跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 黃仲宜
Chun-Yi Hwang
論文名稱： 以使用者為中心之案例式推理機制輔助工程爭議解決之探討
User-Centered Case-Based Reasoning Mechanism for Supporting Construction Dispute Resolution
指導教授： 姚乃嘉
Nie-Jia Yau
口試委員:
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 工學院 - 土木工程學系
Department of Civil Engineering
論文出版年： 2014
畢業學年度： 102
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 136
中文關鍵詞： 案例推理法 、工程爭議 、人機互動 、國際標準組織 、訴外爭議解決
外文關鍵詞： Case-based reasoning, Construction dispute, Human-system interaction, International Organization for Standardization, Alternative dispute resolution
相關次數： 點閱：22  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 契約兩造常因立場對立而引起爭議，而工程爭議不僅發生於施工階段，亦發生在專案生命週期之其他階段。進一步而言，工程專案之人為疏失亦可能擴大災害所帶來的損失，例如日本福島核電廠事故及新北市破堤淹水案。因此跨領域學者專家紛紛嘗試建立有效解決糾紛的方法。傳統上，工程爭議通常採取訴訟或訴外爭議解決機制(ADR)此兩種主要方式解決。就大陸法系國家而言，訴訟通常涉及民事、刑事及國家賠償，而訴外紛爭解決機制則主要為磋商、和解、調解及仲裁等方式。然而，相似案件同樣處理，向為英美法及大陸法爭議解決方式，而一般人於作成決定或處理日常爭議時，傾向考量類似的經驗值。因此，案例推理法(CBR)得以提供一合理模型解決問題。
    本研究評估可行之CBR以輔助解決工程生命週期中所產生之爭議，並藉由國際標準化組織(ISO)之成果設計一使用者為主之爭議解決輔助機制雛型，藉此彈性屬性選擇機制，省卻傳統性案例式推理機制之前置資料庫建制時間及成本。本文首先探討ADR於台灣的適用情形，於探討CBR暨其R5模型後，並應用ISO已建立之概念及ADR發展出一使用者為主之CBR雛型以輔助工程爭議解決。除此之外，本文亦針對現有案例資料庫進行實證研究。
    本研究發現結合各種爭議處理方法，有助於達成預定目標。而採逐步ADR處理，則能有效解決爭議。另實證研究證明，動態及重複之系統得以檢索出適合之參考案例，以成功預測目標案件之結果。以往相關研究並未充分考量使用者於爭議解決過程中之需求，而此CBR並未如傳統CBR鎖定屬性及其權重，此彈性機制亦為本研究之主要貢獻之一。此系統性模型得以有效輔助解決未來類似之爭議，即便遭遇如損鄰等大量爭議案件，亦可順利處理。

    Construction disputes can occur in any phase of project’s lifecycle, not just during the construction phase. Opposing personalities between the project owner and the contractor often lead to differences of opinion, and human error on a construction project can escalate the spread of damage in cases of natural disaster, as happened during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan and during the August 2004 flooding caused by a typhoon in Taipei. Multidisciplinary researchers have attempted to develop methodologies for the effective mitigation of disputes. Disputes could be resolved through one or a combination of these methods.
    Dispute settlement methods fall into two main categories, litigation and alternative the resolution of disputes (ADR). In most civil law countries, litigation involves civil, criminal and state compensation. ADR methods include but are not limited to negotiation, amiable conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. In a common law system, disputes are often resolved based on the outcomes of previous cases, whereas resolving disputes according to laws and regulations is a characteristic of the continental legal system. Regardless of the method, all legal systems share a common objective; they are applied to the resolution of disputes.
    When making decisions or solving everyday problems, most people take similar previous experiences into consideration. Case-based Reasoning (CBR) is a the resolution of disputes methodology that provides a logical model similar to that used by many people to resolve everyday problems.
    This thesis is an investigation of the feasibility of Case-based Reasoning (CBR) as a mechanism to facilitate the resolution of construction disputes. We began with a review of common ADR methods and their application in the settling of claims in Taiwan. After evaluating CBR methodology, particularly the R5 model, we integrated the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (ISO 9241-210) and ADR mechanisms in the development of a user-centered prototype CBR mechanism (UCBR) for the resolution of disputes, applicable at any point in the life cycle of a construction project. We further investigated CBR systems by examining cases associated with the flooding in Taipei in August 2004 and obtained data from the Taipei mediation database and Taiwan official law and regulations database. The prototype system was then tested using the aforementioned cases of conciliation, mediation and litigation. Due to privacy concerns, arbitration cases were excluded.
    Previous researchers demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating multiple methods for the resolution of disputes. A stepwise ADR approach has proven effective in resolving construction disputes. Empirical findings have demonstrated the effectiveness of dynamic, recursive ADR systems in the retrieval of suitable reference cases. As a result, this approach is able to predict the outcome of target cases successfully. Unlike traditional methodologies, the CBR mechanism does not establish attributes or their respective weights in advance. Previous investigations of relevant systems have not taken the needs of end users into consideration when formulating mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. One objective of this empirical study was to fill this gap in the research by formulating a systematic dispute resolution process capable of handling the large volume of disputes that commonly arise in the aftermath of disasters.

    Chinese Abstract（摘要） i English Abstract ii Acknowledgements（致謝） iv Table of Contents v List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Instruction of Notification and Abbreviation ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Motivation 2 1.2 Problem Statement and Objectives 3 1.3 Scope and Limitation 4 1.4 Research Methodology 5 1.5 Thesis Structure 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review 10 2.1 Construction Dispute Resolution Mechanism 10 2.1.1 Negotiation 12 2.1.2 Amiable Conciliation 13 2.1.3 Mediation 14 2.1.4 Arbitration 23 2.1.5 Litigation 24 2.1.6 Other Means 26 2.2 Case-based Reasoning 27 2.2.1 Outline of Case-based Reasoning Mechanism 28 2.2.2 Outline of CBR R5 Model 29 2.2.3 CBR on Alternative Dispute Resolution 30 2.3 User Center Design & International Standards 32 2.3.1 Outline of International Organization for Standardization 32 2.3.2 ISO Human-System Interaction 34 2.3.3 ISO on top of CBR 36 2.4 Summary 38 Chapter 3 Case of ADR Mechanism 39 3.1 Illustrative Example Case 40 3.2 Aftermath of the Disasters 45 3.2.1 Litigation 45 3.2.1 Rehabilitation 46 3.2.2 Claims Cases 48 3.3 Result Analysis 50 3.3.1 Comparison with Hurricane Katrina 50 3.3.2 Scenario Analysis 51 3.4 Summary 51 3.4.1 Contractors 53 3.4.2 Owners 53 3.4.3 Suggested Dispute Resolution Method 54 Chapter 4 Design of UCBR Mechanism 55 4.1 Implementation of ISO to R5 CBR 55 4.2 Source of Dispute Cases 57 4.3 System Analysis 57 4.3.1 System Framework and Flowchart 58 4.3.2 Context Diagram and Logical Level DFD 60 4.3.3 Physical Level of Design 61 4.4 Attributes and Weights 62 4.4.1 Attributes 62 4.4.2 Weight of Attributes 66 4.5 Calculation of Similarity 69 4.6 Comparison of Similar CALR Systems 70 4.6.1 Retrieval Systems for Local Law and Regulations 71 4.6.2 Westlaw System 74 4.7 Summary 76 Chapter 5 Implementation of UCBR Mechanism 78 5.1 Illustrative Example of Implementation 78 5.1.1 Facts 79 5.1.2 Issues 80 5.1.3 Reasoning 80 5.1.4 Conclusion 81 5.2 Test Run of the Prototype Mechanism 82 5.3 Sources of Dispute Cases 82 5.4 Attributes and Weights 83 5.4.1 Selection of Attributes 83 5.4.2 Weight of Attributes 86 5.5 Calculation of Similarity 87 5.5.1 Demonstration of Traditional CBR Approach 88 5.5.2 Demonstration of Prototype UCBR System 89 5.5.3 UCBR System with Three-Point Likert Scale 92 5.6 Scenario Analysis and Summary 96 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 98 6.1 Conclusions 98 6.2 Recommendations 101 Bibliographies 103 Appendix A: Prototype System (營建賠償爭議資訊雛型系統) 110 Appendix B: ISO 9241-210 117

    [1] F.A.Q’s: How cost-effective is mediation. (2010a). Raleigh, NC: General Counsel Mediation.
    [2] Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. Journal of law and economics, 22(2), 233-261.
    [3] Brown, H. J., & Marriott, A. L. (1999). ADR principles and practice (p. 12). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
    [4] Chan, E. H., Suen, H. C., & Chan, C. K. (2006). MAUT-based dispute resolution selection model prototype for international construction projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 132(5), 444-451.
    [5] Cheung, S. O., Yiu, T. W., & Yeung, S. F. (2006). A study of styles and outcomes in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of construction engineering and management, 132(8), 805-814.
    [6] Yiu, T. W., Cheung, S. O., & Mok, F. M. (2006). Logistic likelihood analysis of mediation outcomes. Journal of construction engineering and management, 132(10), 1026-1036.
    [7] Thomas-Mobley, L. (2007). US evidence laws and their influence on mold litigation outcomes. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(4), 352-357.
    [8] Yiu, T. W., Cheung, S. O., & Chow, P. T. (2008). Logistic regression modeling of construction negotiation outcomes. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 55(3), 468-478.
    [9] Complaint Review for government procurement in Taiwan. (2000). 39-41. Taiwan: Public Construction Commission.
    [10] Wigmore, J.H. (1928a). A Panorama of the World’s Legal Systems, Vol. I. St. Paul: West Publishing Co, 32-33.
    [11] Civil Code of Taiwan. (2007). Retrieved from http://law.moj.gov.tw/
    [12] State Compensation Law. (2007). Retrieved from http://law.moj.gov.tw/
    [13] Judicial Yuan. (2008a). Laws and Regulations. Law and Regulations Retrieving System, Retrieved May 20, 2008 from http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/eng/FLAW/FLAWQRY01_1.asp
    [14] Igor Matijevic. (2010). Concept of Mediation, Construction Industry and Mediation. World Bank Group of International Finance Corporation, 31-32.
    [15] National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. (2003a) Dispute Resolution Term, Australia: NADRAC, 3-4.
    [16] Judicial Yuan. (2007a). Exploring the dispute resolution function of court. Judicial Weekly e-thesis, 1338. Retrieved Dec. 24, 2013, from http://www.judicial.gov.tw/jw9706/1338_main.html#2
    [17] Hwang, C.Y. and Yau, N.J. (Sep. 2009). Study of Legal Events and Dispute Resolutions for Compensation after Disaster Synthesized with Contributory Negligence. Journal of Construction Management. 80, 47-54.
    [18] Department of Statistics. (2010). Report on the Survey of Citizens' Life Status in Taiwan Area, Vol. 16. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of the Interior.
    [19] Department of Statistics. (2009a). Cases of Mediation: Annual Statistic Report. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of the Interior.
    [20] F.A.Q’s: How cost-effective is mediation. (2010b). Raleigh, NC: General Counsel Mediation.
    [21] Department of Statistics. (2009b). Cases of Mediation: Annual Statistic Report. Ministry of the Interior, Taipei, Taiwan.
    [22] Dispute Resolution Board Foundation. (2007). 1.3 Benefits: DRBF Practices and Procedures., Seattle, Washington: DRBF Research, 3-4.
    [23] Queensland Government. (2010). Appendix 1: Achievements in 2008–09. In Annual Report 2008-09. Queensland, Australia.
    [24] Public Construction Commission. (2000a). Complaint Review for government procurement in Taiwan, Taiwan: PCC, 39-40.
    [25] Public Construction Commission. (2000b). Complaint Review for government procurement in Taiwan, Taiwan: PCC, 41-42.
    [26] Wigmore, J.H. (1928a). A Panorama of the World’s Legal Systems, Vol. I. St. Paul: West Publishing Co, 32-33.
    [27] Judicial Yuan. (2008b). Adjudicative power of Taiwan courts. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from http://www.judicial.gov.tw/en/
    [28] The Arbitration Association of the Republic of China. (2014) Comparison of Fee Schedule among Arbitration, Mediation, and Court Acceptance Fee. Taipei, Taiwan.
    [29] The ABCs of ADR: A Dispute Resolution Glossary. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/alliance/resources/Basics/ABCs.html.
    [30] Kamar, E., Hacker, S., & Horvitz, E. (2012, June). Combining human and machine intelligence in large-scale crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1 (pp. 467-474). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
    [31] Prentzas, J., & Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2007). Categorizing approaches combining rule‐based and case‐based reasoning. Expert Systems. 24(2), 97-122.
    [32] Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The Representation of Knowledge in Memory1. 99-135.
    [33] Pulket, T., & Arditi, D. (2009). Universal prediction model for construction litigation. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 23(3), 178-187.
    [34] Watson, I. (1999). Case-based reasoning is a methodology not a technology. Knowledge-based systems. 12(5), 303-308.
    [35] Judicial Yuan. (2007b). Exploring the dispute resolution function of court. Judicial Weekly e-thesis, 1338. Retrieved Dec. 24, 2013, from http://www.judicial.gov.tw/jw9706/1338_main.html#2
    [36] Watson, I., & Marir, F. (1994a). Case-based reasoning: A review. Knowledge Engineering Review. 9(4), 327-354.
    [37] Reich, Y. (1991). Exemplar-based knowledge acquisition. Machine Learning. 6(1), 99-103.
    [38] Watson, I., & Marir, F. (1994b). Case-based reasoning: A review. Knowledge Engineering Review. 9(4), 327-354.
    [39] Nagar, Y. (2013). Combining human and machine intelligence for making predictions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [40] Shokouhi, S. V., Skalle, P., & Aamodt, A. (2011). An overview of case-based reasoning applications in drilling engineering. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-13.
    [41] Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI communications. 7(1), 39-59.
    [42] Finnie, G., & Sun, Z. (2003). R5 model for case-based reasoning. Knowledge-Based Systems. 16(1), 59-65.
    [43] Chen, J.-H. (2003). Litigation prediction model for construction disputes caused by change orders (Unpublished dissertation). The University of Wisconsin - Madison, United States, Wisconsin.
    [44] Wiratunga, N., Craw, S., & Massie, S. (2003). Index driven selective sampling for CBR. In Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development (pp. 637-651). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    [45] Chau, K. W. (2006). Prediction of construction litigation outcome–a case-based reasoning approach. In Advances In Applied Artificial Intelligence (pp. 548-553). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    [46] El-adaway, I. H. (2008). Construction dispute mitigation through multi-agent based simulation and risk management modeling (Unpublished dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames.
    [47] Cheng, M. Y., Tsai, H. C., & Chiu, Y. H. (2009a). Fuzzy case-based reasoning for coping with construction disputes. Expert Systems with Applications. 36(2), 4106-4113.
    [48] Pulket, T., & Arditi, D. (2009). Universal prediction model for construction litigation. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 23(3), 178-187.
    [49] Mahfouz, T., & Kandil, A. (2010). Automated outcome prediction model for differing site conditions through support vector machines. Proc. of the ICCCBE 2010.
    [50] Chou, J.-S.. (2012) Comparison of multi-label classification models to forecast project dispute resolutions. Expert Systems with Applications. 39, 10202-10211.
    [51] Kanapeckiene, L., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Raslanas, S. (2011). Method and system for multi-attribute market value assessment in analysis of construction and retrofit projects. Expert systems with applications. 38(11), 14196-14207.
    [52] Chiu, F.-R., Wang, C.-Y., Huang, Y.-C. and Chen, Y.-K. (2011). Developing a case-based reasoning system of leisure constraints. Information Technology Journal. 10, 541-548.
    [53] Pakdel, R., Ranjbar, S. and Hashemi M. (2013). A user-friendly CAPTCHA scheme based on usability features. Information Technology Journal. 12(1), 61-70.
    [54] Arcos, J. L., Mulayim, O., & Leake, D. (2008). Using introspective reasoning to improve CBR system performance. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2008 Workshop on Metareasoning: Thinking About Thinking (pp. 21-28).
    [55] National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. (2003b) Dispute Resolution Term, Australia: NADRAC, 3-4.
    [56] International Organization for Standardization. How does ISO develop standards? Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development.htm
    [57] Gamez, J. F., Akhtar, S., & Murthy, S. J. (2000). Trace driven simulation of dynamic branch prediction schemes. Simulation. 74(4), 227-242.
    [58] Delatte, N. J., & Rens, K. L. (2002). Forensics and case studies in civil engineering education: State of the art. Journal of performance of constructed facilities. 16(3), 98-109.
    [59] Federal Emergency Management Agency of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (FEMA). (2009a). Disaster Information: Learn About the Types of Disasters. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2009, from http://www.fema.gov/hazard/types.shtm
    [60] Federal Emergency Management Agency of U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (FEMA, 2009b). Disaster Information: Flood. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2009, from http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm.
    [61] Department of Rapid Transit Systems. (2006). Summary Report of Typhoon Aere Case. Taipei, Taiwan: DORTS.
    [62] Taiwan Province Association of Professional Civil Engineers. (2004). Expertise Report on Sanchung City Flooding. Taipei, Taiwan: TWCE.
    [63] Control Yuan. (2005). Correction Report for Sanchung City Flooding. Taipei, Taiwan: Control Yuan.
    [64] Yau, N. J., & Hwang, C. Y. (2011). Legal Impact and Dispute Resolution of Disaster in Taiwan: Lessons Learned from Typhoon Aere. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. 3(1), 34-40.
    [65] Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2006). Hurricane Katrina Task Force: Subcommittee Report. American Bar Association, U.S.A.
    [66] Independent Levee Investigation Team. (2006). Chapter 8: The Orleans East Bank (Downtown) and Canal District Protected Area. In Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood Protection Systems in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005 (pp. 37-29). Berkeley, California: ILIT.
    [67] Not in Our Name. (2006). Verdict and findings: Verdict and Findings of Fact., New York:NION. 29-34.
    [68] Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force. (2006). Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System. Washington, DC.: United States Army Corps of Engineers.
    [69] Judicial Yuan (2008c). Statistical Analysis. In Judicial Statistics Yearbook. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from http://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/year96/contents_table_en.htm
    [70] Cheng, M. Y., Tsai, H. C., & Chiu, Y. H. (2009b). Fuzzy case-based reasoning for coping with construction disputes. Expert Systems with Applications. 36(2), 4106-4113.
    [71] Optimization. Retrieved from http://www.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/~u91029/Optimization.html
    [72] Burkhard, H. D. (2001). Similarity and distance in case based reasoning. Fundamenta Informaticae. 47(3), 201-215.
    [73] Lex Data Information Inc. Lawbank. Retrieved from http://www.lawbank.com.tw/
    [74] LexisNexis. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.tw/en-tw/products/lexis.page
    [75] Westlaw International. Retrieved from http://westlawinternational.com/about-us/our-family/
    [76] Lomio J. P., & Wayne E. V. (2008). Law Librarians and LexisNexis vs. Westlaw: Survey Results (Research Paper No. 23, Revised Edition).
    [77] The Judicial Yuan of the Republic China. (2013a) Taiwan judgments: Law and Regulations Retrieving System. Retrieved Dec. 25, 2013 from http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/eng/
    [78] The Judicial Yuan of the Republic China. (2013b) Taiwan judgments: Law and Regulations Retrieving System. Retrieved Dec. 25, 2013 from http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/eng/

    QR CODE
    :::