Perceived causes of construction disputes and the dispute-prevention potential of building information modelling and common data environments in Ghana
Godfred Fobiri, Aloysius Sam, Deodate Nichie, Emmanuel Ofori-YeboahPurpose
This paper aims to examine the perceived causes of construction disputes and evaluate the dispute-prevention potential of building information modelling (BIM) and common data environments (CDE) among construction professionals in Ghana.
Design/methodology/approach
A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was adopted. Data were collected from 167 construction professionals using a structured questionnaire. The analysis used descriptive statistics, relative importance index, reliability analysis, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests, Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and robust regression modelling.
Findings
The results show that delayed payment and financial issues, communication gaps and unclear site instructions were the most important perceived causes of disputes. BIM was rated highly for digital audit trail, improved visualisation and stakeholder communication, while CDE was rated highly for better decision-making, trust and communication and transparency. All major scales showed excellent internal consistency. The findings further reveal strong positive associations between perceived dispute causes and the perceived preventive value of both BIM and CDE. No significant difference was found between BIM and CDE in their overall perceived dispute-prevention value. In the multivariable models, perceived dispute severity was the strongest predictor of both BIM and CDE preventive value.
Research limitations/implications
The study is limited by its non-probability sampling, cross-sectional design and reliance on questionnaire-based perception data. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as professional perceptions rather than direct evidence of actual dispute reduction through BIM and CDE implementation. The Ghana-specific context also limits wider generalisation. Future research should use larger representative samples, longitudinal designs, interviews, case studies and project records to examine how BIM and CDE influence real dispute-prevention outcomes.
Practical implications
The findings imply that construction clients, consultants, contractors and project managers should prioritise stronger payment administration, clear written site instructions, improved communication and proper documentation to reduce dispute risks. Since BIM and CDE were perceived as valuable dispute-prevention tools, project organisations should adopt them as complementary systems for improving design clarity, information traceability, decision tracking, transparency and accountability. Public-sector and complex projects should particularly integrate BIM and CDE into procurement, contract administration and project governance processes. Professional bodies and tertiary institutions should also strengthen training in digital construction, audit trails and dispute-prevention practices.
Social implications
The findings suggest that reducing construction disputes can improve trust, fairness and accountability among clients, contractors, consultants and other project stakeholders. Better payment control, clearer communication and improved documentation may reduce project delays, abandoned works and financial stress on contractors and workers. The use of BIM and CDE can also promote transparency and shared responsibility, particularly in public construction projects where disputes may affect communities that depend on timely infrastructure delivery. By supporting more reliable project completion, digital dispute-prevention systems can contribute to better public service delivery and stronger confidence in Ghana’s construction sector.
Originality/value
The paper contributes to the international digital construction literature by linking dispute-cause severity with the perceived preventive value of BIM and CDE in a developing construction market. It extends BIM/CDE scholarship beyond efficiency and coordination benefits by theorising these systems as governance mechanisms that reduce information asymmetry, transaction costs, evidential ambiguity and accountability gaps in dispute-prone project environments.