由於國內營建工程從採購至施工存在許多複雜性與不確定性，以及公平交易意識之抬頭，使得工程爭議事件屢屢發生。其中，工期爭議與變更設計爭議為營建工程最常見之兩種爭議。國內現行爭議處理方式包括和解(Conciliation)、調解(Mediation)、仲裁(Arbitration)及訴訟(Litigation)四種方式，然往往因工程主辦單位與承包商欲採取的處理方式及其決策準則之偏好（重）存有差異，造成彼此之間無法取得共識，此形同雙重爭議，故而難以迅速與有效地解決本身的爭議問題。過去對於工程爭議處理之研究，以探討現行爭議發生之原因與處理的制度者居多，少見有針對糾紛發生時雙方欲選擇處理方法與其決策因子重視度之研究。鑑此，本文旨在探討在進行爭議處理時彼此期望採用方法與決策準則的異同，進而有助於化異求同與有效地處理爭議。
由於層級分析法被公認為可有效分析多準則評選問題之方法，故本文運用此法探討公路工程之工期及變更設計爭議。本案例所考量的主要評估因子包括時間、成本、法規、及效力4項，主要因再予以細分爭議處理前段時間等11項次評估因子。此外，亦考量爭議發生原因：（1）可歸於主辦單位之責（2）可歸於承包商之責，以及(3)不可歸於雙方下分析。案例分析結果顯示承包商均優先考慮採取和解，其次為調解，訴訟為承包商最不欲選擇方案，而業主偏好調解方式，其次是訴訟，仲裁為業主最不欲選擇方案。分析結果對於日後類似的案例具有參考之價值：可事先瞭解彼此對於欲採取爭議處理方式之策略及排序，亦可掌握雙方對評選準則之重視度，這些重要的決策資訊有助於化解爭端的本身問題。

As the domestic construction projects are complex and uncertain from purchase to construction, and the revival of the awareness of fair trade, construction disputes occur frequently. Among them, the two most common disputes are the disputes of the construction period and change order disputes. Domestic disputes settlement methods are conciliation, mediation, arbitration, litigation. However, the contractors and the project organizers often adopt different disputes settlement methods and show different preference (emphasis) for the decision-making criteria, so there isn’t consensus between them. The two disputes are like double disputes, so it is difficult to resolve the disputes themselves quickly and effectively. The study of the construction disputes often explored the reasons for the disputes and the disputes settlement systems in the past, seldom took the disputes settlement methods which the two sides would like to choose and the emphasis of decision-making factors as consideration. Therefore, this paper is to study the differences and similarities of disputes settlement methods and criteria which the two sides would like to choose, and thus help change the differences to similarities and deal with disputes effectively.
As the analytic hierarchy process is recognized as an effective method of analyzing multi-criteria selection problems, it is applied in the paper to study the disputes of the construction period and change order disputes. The main assessment factors considered in this case include time, costs, regulations, and the effect, and then broken down to 11 minor factors such as dispute settlement preceding time. In addition, the reasons for the disputes can also be studied: (1) can be attributed to the duty of the organizers (2) can be attributed to the duty of the contractors, and (3) can not be attributed to both sides. The case study results show that contractors prefer to conciliation, followed by mediation, and litigation is the least favorite option. While the owners prefer mediation, followed by litigation, and arbitration is the least favorite option. Analysis findings have reference value to similar cases: can grasp each other’s disputes settlement methods and strategies beforehand, and can understand each other’s recognition for selected criteria. With the important decision-making information, the problems of disputes themselves will be defused.

英文文獻
1.AbouRizk, S. M. and Dozzi, S. P., “Application of Computer Simulation in Resolving Construction Disputes”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 355-373. (1993).
2.Alsagoff,A.(1996) Construction Transaction Cost Conflicts: Analysis of Dispute Triggers in Construction Contracts, In Heath, B.C. (ed.), Proceedings of CIB Task Group 15 Research Papers: The Origin, Incidence and Resolution of Conflict in Construction, CIB Publication.No. 196.Wrexham, North Wales: North East Wales Institute of Higher Education (NEWI).
3.Belton V. and Gear T. (1985) The Legitimacy of Rank Rreversal-A Comment, Omega, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 227-230.
4.Burkett,J.(1997) Alternative dispute resolution,Construction dispute,Published by: Whittles Publishing, pp. 41-64.
5.Casson, M. (1987) The Firm and the Market, Oxford: Blackwell.
6.Doree, A.G. (1994) Conflict as Element of Construction Trade. In Fenn, P. (ed.) Proceedings of CIB TG15 Meeting: Construction Conflict: Management and Resolution, CIB Publication No. 171, Lexington Kentucky. London: E & F N Spon.
7.Kathleen M. J. Harmon. (2010) Resolution Of Construction Disputes: A Review of Current Methodologies, Leadership and Management in Engineering, pp. 187-201.
8.Kumaraswamy M.M. and W.M. Chan (1998) Contributors to Construction delays, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 17-29.
9.Li, H. (1996) Case-Based Reasoning for Intelligent Support of Construction Negotiation, Information and Management, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 231-238.
10.McDermott, P. and A. Alsagoff (1996) Organizational Governance and Transaction Costs-Case Study Evidence of Trust, Solidarity and Conflict Resolution in the UK Construction Industry, In Heath, B.C. (ed.) Proceedings of CIB Task Group 15 Research Papers: The Origin, Incidence and Resolution of Conflict in Construction, CIB Publication No. 196. Wrexham, North Wales: North East Wales Institute of Higher Education (NEWI).
11.Millet I. and Harker, P.T. (1990) Globally Effective Questioning in the Analytic Hiearchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48, pp. 88-97..
12.Nydick, Robert L.; Hill, Ronald Paul. (1992) Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Structure the Supplier Selection Procedure, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management ,Vol 28, No 2, pp. 31-36.
13.Saaty T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Proecss, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
14.Sai-On Cheung；Henry C. H. Suen；S. Thomas Ng and Mei-Yung Leung. (2004) Convergent Views of Neutrals and Users about Alternative Dispute Resolution, Journal of Management in Engineering, pp 88-96.
15.Semple C.；Hartman F. T. and Jergeas G. (1994) Construction Claims and Disputes: Causes and Cost/Time Overruns, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120, No.4 , pp. 785-795.
16.Yates, D.J. (1998) Conflict and Disputes in the Hong Kong Construction Industry: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective, Unpublished M.Phil. thesis: University of Hong Kong.

中文文獻
1.王伯儉， (2002) 「工程糾紛與索賠實務」，元照出版公司。
2.吳家德， (2003)「公共工程仲裁制度應用之研究」，國立高雄第一科技大學營建工程系，碩士論文.
3.吳銜桑、李建中、吳文彥及李振榮，「公共工程履約爭議民事訴訟地方法院判決量化分析」，營建管理季刊，第80期，第1-15頁(2009)。
4.呂守陞、余壬癸，(2002)「山坡地開發雜項工程影響因子頻估之研究」，中華民國建築學會建築學報，第39 期, 第71-86頁。
5.李允中，王小璠，蘇木春，(2000)「模糊理論及其應用」，全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
6.李家慶， (2003)「工程爭議處理」，台灣營建研究院。
7.房樹貴，(2007) 「解決公共工程履約糾紛問題之研究」，世新大學法學院，碩士論文。
8.林美惠，（2002）「營建工程爭議索賠探討」，技師月刊，第 23 期，第 11-13
頁。
9.林金面，(2003)「營建管理學」，文笙書局股份有限公司。
10.林建宏，(2000)「山坡地住宅區防災區風險管理機制建立之研究」，國立台北科技大學土木與防災技術研究所，碩士論文。
11.邱義翔，(2005)「工程爭議案例推論模式之研究」，國立台灣科技大學營建工程技術研究所，碩士論文。
12.翁振益，周瑛琪，(2007)「決策分析方法與應用」，華泰文化。
13.戚淑芳，(2005)「工程爭議之有效管理」，國立成功大學企業管理研究所，碩士論文。
14.梁鑑，(1999)「國際工程施工索賠」，淑馨出版社。
15.莊賀元，(2009)「政府採購法先調後仲機制之研究」，中國文化大學法律學研究所，碩士論文。
16.郭斯傑，詹前輝，(1995)「浮時所有權及工程進度耽延責任之探討」，國立台灣大學工程學刊，第65期，第 85-100頁。
17.陳國書，(2003)「公共工程履約爭議處理之研究」，國立中山大學企業管理學系，碩士論文。
18.曾國雄，鄧振雄，(1989)「層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)」，中國統計學報，第27卷，第6期，第 5-22頁。
19.曾國雄，鄧振雄，(1989)「層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)」，中國統計學報，第27卷，第7期，第 1-20頁。
20.游瑞榮，王明德，(2001)「台北捷運工程糾紛與仲裁之研究」，第五屆營建工程與管理研究成果聯合發表會，第 427-438頁。
21.黃建雄，(2008)「政府採購履約爭議處理制度之研究-兼評「先調後仲」之立法」，國防大學國防管理學院法律研究所，碩士論文。
22.黃華威，(2009)「工程爭議佐證文件之關聯性研究」，國立中央大學營建管理研究所，碩士論文。
23.楊英君，(1998)「公共工程履約爭議處理制度之研究」，國立台灣科技大學營建工程技術研究所，碩士論文。
24.管培智，(2002)「多目標規劃教學設備投資決策分析─以空軍航空技術學院為例」，義守大學工業工程與管理學系，碩士論文。
25.劉柏村，(2004)「應用模糊多屬性決策法於博物館服務品質評估之研究」，南台科技大學工業管理研究所，碩士論文。
26.潘南飛，(2006)「模糊層級分析法應用於高雄地區深開挖擋土工法之評選」， 中華建築學刊，第58期，第19-44頁。
27.潘南飛，賴逢昇，(2003)「層級分析法(AHP)應用於評選最佳邊坡生態工法之研究」，2003年兩岸營建環境及永續經營研討會論文集，第 199-210頁。
28.蕭玉華，(2005)「國際會議地點選址評估模式之研究─Fuzzy AHP之應用」， 南華大學旅遊事業管理研究所，碩士論文。
29.蕭家進，(2001)「公共工程爭議處理的省思」，現代營建，第260期，第 65-70頁。
30.薰刀根，(1993)「競賽式決策制定法-AHP入門」，建宏出版社。