TOWARD EVIDENCE-BASED ADR SELECTION IN CONSTRUCTION: A REVIEW OF PRACTICE GAPS

Abstract

The selection of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods in construction projects is frequently driven by contractual defaults and practitioner experience rather than systematic evaluation of dispute and project characteristics. This study examines the resulting practice gap through a structured literature review focused on Sub-Saharan Africa. Using a PRISMA-inspired screening process, 42 records were identified, narrowed to 19 studies, and analyzed through thematic synthesis. The findings reveal six interrelated barriers: contractual default mechanisms, path dependency, limited awareness of ADR options, absence of decision-support tools, institutional constraints, and stakeholder power asymmetries. These factors collectively reinforce non-systematic and path-dependent decision-making. To address this gap, the study proposes a conceptual Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework that aligns dispute characteristics with appropriate ADR methods by integrating criteria such as cost, time, enforceability, and relationship preservation. The framework provides a foundation for developing structured, transparent, and context-sensitive decision-support tools for practitioners, supporting future empirical validation efforts.