract type is unsuitable.	[14,23,47,52,98,121,138]
	Parties misunderstand escalation or de-escalation provisions.	[82,84]
	Bridges of contract or excessive amendments disrupt contract clarity.	[2,25,121]
	Delay in issuing site drawings and material specifications by the Engineer.	[9,51,82,94,109]
	Quality requirements are poorly defined, leading to subjective interpretations.	[14,138]
	Lowest price mentality in selecting service providers, disregarding technical competence and sustainable profit margins.	[17,21,37,72,80,81,96,138,141]
	Conflicts arising from failure to provide required insurance coverage.	[138]
	Item descriptions in the bill of quantities are ambiguous or incomplete.	[9,21,47,51,71,83]
	Insufficient time is allocated to prepare contract documents.	[21,93,141]
	Engineer staff lack experience in drafting contract documents.	[21,82]
	Project priorities are unclear or improperly assigned.	[121]
	Parties disagree on payment terms under preliminaries or general items.	[9,21,52,94,135,141]
	Parties fail to timely notify others about changes, agendas, or approvals.	[51,138]
	Ineffective planning and scheduling due to the fast-track nature of the projects.	[17,21,23,37,72,81,87,96,98,109,121,138]
Execution	Restricted or disrupted access to the site due to third-party interference.	[21,37]
	Work sequences clash due to poor coordination or delayed handover.	[138]
	The Owner or Engineer disrupts construction through excessive involvement.	[81,82,83]
	The Owner suspends or terminates works, causing delays and disputes.	[21,37,45,82,121,135,141]
	Nominated or domestic Subcontractors delay their portion of the works.	[71,141]
	Subcontractors lack competence or are mismanaged by the Contractor.	[17,37,81,82,83,87,96,139]
	The Contractor delays mobilizing manpower, equipment, or resources to the site.	[17,25]
	Poor Contractor performance leads to mistakes, rework, or slow progress.	[9,14,17,25,37,48,52,54,80,84,86,109,135,139]
	Contractor site management, supervision, or coordination is inadequate.	[2,18,21,24,37,48,72,80,81,87,121,138,139]
	Contractor staff lack the necessary skills or experience.	[18,21,54,82,98]
	Low or inefficient manpower productivity.	[2,21,23,80,81,83,87,109,138,139]
	Manpower, materials, or equipment are insufficient or unavailable.	[2,17,20,21,25,48,54,71,72,80,81,83,98,109,121,140]
	Government regulations change or contradict earlier requirements, affecting project execution.	[2,19,20,21,25,51,71,72,82,84,89,96,138,141]
	Equipment is unavailable due to breakdowns or maintenance issues.	[80,109,139]
	Acts of God, such as earthquakes or floods, damage works or equipment (Force majeure events).	[21,138,140]
	Poor quality work or materials due to inadequate Contractor QA/QC systems.	[17,18,19,24,25,48,52,80,81,83,84,87,94,96,138,139]
	Adverse weather conditions resulting in slowness or stoppage of the project.	[2,14,18,20,21,25,71,80,81,82,84,87,109,138,140]
	Fluctuations in labor, material, or currency costs affect project performance.	[9,17,19,20,25,48,51,71,80,81,87,94,96,109,138]
	Security risks or incidents disrupt construction.	[84]
	Political instability, public disorder, or local protests disrupt work.	[21,37,45,51,73,80,84,90,109,137,140]
	Community expectations and local employment requirements leading to complaints or disruptions.	[17,109]
	Environmental or social impacts, such as noise, traffic, or pollution, affecting project progress.	[2]
	Insufficient utilities on-site (electricity, water, etc.) disrupting construction activities.	[109]
	Accidents due to negligence and non-compliance with safety standards.	[9,17,21,48,52,84,96,109,135,138,139]
	The Owner fails to hand over the site on time, delaying the construction start (delayed site possession).	[9,14,20,21,25,48,80,82,83,84,86,140,141]
	The Contractor is unprepared to take possession when the site becomes available.	[21]
	Unforeseen physical site conditions encountered during construction.	[9,14,20,25,45,47,51,71,80,82,84,90,93,94,100,109,121,138,140]
	Suppliers fail to deliver equipment or materials as planned.	[9,23,48,80,87,98,109,138]
	Damage or deterioration of materials during storage on-site.	[109]
	Owner’s financial instability and delayed progress payments.	[2,9,14,17,21,24,25,37,45,47,53,54,80,81,82,84,85,87,94,95,98,99,100,109,141]
	Contractor financial difficulties and nonpayment to Subcontractors.	[14,17,24,37,80,81,82,84,87,96,98,138]
	The Owner demands acceleration without justification or compensation.	[14,21,48,71,82,100,139]
	Changes or variation orders during construction, including undocumented oral instructions.	[2,7,9,14,17,19,20,21,23,24,25,37,45,47,48,51,52,53,54,71,72,73,80,81,82,83,84,87,89,90,91,93,94,95,96,98,99,100,109,138,140,141,142]
	The Owner delays or inconsistently issues decisions required for progress.	[2,7,20,22,23,37,47,48,54,73,80,81,83,84,87,94,96,98,109,138,140]
	Design revisions during construction due to incomplete or uncoordinated earlier design.	[21,23,25,72,80,98,109,137]
	Ineffective communication during construction or being overly reliant on oral exchanges.	[2,9,17,19,23,24,37,47,51,54,72,73,80,81,82,84,87,96,109,138,139,142]
	Weak project leadership or absence of a designated Project Manager.	[2,37]
	Relationships between parties are confrontational or mistrustful (adversarial project culture).	[2,9,18,20,21,37,54,71,72,81,82,85,89,109,121]
	Opportunistic behavior by project parties, including withholding information or acting in self-interest.	[9,54,71,82,121]
	Security risks or incidents disrupt construction.	[84]
	Previous working relationships affect current project dynamics.	[82,85]
Monitoring & Control	Parties fail to record events or prepare required reports.	[37,138]
	Claims are incomplete, poorly drafted, or lack supporting evidence.	[2,47,141]
	Parties lack staff capable of identifying or managing claims.	[22,109]
	Parties fail to understand or comply with contractual obligations.	[18,37,47,84,89,121,137]
	The Owner delays issuing interim decisions on extensions of time or compensation.	[2,14,21,25,71,80,84,85,86,89,94,141]
	Parties provide inadequate responses to contractual or technical issues.	[9,82,121]
	Owner or Engineer bureaucracy delays inspections or approvals.	[9,53,81,82,84,87]
	Engineer staff responds slowly to Contractor inquiries or site issues.	[21,48,54,71,73,81,139]
	The Contractor submits exaggerated or unrealistic claims.	[9,21,22,54,71,93,121,137,138]
Close-out	Defects are identified after the defects liability period ends.	[100,137]
	The Owner increases the scope after practical completion.	[137]
	Final or interim payments are delayed during project close-out.	[137]
	The Owner fails to settle final payments.	[137]

).

Most documented causes were concentrated in the core delivery phases of the project lifecycle (Initiation, Planning, Execution, and Monitoring & Control), while comparatively fewer studies examined dispute drivers during the Close-out phase, indicating a notable gap in existing research.

The following subsections present the findings for each project phase and discuss the most frequently cited causes.

4.2.1. Causes of Disputes in the Initiation Phase

The Initiation phase establishes the project’s fundamental parameters, including early scope definition, preliminary risk allocation, and initial regulatory engagement. Eight causes of disputes were identified in this phase (

Table 4. Causes of disputes during the Initiation Phase and their frequency across the reviewed studies.

Causes	Frequency
Risks are unfairly or inappropriately allocated during early project definition.	19
Difficulties in obtaining permits or understanding local regulations.	16
The project scope is vague or poorly defined, leading to misaligned expectations.	12
The Owner provides inconsistent or incomplete project requirements.	9
Parties lack proficiency in legal requirements or jurisdictional constraints.	5
Cost or duration estimates during feasibility studies are unrealistic or inaccurate.	4
The Owner fails to allocate an adequate budget or establish proper financial planning before project initiation.	1

).

The most frequently cited cause is unfair or inappropriate risk allocation, appearing 19 times across the reviewed studies. Prior research consistently ranks this issue among the leading contributors to disputes [45,71,72,73]. Risk allocation becomes unfair when contracts disproportionately transfer all or most of the risks to a single contract party, typically the contractor, even when those risks fall outside that party’s ability to foresee or manage them effectively [74]. Such imbalances often originate from inadequacies in feasibility studies, where risk registers intended to guide risk transfer and mitigation are either incomplete or insufficiently developed [75,76]. Poorly allocated risks frequently trigger disputes, leading to financial losses, delays, and reputational damage for all involved [77]. Scholars emphasize allocating risks to the party best positioned to manage them, as fair risk-sharing reduces opportunistic behavior, prevents inflated bids, and minimizes the likelihood of disputes [72,78,79].

A second prominent cause relates to difficulties in obtaining permits or interpreting local regulations, frequently highlighted as a major driver of disputes in prior studies [2,9,45,80]. When regulatory requirements are unclear, fragmented across agencies, or underestimated during the Initiation phase, projects advance with unresolved legal and administrative uncertainties that later manifest as delays, inconsistent interpretations, and additional costs [2,9]. These challenges are amplified in international or unfamiliar jurisdictions, where legal frameworks vary, and approval processes may be poorly understood [2,15]. Inadequate early engagement with regulatory authorities therefore exposes projects to avoidable risks that later materialize as disputes.

The third major cause concerns vague or poorly defined project scope, which creates misaligned expectations and increases the likelihood of variations. Studies have shown that an insufficiently defined scope during early project stages is a recurring trigger for disputes, as it leads to frequent modifications once execution begins [52,53,81,82]. Several factors contribute to this issue, including limited owner expertise in planning and engineering [15], compressed early-stage timelines, and the tendency to rush project initiation before design and specifications are adequately developed [2,83]. These shortcomings often result in design revisions, scope adjustments, and rework, which disrupt workflow and increase project costs [51]. For instance, ref. [53] reported a case where a 113% cost overrun was largely attributed to unclear scope definition.

Other causes in the Initiation phase, including inconsistent Owner requirements, limited understanding of legal constraints, unrealistic early estimates, and inadequate financial planning, reinforce the broader pattern that disputes are frequently rooted in early-stage uncertainty and misalignment.

4.2.2. Causes of Disputes in the Planning Phase

The Planning phase translates early project intentions into detailed contractual, technical, and managerial frameworks. At this stage, design documents, specifications, bills of quantities, and contract conditions are finalized, forming the basis for procurement, pricing, and execution.

Table 5. Causes of disputes during the Planning Phase and their frequency across the reviewed studies.

Causes	Frequency
Contract documents contain unclear, contradictory, or incomplete provisions (Ambiguous contract documents).	32
Design documents contain errors, omissions, or lack coordination.	24
Technical specifications are unclear, incomplete, or non-constructible.	23
Ineffective planning and scheduling due to the fast-track nature of the projects.	15
Insufficient time or budget for site investigation leads to subsurface issues.	15
Detailed cost or duration estimates are based on unrealistic assumptions.	15
Tender documents lack complete project information or Owner requirements.	13
Substantial increase in quantities leading to rate adjustments due to an inaccurate bill of quantities.	13
Use of generic specifications or drawings without sufficient detail tailored to the specific contract.	11
Contractors fail to fully understand project requirements during bidding, including failure to visit the site or properly review documents.	11
Unbalanced bidding and contractors’ nondisclosure of quantity deviations.	10
Lowest-price mentality in selecting service providers, disregarding technical competence, and sustainable profit margins.	9
The chosen procurement method or contract type is unsuitable.	7
Item descriptions in the bill of quantities are ambiguous or incomplete.	6
Parties disagree on payment terms under preliminaries or general items.	6
Delay in issuing site drawings and material specifications by the Engineer.	5
Insufficient time is allocated to prepare contract documents.	3
Bridges of contract or excessive amendments disrupt contract clarity.	3
Engineer staff lack experience in drafting contract documents.	2
Quality requirements are poorly defined, leading to subjective interpretations.	2
Parties misunderstand escalation or de-escalation provisions.	2
Project priorities are unclear or improperly assigned.	1
Failure to arrange required insurance coverage.	1

summarizes the 23 causes identified in this phase and their frequency of appearance across the reviewed studies.

The most frequently cited cause is ambiguous, contradictory, or incomplete contract documents, appearing 32 times. Prior research consistently identifies this issue among the top contributors to disputes [7,18,19,23,37,47,51,71,82,83,84,85,86,87]. Contract documents define the project delivery method, scope of work, material specifications, and the obligations of each party, and they serve as the primary reference for administering and managing the project [88]. Ambiguities often arise from vague terminology, inconsistent amendments, or the use of legal jargon that is open to multiple interpretations [2,54]. Such ambiguities, whether intentional or unintentional, can be leveraged by stakeholders seeking to maximize their own interests, often leading to conflict that may escalate into formal disputes. To mitigate these risks, contract documents should undergo thorough review by all parties, with adequate time allocated during tendering to clarify discrepancies before contract signing [89].

The second major cause is design errors, omissions, or lack of coordination, cited 24 times. Several studies ranked this cause among the top contributors to disputes [17,20,21,24,48,51,80,82]. Design is an iterative process requiring continuous coordination among project stakeholders to ensure accuracy and consistency. When drawings and specifications contain contradictions or fundamental errors, discrepancies often surface during execution, leading to rework, delays, and cost overruns [87,89]. Inadequate coordination between disciplines, insufficient design review, and compressed design schedules further exacerbate these issues [2]. Enhancing design quality through structured review processes, interdisciplinary coordination, and adequate design timelines is therefore essential to reducing dispute potential.

A third prominent cause is inadequate, unclear, or incomplete technical specifications, which appeared 23 times. Prior studies consistently identify specification deficiencies as a major source of disputes [7,9,17,19,24,37,53,71,83,84,90,91]. Technical specifications serve as a critical reference point for all project stakeholders, providing detailed requirements for materials, equipment, and workmanship. However, due to the complexity and volume of these documents, inconsistencies and omissions are common, particularly in large or fast-tracked projects [17,83]. Poor drafting practices, such as excessive reliance on “copy-and-paste” specifications from previous projects, often result in requirements that do not reflect the unique conditions of the current project. Additionally, some specifications include unclear or conflicting language, such as “contractor is the sole responsible for the means and methods of the construction”, further complicating project execution [83]. Budget and time constraints may also compress the planning phase, leaving insufficient time for proper review and coordination between disciplines before bidding. As a result, inconsistent specifications can cause work interruptions or cause work to progress in the wrong way, resulting in a claim that may evolve into a dispute. To address these issues, researchers recommend implementing structured quality-control procedures within design firms and engaging independent third-party reviewers when in-house expertise is limited [92].

Other notable causes in the Planning phase include ineffective planning and scheduling, insufficient time or budget for site investigation, incomplete tender documents, unbalanced bidding, and use of generic or non-project-specific drawings. Collectively, these issues reflect the broader challenge of inadequate preparation and coordination during the Planning phase, where deficiencies in documentation and design become embedded in the project and later manifest as claims and disputes during execution.

4.2.3. Causes of Disputes in the Execution Phase

The Execution phase involves the physical realization of the project, where plans, designs, and contractual commitments are translated into on-site activities. This stage is highly dynamic and resource-intensive, making it particularly vulnerable to disputes.

Table 6. Causes of disputes during the Execution Phase and their frequency across the studies.

Causes	Frequency
Changes or variations orders during construction, including undocumented oral instructions.	43
Owner’s financial instability and delayed progress payments.	25
Ineffective communication during construction or being overly reliant on oral exchanges.	22
Unforeseen physical site conditions encountered during construction.	19
The Owner delays or inconsistently issues decisions required for progress.	18
Poor quality work or materials due to inadequate Contractor QA/QC systems.	16
Manpower, materials, or equipment are insufficient or unavailable.	16
Adverse weather conditions resulting in slowness or stoppage of the project.	15
Fluctuations in labor, material, or currency costs affect project performance.	15
Relationships between parties are confrontational or mistrustful (adversarial project culture).	15
Poor Contractor performance leads to mistakes, rework, or slow progress.	14
Government regulations change or contradict earlier requirements, affecting project execution.	14
The Owner fails to hand over the site on time, delaying the construction start (delayed site possession).	13
Contractor site management, supervision, or coordination is inadequate.	13
Contractor financial difficulties and nonpayment to Subcontractors.	12
Accidents due to negligence and non-compliance with safety standards.	11
Political instability, public disorder, or local protests disrupt work (external disruptions).	11
Low or inefficient manpower productivity.	10
Subcontractors lack competence or are mismanaged by the Contractor.	8
Design revisions are required during construction due to incomplete or uncoordinated design.	8
Suppliers fail to deliver equipment or materials as planned.	8
The Owner demands acceleration without justification or compensation.	7
The Owner suspends or terminates works, causing delays and disputes.	7
Contractor staff lack the necessary skills or experience.	5
Opportunistic behavior by project parties, including withholding information or acting in self-interest.	5
Acts of God, such as earthquakes or floods, damage works or equipment (Force majeure events).	3
Equipment is unavailable due to breakdowns or maintenance issues.	3
The Owner or Engineer disrupts construction through excessive involvement.	3
The Contractor delays mobilizing manpower, equipment, or resources to the site.	2
Nominated or domestic Subcontractors delay their portion of the works.	2
Restricted or disrupted access to the site due to third-party interference.	2
Community expectations and local employment requirements are leading to disruptions affecting the project.	2
Effects of previous working relationships become observable during construction, influencing current project dynamics.	2
Weak project leadership or absence of a designated Project Manager.	2
Work sequences clash due to poor coordination or delayed handover.	1
The Contractor is unprepared to take possession when the site becomes available.	1
Security risks or incidents disrupt construction.	1
Damage or deterioration of materials during storage on-site.	1
Environmental or social impacts, such as noise, traffic, or pollution, affecting project progress.	1
Insufficient utilities on-site (electricity, water, etc.) disrupting construction activities.	1

summarizes the 40 causes identified in this phase and their frequency of appearance across the reviewed studies.

The most frequently cited cause is change or variation orders, including undocumented oral instructions, appearing 43 times. Numerous studies identify variations as one of the most significant contributors to disputes [2,7,17,19,20,21,24,37,51,53,72,81,83,84,89,90,93,94,95,96]. Change or variation orders are intended to be formal written instructions specifying additions, deletions, or revisions to contract documents, including associated adjustments in price and time [97]. However, in practice, many changes arise informally through verbal instructions issued on site or during urgent meetings, and can become a potential source of dispute [17]. These orders arise from both foreseeable and unforeseen causes [98]. Contributing factors include vague scope, design errors, insufficient drawings, inaccurate quantities, unrealistic timelines [81], and contradictory client instructions [24]. The tendency to rush through planning and early execution further increases the frequency of variations [83].

Disputes commonly emerge when variations exceed agreed-upon thresholds [83], when evaluation methods are unclear, leading contractors to claim higher rates and owners to offer lower ones [90], or when contractors proceed with extra work without valid written instructions [19]. They also occur when owners reject contractor claims due to inaccurate cost estimation, lack of supporting documentation, or suspicions of opportunistic behavior [71]. Further complications occur when contractors seek reimbursement for additional work, while owners argue that the work falls within the original contract scope and tendered price [21]. Excessive variations disrupt workflow, require additional resources, and necessitate changes in construction methods [51]. Common consequences include delays, cost escalation, reduced quality due to corner-cutting, and logistical challenges from unexpected material or equipment needs. Strengthening documentation practices, maintaining detailed variation logs, and ensuring timely written instructions can significantly reduce the dispute potential associated with change orders [7,17,81,96].

The second major cause is owner financial instability and delayed progress payments, cited 25 times. Numerous researchers have ranked this cause among the top contributors to construction disputes [2,37,47,53,54,81,82,84,85,87,94,95,99,100]. Efficient and timely payment processes are widely recognized as critical to project success [101,102]. However, payment-related challenges persist globally, even in developed economies, where fewer than half of construction firms pay invoices on time [103,104]. Although contractual provisions typically require owners to remit payments within specified timeframes upon submission of valid invoices, delays often occur due to owner insolvency, poor feasibility studies, or inaccurate cost estimates, all of which disrupt financial planning and hinder project progress [81,105]. In some cases, owners may intentionally delay payments to benefit from accrued interest [87], while administrative inefficiencies, especially in public-sector projects, further extend payment certification beyond contractual deadlines due to bureaucratic approval processes. For contractors, payment failures can trigger procurement delays, cash-flow shortages, workforce demobilization, and even insolvency, ultimately resulting in time extensions, cost overruns, and legal disputes [104,106,107]. To mitigate these risks, stakeholders must understand the causes and contractual implications of payment failures [108]. Owners should secure accurate cost estimates before project commitment to confirm project feasibility and prevent disputes [81]. Contracts should include transparent payment terms that specify payment schedules, performance milestones, and currencies, along with legal mechanisms to address unjustified delays [87]. Structuring payments into smaller, more frequent installments and facilitating direct communication between contractors and financing institutions can help ensure timely payment upon owner approval [94].

The third prominent cause is Ineffective communication during construction or overly relying on oral exchanges, appearing 22 times across the reviewed studies. Several researchers consistently ranked this cause among the top contributors to construction disputes [2,24,54,72,73,84,109]. Clear and timely communication is essential for effective project delivery [110,111]. Despite its importance, maintaining effective communication remains a challenge due to the industry’s complex, multi-stakeholder nature. Poor communication contributes directly to schedule disruptions, cost overruns, and litigation [112,113,114]. Schedule disruptions often stem from unclear objectives, slow information flow, improper communication channels, and rework caused by incomplete or inaccurate information [115,116,117]. Cost overruns similarly result from delayed instructions or misinterpreted drawings, leading to rework, demolition, and additional resource requirements [116,118,119]. Beyond time and cost, poor communication contributes to workplace accidents, low morale, weak teamwork, delayed emergency responses, reduced productivity, and stakeholder dissatisfaction [120]. Reliance on oral instructions is particularly problematic, as undocumented directives create uncertainty regarding scope, responsibilities, and entitlement, increasing the likelihood of disputes. Establishing a formal communication management plan, defining reporting lines, and ensuring that all critical instructions are documented can significantly reduce communication-related disputes.

The fourth major cause is unforeseen physical site conditions, cited 19 times. Numerous researchers have ranked this cause among the top contributors to construction disputes [20,25,51,71,80,82,84,90,93,100,121]. Disputes arise when actual geo-environmental conditions differ from those described in contract documents or when assumptions based on preliminary geotechnical surveys fail to reflect site realities, resulting in extra work, design failures, delays, safety risks, and cost impacts [9,122,123]. Comprehensive site investigations, including soil testing and subsurface exploration, are essential, especially for projects involving significant underground works [124,125]. Insufficient investigation has been shown to cause substantial overruns. For example, inadequate geotechnical data led to change orders exceeding 35.6% of the original budget in an Omani road project [126]. Discrepancies between early-stage geotechnical reports and later contractor-led investigations are common [127], often worsened by funding constraints that limit the extent of site investigation. Even extensive test borings may not fully capture subsurface variability, and geotechnical reports typically include disclaimers acknowledging these limitations [123]. Moreover, unexpected utilities not documented in contract drawings may surface during construction, necessitating either diversion or modification of proposed works [21], further escalating project complexity and dispute likelihood. To mitigate these issues, owners should assess contractors’ understanding of local site characteristics, conduct detailed investigations, and address major risks through separate change orders [128]. Contracts should avoid clauses that transfer all risk to contractors and instead promote equitable risk-sharing. Full disclosure of available geotechnical information and realistic contingency budgets further help manage the financial implications of unforeseen conditions.

Other notable causes in the Execution phase include delayed decisions required for progress, contractor performance issues, resource shortages, and adverse weather conditions. Collectively, these issues highlight the Execution phase as the most dispute-prone stage of the project lifecycle, where deficiencies in site management, documentation, communication, and site investigation converge and manifest as disputes.

4.2.4. Causes of Disputes in the Monitoring & Control Phase

The Monitoring & Control phase focuses on evaluating project performance, administering contractual procedures, and certifying completed work.

Table 7. Causes of disputes during the Monitoring & Control phase and their frequency across the reviewed studies.

Causes	Frequency
The owner delays issuing interim decisions on extensions of time or compensation.	12
The Contractor submits exaggerated or unrealistic claims.	9
Parties fail to understand or comply with contractual obligations.	7
Owner or Engineer bureaucracy delays inspections or approvals.	6
Engineer staff responds slowly to Contractor inquiries or site issues.	6
Claims are incomplete, poorly drafted, or lack supporting evidence.	3
Parties provide inadequate responses to contractual or technical issues.	3
Parties lack staff capable of identifying or managing claims.	2
Failure to provide timely contractual notifications regarding changes, approvals, or required actions.	2
Parties fail to record events or prepare required reports.	2

summarizes the ten causes identified in this phase and their frequency of appearance across the reviewed studies.

The most frequently cited cause is the Owner delaying interim decisions on extensions of time or compensation, appearing 12 times. Numerous researchers identify this issue as a major contributor to construction disputes [2,21,25,80,84,85,86,89,95]. Delays and disruptions are almost inevitable in construction projects, particularly large and complex ones, with evidence showing that nearly 70% of projects experience delays of 10–30% beyond their planned duration [129,130]. These delays may arise from variations, late information, adverse weather, poor performance, remedial work, or numerous other time-related events [131]. When such delays are beyond the contractor’s control, EOT claims serve as a contractual mechanism to prevent the unfair imposition of liquidated damages and to compensate for extended overhead costs [132]. Construction contracts distinguish between non-excusable delays, caused solely by the contractor or its suppliers, and excusable delays, which may be either non-compensable (e.g., force majeure events), where the contractor is normally entitled to time extensions but not financial compensation, or compensable delays caused by the Owner or its agents, such as late issuance of drawings or instructions, for which the contractor is also entitled to financial compensation [133]. Contractors must substantiate EOT claims, while the Owner or Engineer is contractually obligated to assess them within specified timeframes. However, studies show that EOT submissions are frequently met with delayed, partial, or inconsistent responses. Engineers may request repeated clarifications, reduce the claimed entitlement, or fail to issue decisions altogether, even when claims are submitted correctly and on time [15]. In some cases, EOT claims escalate into disputes due to the Engineer’s failure to approve them promptly [13]. Such delays in decision-making heighten project uncertainty, expose contractors to potential liquidated damages, and intensify adversarial behavior. As Cakmak [46] noted, unresolved delay-related issues can escalate into costly claims, productivity losses, work disruptions, and prolonged disputes. Consequently, timely and transparent interim decisions are essential to maintaining project continuity and preventing disputes.

The second major cause is the Contractor submitting exaggerated or unrealistic claims, cited 9 times. While claims are inherent to construction projects, inflated or poorly substantiated claims frequently trigger disputes. Studies show that the accumulation of unattended or poorly supported claims throughout the project lifecycle often culminates in cumulative disputes toward project close-out, straining relationships and increasing adversarial behavior among stakeholders [15,134]. Exaggerated claims frequently stem from opportunistic behavior, where contractors exploit contractual ambiguities or information asymmetries to secure financial advantage [135,136]. Competitive bidding pressures may force contractors to underprice their tenders, prompting them to later recover lost margins through aggressive or inflated claims [9,72]. When claims lack proper evidence, justification, or contemporaneous records, they are more likely to be rejected by the Owner or Engineer, escalating disagreements and prolonging the dispute cycle. Such practices undermine trust and increase the administrative burden on project teams, making exaggerated claims a recurrent trigger of disputes during this phase.

Other notable causes in the Monitoring & Control phase include failures to comply with contractual procedures, inadequate responses to contractual or technical issues, limited staff capability in identifying or managing claims, and failures to record events or prepare required reports. Collectively, these issues underscore that disputes during this phase stem largely from weaknesses in contract administration, procedural compliance, and documentation practices.

4.2.5. Causes of Disputes in the Close-Out Phase

The Close-out phase occurs after practical completion, when contractual obligations shift, and the project transitions from active construction to final handover. Disputes during this stage often arise from differing interpretations of post-completion responsibilities.

Table 8. Causes of disputes during the Close-out phase and their frequency across the reviewed studies.

Causes	Frequency
Defects are identified after the defects liability period ends.	2
The Owner increases the scope after practical completion.	1
Final or interim payments are delayed during project close-out.	1
The Owner fails to settle final payments.	1

summarizes the four causes identified in this phase and their frequency of appearance across the reviewed studies.

The most prominent cause is defects being identified after the defects liability period ends, which creates disagreement over whether the contractor remains responsible for rectification or whether such defects fall outside the contractual maintenance obligations [100,137]. Other causes include the Owner increasing the scope after practical completion, delays in issuing final or interim payments during project close-out, and the Owner’s failure to settle final payments [137]. These issues typically emerge when contractual boundaries become blurred at the end of the project, or when administrative processes such as certification and payment settlement are not completed in a timely manner.

Although the Close-out phase marks the formal conclusion of construction activities, it remains vulnerable to disputes arising from unresolved obligations, late-identified defects, and financial settlement issues. However, the limited number of studies addressing this phase highlights a clear gap in the literature. Further investigation is needed into dispute causation during the Close-out phase, which remains underexplored in existing research.

4.2.6. Practical Contributions

This study systematically examines the most frequently reported causes of construction disputes through a lifecycle-based lens within a multiregional context. By synthesizing peer-reviewed evidence from diverse regions, it identifies the full range of dispute causes, evaluates their relative significance, and organizes them within a structured lifecycle framework. This consolidated evidence base provides practitioners with a clear and actionable foundation for proactive dispute management.

The lifecycle-based classification developed in this study offers practitioners a structured and actionable foundation for proactive dispute mitigation across project phases. By identifying when specific dispute causes typically emerge, project teams can anticipate phase-specific risks and implement preventive measures at the earliest feasible point. For example, the findings show that the Initiation and Planning phases are dominated by unfair risk allocation, ambiguous contract documents, design errors, and unclear technical specifications. These insights can guide practitioners to strengthen early-stage planning, improve design coordination, refine tender documentation, and ensure clearer allocation of responsibilities before execution begins. In contrast, the Execution phase is the most dispute-intensive, driven by variation orders, payment delays, ineffective communication, and unforeseen site conditions, highlighting the need for robust monitoring mechanisms, early-warning systems, and communication protocols to detect and address emerging issues before they escalate.

The classification also supports more efficient allocation of preventive resources. Rather than applying generic dispute-avoidance measures uniformly across the project, practitioners can target interventions toward the phases where each cause is most likely to occur, improving both cost-effectiveness and managerial focus. In addition, the review draws on studies from multiple regions, which enhances the applicability of these insights in international projects where regulatory diversity, cultural differences, and cross-border coordination often amplify misalignment risks. Project managers, consultants, and contract administrators operating in such environments can use the lifecycle mapping to benchmark their practices against internationally observed patterns and tailor mitigation strategies to the specific risk profile of each phase.

Overall, the lifecycle-based classification provides a practical roadmap for integrating dispute-prevention strategies into project planning, design management, procurement, contract administration, and site-level execution. By addressing the root causes of disputes at the phase in which they originate, practitioners can reduce the likelihood of escalation, improve stakeholder alignment, and enhance the overall resilience of project delivery processes.

5. Conclusions

Construction disputes continue to challenge the global construction industry, reflecting the sector’s complexity, fragmented nature, and persistent uncertainty. This study contributes to dispute-prevention research by adopting a lifecycle-based perspective and systematically examining how dispute causes emerge across project phases. Through a semi-automated systematic literature review supported by NLP techniques, 84 distinct dispute causes were consolidated from 52 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2024.

The findings show that causes of dispute span the entire project lifecycle, though their distribution is uneven. In the early phases, Initiation and Planning are characterized by unfair risk allocation, ambiguous contract documents, design errors, and unclear technical specifications. The Execution phase is the most dispute-intensive, driven by variation orders, payment delays, ineffective communication, and unforeseen site conditions. Disputes in the Monitoring & Control phase stem largely from delayed decisions on extensions of time or compensation and exaggerated claims. Meanwhile, the Close-out phase remains underexplored, with only limited evidence on issues such as post-completion defects and delayed final payments.

By linking dispute causes to specific lifecycle stages, this study provides a structured foundation for targeted, phase-appropriate mitigation strategies. The global scope of the review enhances its relevance for practitioners operating in diverse regulatory and cultural contexts, particularly in international projects where misalignment risks are heightened.

The study is subject to limitations, including its focus on English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles and its reliance on lifecycle-based categorization. In addition, the geographical distribution of the included studies is uneven, which may influence the relative frequency with which certain causes appear in the literature; however, this imbalance affects only the interpretation of frequency counts and does not undermine the conceptual validity of the consolidated cause set or the lifecycle-based classification. Future research should expand the evidence base to include additional publication types and languages and develop more granular classification frameworks. Further work is also needed to investigate dispute causation during the Close-out phase and to explore the interrelationships among dispute causes across phases. Advancing predictive models and integrating digital technologies such as BIM, blockchain, and machine learning represent promising directions for improving dispute prevention and resolution throughout the project lifecycle.