A Knowledge-Based Instructional System for Claims Management

Tom Cooper

Department of Building Science

Auburn University Auburn, Alabama

Introduction

A knowledge-based system (KBS) is defined by Mocker and Dologite (1992) as "A computer system that attempts to replicate specific human expert intelligent activities". This particular system was developed to assist a student or contractor in the evaluation of a construction claim and as a guide through the process of seeking an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum, the Contract Time, or both.

From the perspective of damages, claims may be classified either as compensable or non-compensable. The compensable claim "is designed to reimburse the complaining party for all losses caused and gains prevented"(Oastler, Thompson, and Morse, 1993).

From the perspective of time, claims may be classified as either excusable or non-excusable. The excusable claims are the result of "a delay for which neither party (contractor or owner) is responsible" (Jones and Wellborn, 1993) or the result of action or inaction of the Owner or the Owner's agent.

Heuer (1989) states, "A construction site is fertile ground for disputes. They seem to sprout and grow like weeds, with the potential to choke the life from a project". Legitimate construction claims result from the occurrence of some problem that is not adequately provided for in the Contract Documents. Bramble, D'Onofrio, and Stetson (1990) observe, "A construction problem becomes a claim when someone asks for money".

Since a significant portion of the Nation's private sector building construction uses the American Institute of Architects document series, the system is based upon the A.I.A. A201 General Conditions document.

Development of the Logic Diagram

In the A201 document, section 4.3 deals with "CLAIMS AND DISPUTES" and section 4.4 deals with the "RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS AND DISPUTES". Besides these sections, twenty-five paragraphs and sub-paragraphs from the document were identified by the author as claims related. From these selected items and from other provisions of the documents that have been observed to be frequently subject to modification, a detailed logic diagram was developed by the author using the software program all CLEAR version 2.0 (Figure 1).

The first phase of the logic diagram addresses the Contract Documents applicable to the project. These considerations include:

1.      the identification of the A.I.A. Agreement Form used,

2.      If the claim relates to delay, and

3.      if a "no damage for delay" clause applies.

If the documents do contain a "no damage for delay" clause, the initial phase of the logic diagram also evaluates if that clause is Rely to be enforced. In the event that the "no damage for delay" clause is enforced, a claim for monetary damages is precluded. In that case, the system offers the user the option of deciding whether the claim for an increase in the Contract Time is to be pursued or the claim is to be abandoned.

The second phase of the logic diagram evaluates the specific circumstances relating to the claim. The basic assumption used in the development of this part of the diagram is that claims are generated because of the occurrence of specific events. The claim is therefore assumed to be the result of one of the following:

1.      an action or inaction by others,

2.      an occurrence beyond the Contractor's control,

3.      a defect in the Contract Documents,

4.      the encountering of concealed or unknown conditions, or

5.      the occurrence of an emergency situation.

If the selection "an action or inaction by others" is chosen, an additional assumption is made that the party whose action or inaction lead to the claim can be identified as:

1.      the Owner,

2.      the Architect,

3.      the Owner's Forces or Separate Contractor, or

4.      a Governmental Agency.

Once these initial selections are made, the logic diagram maybe followed according to the situation that applies to the claim in question.

In the final phase of the logic diagram, the specific claims handling provisions of the A201 document are addressed with particular emphasis on its notice provisions and time limitations.

Throughout the Logic Diagram, internal supplemental nodes evaluate the relative strength of the claim, warn the user about specific notice requirements and time limitations, and provide mileposts showing the user's progress through the consultation.

Characteristics of the Expert System Shell

Professional 4.0 is a rule-based software package that permits the developer to design and build a system in the Microsoft Windows environment without having to learn either a programming language or complicated syntax. The software uses a built-in "Aule Editor" to combine the "qualifiers" and "choices" to produce the rules that make up the system.

A "qualifier is defined by EXSYS to be a multiple-choice list that generally appears in the IF portion of the rule. For example, qualifier number 5 in the system asks the yes and no question, "IS TBE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM BASED UPON DELAY?” EXSYS Professional permits each quali­fier to have as many as 30 values.

"Choices" are defined by EXSYS to be the possible solu­tions from which the expert system will choose in making its recommendation. For example, choice number 4 is "BASED UPON YOUR RESPONSES, THE SYSTEM HAS DETERMINED THAT NO ADDITIONAL ANALY­SIS IS JUSTIFIED." Choices generally appear in either the THEN or the ELSE portion of the rule. A completed consultation in EXSYS Professional will always end by displaying a choice.

EXSYS Professional handles degrees of uncertainty with five built-in confidence modes, permitting the developer to select the most appropriate for the system being developed. The simplest of the modes, the "0 or I" applies when all data in the system are definite; this is the equivalent of a "yes/no" option.

When the system must deal with degrees of uncertainty, the program offers a choice of the "0-10" mode, the "-100 to 100" mode, the "increment/decrement" mode, and the "custom formula" mode. The EXSYS documentation pro­vides guidance for the developer in making an appropriate selection from among these modes. It advises, "The main rule of thumb to use when selecting a confidence mode for a system is - use the simplest one that will do the job." (EXSYS 1992).

EXSYS Professional has an option for inclusion of a "Start­ing Text" for the benefit of the end user of the system. This screen provides an opportunity for the developer to explain what the system does, how it operates, and various features available to the user. Similarly, an "Ending Text" which is displayed immediately before the conclusion of the consul­tation, allows for an explanatory notice to aid the user in interpretation of the system's conclusion. When the system's advice is given, the user may end the consultation, review the various inputs, or revise selected inputs and continue the consultation based upon new data.

Building the system rules in EXSYS Professional begins with entering each of the "qualifiers" and their related values into the Rule Editor. When that operation is com­pleted, all of the "choices" must be entered in similar fashion. The process of building each rule begins by selecting "Add Rule" from the "Rule" menu. The default settings of the Rule Editor assume that the developer will complete the IF portion of the rule first and that the Boolean operator AND applies.

The IF portion of the rule is generally composed of qualifi­ers. The appropriate qualifiers and their related values comprise the selected path through the Logic Diagram and are selected in chronological sequence. The Rule Editor has the capability of including choices and other Boolean operators in the IF portion of the rule at the developer's option.

Once the IF portion of the rule is completed, the developer selects the "THEN part" button and indicates the appropri­ate qualifiers and/or choices required for the THEN part of the rule. The default settings assume that the Boolean operator AND applies to the TEEN portion of the rule. The rule may or may not have an ELSE portion. As with the case of the IF part of the rule, other Boolian operators are available. EXSYS Professional permits a rule to have as many as 128 different conditions in the IF, TBEN, and ELSE portions of the rule combined.

The Rule Editor automatically moves the text from the qualifier and choice lists to the rule being developed and allows the developer to review the rule before accepting it. An internal attribute of the Rule Editor is available which checks each rule for consistency with all other rules. A system is developed by building a rule that traces each of the possible routes through the Logic Diagram

Development of the System

Since the Logic Diagram has a total of 21,702 discreet paths, developing a single system would have required a separate rule for each possibility. To avoid having to build that enormous set of rules, the division of the system into the three previously described phases permitted the system to be developed with a total of only 148 rules. The inclusion of the two qualifiers corresponding to the interfaces between phases one and two and phases two and three made this possible.

The system uses the "0 or I" confidence mode which is appropriate when the selections can be positively selected or rejected at each interaction screen. Each of the screens is designed to require the user to make specific selections from among the available options.

Operation of the System

System Start-up

If the system is operated using the EXSYS "Rule Editor" the start-up sequence is as follows:

1.      select the Rule Editor icon,

2.      from the "File" menu, select "Open",

3.      select the system file, and

4.      from the "Options" menu select "Run”

In similar fashion, the start-up of the system from the EXSYS "Runtime" module uses the following sequence of operations:

1.      select the Runtime icon,

2.      select "OK” on the Runtime restrictions window,

3.      from the "File" menu, select "Open",

4.      select the system file, and

5.      select the "RUN EXPERT SYSTEM” button at the bottom of the screen.

Starting Text

The overview provided by the Starting Text begins by stating the intended purpose of the system as "TO ASSIST TBE USER IN EVALUATING AND / OR PROCESSING A CONSTRUCTION CLAIM." Potential users are cautioned that the system is based upon the A.I.A. A201 General Conditions document with its claims provisions "ESSENTIALLY INTACT"' (Figure 2).

The system operating instructions that follow assume that the user has some experience with operating in the Microsoft Windows environment and has some degree of familiarity with using a mouse to interact with a program.

Since the successful presentation of the Contractor's claim generally depends upon appropriate documentation, strict compliance with all of the applicable notice requirements, and conformity to the required processing procedures, the Starting Text concludes by providing the user with appropriate reminders and warnings.

The Consultation Process

If an individual were to consult with a human expert in the field of construction claims, it is reasonable to assume that early in the conversation the expert would ask the following questions:

       1. What documents apply?

       2. What are the circumstances? and

       3. How well have you followed the procedures?

In much the same manner, the typical consultation between the user and the knowledge-based system proceeds in three distinct phases. In the initial phase, the system determines the specific Agreement Form that applies to the contract. It then reminds the user where the Contract Documents are enumerated and suggests that those documents be assembled and reviewed. The system also reminds the user that the A201 General Conditions document should be marked-up to include all applicable changes resulting from Supplementary Conditions, Addenda, and Modifications.

If a "no damage for delay" clause applies, specific advice concerning the likelihood of clause enforcement is provided to the user. If the clause is likely to be enforced and the user does not intend to pursue a claim for an extension in the Contract Time, the consultation automatically ends and advises the user that "NO ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS IS JUSTIFIED." With that sole exception, the system advises the user that the "OVERVIEW OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS" has been completed and automatically initiates the second phase of the consultation.

The relative strength of the Contractor's claim is strongly influenced by a claim's surrounding circumstances. The second phase of the system explores these circumstances and advises the user concerning the relative strength of the claim in question by declaring that the claim has:

1.      "A VALID BASIS", or

2.      "THE POTENTIAL TO BE DENIED", or

3.      "NO REASONABLE BASIS".

If the system finds that the claim has "NO REASONABLE BASIS", the consultation ends by advising the user that "NO ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS IS JUSTIFIED." In all other cases, the system advises the user that "THE ANALYSIS OF THE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS COMPLETE" and begins the final phase of the consultation. The final phase evaluates the procedures under which the claim in question is to be processed.

It is likely that the Contractor had little or no participation in the selection and modification of the Contract Documents that are evaluated during the initial phase of the consultation. Similarly, the Contractor may have had little or no control over the circumstances surrounding the claim as explored during the second phase of the consultation.

In marked contrast to the prior phases, during the final segment of the consultation it is likely that the Contractor plays a significant role in the claim processing operations. This is particularly true when giving the required notices and when complying with the applicable time limits.

The consultation process is expected to require between five and fifteen minutes of interaction for an experienced user. Somewhat longer consultation times are to be expected for inexperienced users. Samples of typical screens are shown by Figures 3 through 6 inclusive.

Available Assistance During Consultation

During the consultation process, the user has access to several features designed to provide assistance in the opera­tion of the system and the interpretation of its results. By selecting "Contents" from the "Help" menu, the user can review a wide range of topics relating to EXSYS Professional.

From the "Question" menu, the user can choose from several options. The "Known Data" option permits the user to review all of the information available to the system up to that point in the consultation. The "Undo Prev. Answer" selection allows the user to return to the previous screen so that an alternate selection may be made. By selecting the "Save Input" option, the user can print all of the data to a file. If "Cancel Run" is selected from the "Options" menu while using the Rule Editor mode, the consultation may be ended at that point.

Available Hypertext Information

EXSYS Professional permits the developer to use hypertext to provide information on key words used in the expert system. When this feature is used, the items for which hypertext information is available are highlighted on the screen in blue (Figure 7).

This part of the system offers the user direct access to the text of the 39 cited paragraphs and sub-paragraphs from the A201 document. In addition it provides definitions and other information for terms that may require interpretation. In each case, the user can reach the hypertext information by moving the mouse arrow to the highlighted word or phrase and "double-clicking" the left mouse button. Once the contents of the hypertext screen have been read, the user can select the "OK" button to return to the consultation.

Ending Text

The Ending Text counsels the user in understanding and interpreting the system's advice and provides instruction about the review and revision options that are available. This screen also provides the warning, "TUE USER IS CAUTIONED THATTHE CONCLUSIONS SHOWN ARE BASED UPONTBE A.I.A. A201 DOCUMENT WITHITS CLAIMS PROCEDURES ESSENTIALLY INTACT. SIG­NIFICANT REVISIONS TO THESE PROVISIONS MAY CAUSE TEE SYSTEM TO GIVE INCORRECT AD­VICE" (Figure 8).

Advice Provided by the System

The system provides the user with intermediate advisories during the consultation and furnishes a recommended course of action to be taken at the conclusion of the consultation.

Several intermediate advisory screens serve to evaluate the relative strength of the claim and assign one of the three relative strengths. Other intermediate advisories serve as reminders to the user concerning notice provisions and their related time limitations. The remaining intermediate advi­sories indicate to the user the progress made through the consultation.

At the conclusion of the consultation process, the system will provide the user with one of 90 recommendations that result from the application of the system's twenty-seven "choices" (Figure 9).

Change/Rerun Options

Once the consultation has been completed and the system's advice has been displayed on the screen, the user has additional options available. Upon selection of the "Change/ Rerun" button, the user can review the entire consultation and verify each response. The user can easily change any of the previous responses by moving the mouse arrow to the text of the item in question and "clicking" the left mouse button to highlight that item. Once the item is highlighted, selecting the "Change" button will return the user to the appropriate screen where an alternate response may be entered.

Once all of the changes are made, the user selects the "Run" button to resume the consultation using the new data. Depending upon the changes made, the system may modify its advice or require the user to provide additional responses.

During the process of editing the consultation's user infor­mation, an additional feature of EXSYS Professional is available. By selecting the "Original Data" button, all of the changes that have been made are ignored and the user's initial selections are recalled to the screen. This feature permits the user to experiment with various "what if?" scenarios and still be able to return quickly to the original consultation data and its recommendation.

If the user selects the "Cancel" button during the "Change/ Rerun" mode, the consultation and all obits data will be lost. At this point the user will be asked "Run Again?". Selecting the "YES" option will restart the system at the initial consultation screen. In the Rule Editor mode, selecting the "NO" option will return the system to the start-up screen. If the system is being operated in the Runtime mode, selecting the "NO" option will terminate the program and return to the Microsoft Windows environment.

Testing and Evaluation

Seven typical construction claims cases were selected for evaluation by the Claims Assistant (Figure 10). In five of the seven selected cases, the system provided the same conclu­sion that was obtained by litigation. In one case, the system provided a conclusion that was opposite to that reached by the District Court, but identical to that arrived at by the Court of Appeals.

The results of the remaining case hinged upon whether the situation encountered was actually a "type 1” changed condition. If the situation was correctly identified as neither a “type 1” nor a "type 2" changed condition, the system's conclusion agrees with the decisions of both the District Court and the Appeals Court.

Conclusion

The evolution of project delivery systems and the prolifera­tion of environmental regulations coupled with the increas­ing complexity of contemporary construction projects al­most guarantees that claims will result.

In direct contrast to the changing environment that gener­ates the construction claims, the technology for evaluating and processing the resulting claims is no different than it was a generation ago.

The "Claims Advisor" system guides the user through a detailed analysis of the claim that is fast, thorough, and consistent. Based upon the limited testing and evaluation conducted to date, the system may be expected to produce a recommendation that is likely to be both technically and practically correct.

Continued testing of the system is likely to suggest modifi­cations that will increase the function and usefulness of the program and its ongoing development is anticipated.

References

Bramble, B. B., D'Onofrio, M. F., and Stetson, J. B. (1990) Avoiding & Resolving Construction Claims. Kingston, Mass: Means

EXSYS Inc. (1992) Expert System Development Package. Albuquerque, NM

Heuer, C. R. (1989) Means Legal Reference for Design and Construction. Kingston, Mass: Means

Jones, G. W., and Wellborn, P. F. (1993) Delays. Common Sense Construction Law: Avoiding and Resolving Claims, Chapter IX

Mockler, R. J., and Dologite, D. G. (1992) An Introduction to Expert Systems. New York: Macmillan

Oastler, B. R., Thompson, P. A., and Morse, L. P. (1993) Claims and Proof of Damages. Common Sense Construc­tion Law: Avoiding and Resolving Claims, Chapter XII

Go to the  Home page for:

Associated Schools of Construction Proceedings of the Annual Conference.  Copyright 2003
For problems or questions regarding this web contact Tulio Sulbaran, Proceedings Editor/Publisher.
Last updated: September 09, 2004.