Understanding Owner–Contractor Conflicts in State Building and Infrastructure Projects: A Case Study of Norway

Abstract

Conflicts between owners and contractors in state-led infrastructure and building projects pose significant challenges to project efficiency, cost control, and stakeholder collaboration. The aim of this study is to identify the primary causes of such conflicts in Norway and evaluate potential mitigation strategies. Deficiencies in tender documentation, unclear risk allocation, and limited early contractor involvement significantly contribute to project disputes considered as central facts. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research integrates survey data from 57 industry professionals and in-depth interviews with senior project managers. Statistical analysis results show that most people believe flawed tender documents and unclear risk sharing are big causes of conflicts. Specifically, 78% said tender documents were a problem, and 65% pointed to unclear risk allocation. Additionally, interviews revealed that involving contractors early in the process helps avoid misunderstandings and encourages better teamwork. The findings indicate sector-specific differences, with infrastructure projects primarily affected by technical ambiguities and contractual disputes, whereas building projects face more scope modifications and interpersonal conflicts. To mitigate these issues, the study recommends improving tender document quality, adopting collaborative contracting models, and increasing early contractor engagement. These measures can enhance project outcomes, reduce societal costs, and foster more efficient stakeholder collaboration in state-led construction initiatives.

1. Introduction

The construction industry forms the core of the national economy in Norway and supports not only infrastructure development but also economic stability in general [1]. The total revenue of the sector in the year 2020 was NOK 630 billion, accounting for a significant share of Norway’s gross domestic product. The industry has roughly 260,000 employees; it is both the largest land-based economic sector in the country and a provider of employment and innovation [2].

Beyond its economic contribution, the construction industry plays a central role in developing and maintaining key infrastructure investments, such as transportation networks, housing, and public facilities, that enable societal development and improve quality of life [3,4]. Furthermore, the dynamic and project-based nature of the industry fosters innovation and adaptability toward new technologies and sustainability goals, solidifying its position as a driver of growth and modernization, according to several authors [5,6].

The construction industry plays a vital role in economic and infrastructure growth, but it faces ongoing challenges that hurt project efficiency and teamwork, especially in complex projects with many stakeholders [7]. Conflicts often arise due to unclear risk sharing, poorly designed contracts, and a lack of early involvement from contractors. These issues lead to delays and higher costs. Solving these problems is crucial to ensuring the industry continues to support development [8].

This study focuses on understanding the main causes of conflicts in state-led infrastructure and building projects in Norway, specifically those managed by InfraGov and BuildGov. It aims to identify the key sources of disputes and suggest ways to improve collaboration among stakeholders. While the research is centered on Norway, its findings could be useful globally, as construction projects worldwide are becoming more complex.

1.1. Challenges of Conflicts in the Construction Industry

Conflicts have been one of the significant problems in the construction industry, given the inherent complexity of the sector and its somewhat particular dynamics [9]. Projects normally involve various stakeholders, such as owners, contractors, consultants, and regulators, who have different goals, priorities, and even risk perceptions [10,11]. This multi-dimensional interaction has the opportunity for misplaced expectations and misunderstandings and, hence, disputes. Research indicates that inter-organizational collaboration in construction is highly susceptible to conflict because of the diverse objectives, tight profit margins, and high-risk environments typical of the industry [12].

The social costs of conflicts in the construction industry are enormous, resulting in an approximate annual cost of NOK 2.2 billion in Norway alone [13]. This is associated with project delays, increased litigations, and inefficiencies when resolving conflicts by processes [14]. Such financial repercussions are dramatically magnified in the larger infrastructure projects involving public resources, where budget overruns and time delays directly concern the taxpayers’ pocket [15].

Apart from monetary factors, disputes in construction projects can have devastating impacts on schedules and budgets, which negatively influence the success of a project and the satisfaction of stakeholders [16,17]. This environment of continuous disputes definitely affects the workforce, further lowering its morale, increasing absenteeism, and lowering productivity levels [18]. The combination of economic, operational, and human costs therefore underscores that addressing underlying causes of conflict will result in enhancing project results, along with a long-term sustainable future for the industry.

1.2. Knowledge Gap and State-Specific Context

Although many studies have been conducted on the construction industry regarding conflicts, the gap in the literature that concerns the causes of conflicts in infrastructure and building projects led by state-owned entities is very evident. Much of the previous work has concentrated on general construction and civil engineering sectors, with limited attention paid to projects managed by state-owned organizations such as InfraGov and BuildGov. This gap is especially important in light of the peculiarities and specific problems these state-led ventures involve, such as complicated stakeholder webs, very stringent regulatory frameworks, and keen public attention.

Being crucial components of Norway’s national development strategy, two prominent organizations are InfraGov, concerned with infrastructure projects, and BuildGov, concerned with managing state building and infrastructure projects. As these rely on public funds, they are always under more scrutiny regarding over-budgeting, delays, and disputes, which all impact taxpayer resources. Public attention is often focused on these projects through media coverage whenever conflicts greatly increase costs or extend delays. Such scrutiny calls for an understanding of the root causes of conflicts so that such projects are implemented efficiently and transparently [19].

This research will bridge the knowledge gap by focusing on causes of conflict that are specific to state-managed infrastructure and building projects. Through identification of such causes and factors, the research will contribute to better conflict management practices, safeguarding public investments and improving project outcomes.

1.3. Research Objectives and Questions

The aim of this study is to investigate the underlying causes of conflicts in state-led infrastructure and building projects, focusing on projects managed by InfraGov and BuildGov. These entities are central to Norway’s infrastructure and public building initiatives, and understanding the sources of disputes within their projects is critical for improving efficiency, safeguarding public funds, and enhancing stakeholder collaboration.

This research contributes to filling up a knowledge gap by studying, particularly, the problems or dynamics specific in these state-controlled projects. Such an approach involves identifying root conflicts and their remedial measures that would contribute toward giving practical solutions concerning conflict prevention, as well as in conflict resolution issues in similar areas.

To achieve this goal, the study addresses the following key research questions:

• What are the most common causes of conflicts in state-led infrastructure and building projects?

This question seeks to map out the primary sources of disputes, including those arising from tender processes, risk allocation, contract administration, and interpersonal dynamics.

2.

How does the nature of contracts influence the level of conflict?

This question examines the role of contractual frameworks and conditions, including standardization and clarity, in either exacerbating or reducing conflicts.

3.

To what extent can early contractor involvement reduce conflicts?

This question explores the impact of engaging contractors during the initial phases of projects, focusing on whether such practices can foster shared understanding, mitigate risk misallocation, and improve overall collaboration.

By addressing these questions, the study aims to provide actionable insights for improving conflict management practices in state-led infrastructure and building projects, ultimately enhancing their efficiency and success.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study is significant in addressing a critical gap in the literature on conflict causes in state-led infrastructure and building projects, particularly those managed by InfraGov and BuildGov. While the construction industry has been the focus of extensive research, limited attention has been paid to the unique challenges and dynamics of state-managed projects, which are vital to Norway’s infrastructure development and funded by public resources.

This research identifies primary sources of conflict and examines how contractual frameworks and early contractor involvement influence disputes and provides practical solutions for reducing such disputes. If implemented, it will lead to more efficient management of projects, reduced societal costs, and better stakeholder relationships.

In addition, the study gives insights that can be helpful for policymakers in designing regulations and strategies toward enhancing collaboration, transparency, and accountability in state-led projects. This will help protect public funds, ensure on-time completion of projects, and maintain public trust in state-managed infrastructure and building undertakings.

The findings of this research will have the potential to shape future practices in the field of conflict management, which will positively impact the construction industry and its contribution to Norway’s economic and societal development.

2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

2.1. Overview

Finding the right mitigation strategies encourages a collaborative project environment, where one understands the cause and dynamics of disputes [20]. This can help stakeholders find the theoretical underpinnings of conflicts, categorize root causes, prevent disputes, and act accordingly when disputes do occur.

This section aims to achieve the following:

• Review key theoretical perspectives on the nature and progression of disputes in construction projects.
• Categorize the primary causes of disputes, including contractual, managerial, external, and behavioral factors.
• Explore established frameworks and models for mitigating and resolving disputes, emphasizing their relevance to the construction industry.

2.2. The Nature of Disputes in Construction Projects

Construction disputes, therefore, will be a fundamental aspect of projects due to the very nature of the construction industry itself, which is so inherently complex in its operation and dynamics [20]. It has project owners, contractors, consultants, regulators, and the like, who have their particular roles, expectations, and areas of responsibility, which would eventually give way to misunderstandings and disputes. While some disputes are minor and settled within a short period of time, other disputes become big issues that lead to time overruns and cost overruns, as well as strained relationships among the project’s participants [21,22]. These disputes pose a significant threat to the success and sustainability of construction projects.

Disputes are an endemic problem in the construction industry, where projects are often marked by their size, complexity, and the number of stakeholders involved [1]. The literature has shown that disputes are very common, with a significant percentage of projects experiencing conflicts that vary from minor disputes to protracted legal disputes [23,24]. These conflicts have severe impacts, such as delays in completing projects, cost overruns, reputational loss, and relationship breakdown among the parties involved. The combined effect of these factors seriously threatens the efficiency, profitability, and general success of construction projects [25].

The complexity of construction projects makes them a critical driver of disputes, as they involve an intricate interplay of technical, contractual, and interpersonal dimensions [26]. From a technical point of view, construction projects are very sensitive, requiring the accurate coordination of designs, materials, equipment, and labor, leaving little room for errors or miscommunication. Inaccuracies in project design, unforeseen site conditions, and insufficient tender documentation are some of the most common sources of technical conflicts that can escalate into broader disputes [27].

Contractually, ambiguities and inconsistencies in agreements, misaligned risk allocation, and frequent changes in scope are often a basis for disagreement among the interests of project stakeholders [28]. Contracts act as the most fundamental backbone of construction projects, but their interpretation might differ at times, especially when provisions seem vague or when roles and responsibilities are not defined properly. This is more obvious in multi-party projects with specific differences of interest and levels of expertise [21].

Interpersonal factors further compound the challenges of dispute management. Construction projects typically bring together individuals and organizations with diverse communication styles, leadership approaches, and cultural backgrounds [29]. Differences in expectations, communication breakdowns, and adversarial relationships can lead to conflicts that undermine collaboration and decision-making.

In summary, disputes in construction projects are born out of the very nature of complexity inherent in the sector. In this regard, dispute resolution will need to have a holistic appreciation of the technical, contractual, and interpersonal elements, coupled with proactive measures for mitigating and creating a cooperative project environment.

2.3. Categorization of Causes of Disputes

A number of interrelated causes lead to disputes in construction projects, and these can be broadly categorized into contractual issues, project management deficiencies, external factors, and behavioral factors [30]. Knowing these categories and their components is important to identify potential conflict points and apply effective preventive measures.

2.3.1. Contractual Issues

Contracts are essential in managing construction projects, but they are often a source of disputes when not well prepared or interpreted. Ambiguities, inconsistencies, and unclear terms can lead to misinterpretations and disagreements over roles, responsibilities, or payment obligations [27,31]. Moreover, insufficient risk allocation and unforeseen scope changes often lead to disputes; hence, lack of provisions regarding design changes, unforeseen site conditions, and project delays within the contract result in uncertainty between parties regarding their liability and expenses [32].

2.3.2. Project Management Deficiencies

Good project management is instrumental to the success of construction projects, but poor practices usually result in disputes [33]. Weak planning and unrealistic schedules and cost estimations result in delays, budget overruns, and mismanagement [34]. For example, overly ambitious timelines can put too much pressure on contractors, especially on what is expected concerning performance and deliverables.

2.3.3. External Factors

External conditions that may not be under the control of the participants can significantly affect the construction project and become a cause of dispute. Economic fluctuations like inflation, changes in interest rates, or the fluctuation in currency exchange can change the project cost and finance, thus raising disputes over the budget or the payment [15]. Regulatory change may also be a source of unexpected hardship in the form of compliance disputes and costs over building codes or environmental laws. Unexpected site conditions, including unstable ground or hidden utilities, may cause disruptions to schedule and budget, leading to conflict over liability and compensation [35].

2.3.4. Behavioral Factors

Behavioral factors significantly contribute to the prevalence and intensification of disputes in construction projects. Conflicting expectations regarding project objectives, standards, or outcomes are often tied to disputes, and therefore, setting clear goals that align with all stakeholders in a realistic manner is important [18]. Breakdowns in communication, like those based on unshared information or misunderstandings, can, thus, lead to mistrust among the stakeholders. Additionally, a controversial culture can foster antagonistic relationships that can inflate tensions, which is why there is a need for collaboration and mutual respect [36]. Knowing these behavioral influences, stakeholders can devise strategies to mitigate risks, create an environment of cooperation, and avoid the likelihood of conflicts.

2.4. Conflict Theories and Models

To effectively address disputes in construction projects, it is crucial to understand the underlying mechanisms of conflict development and progression [10]. Various theoretical models provide insights into the dynamics of conflicts, their escalation, and the factors that influence their resolution. This section explores three key theories: conflict escalation, risk allocation and perception, and interpersonal conflict theory.

2.4.1. Conflict Escalation

Glasl’s escalation model gives a structured framework for understanding the process of conflict and relating it to dispute resolution before it escalates [28]. Three phases include the win–win phase, where conflicts are still within the manageable sphere, and the collaborative solution is achievable through dialogue. The win–lose phase has hardened positions that require a more adversarial means of resolution. Finally, there is the lose–lose phase, where loss-generating destructive behaviors result in large losses to all parties. In construction, this model is very applicable because minor conflicts, like those on tender documents, tend to get worse if not dealt with immediately. Poor communication or the presence of an adversarial attitude forces more chronic phases of conflict, and hence, costly and complicated to resolve [21]. In utilizing Glasl’s model, project managers are alerted to early warning signs and can implement strategies to prevent escalation.

2.4.2. Risk Allocation and Perception

Theories on risk allocation stress the definition and equitable division of risks by all stakeholders so as to prevent disagreement. It should allocate the risk to that party best able to control or mitigate it; contractors would, therefore, deal with construction risks, while owners will have financial risks under their care [37]. The perceptions of the risk can easily conflict with others, whereby contractors might term unforeseen conditions on the sites as being of the owner, whereas owners may understand such risks when there is a fixed-price contract. Frameworks, such as those standardized in NS 8405 and NS 8407 under Norway, help standardize mechanisms meant to share or transfer risk amongst parties. According to [1], regardless of such a framework, expectational mismatch always leads to disputes. Involving risk allocation theories in the negotiation of contracts helps to clarify roles, reduce ambiguity, and promote collaboration.

2.4.3. Interpersonal Conflict Theory

Interpersonal conflict theory looks at how human behavior, communication style, and leadership dynamics lead to conflicts, especially in the temporary and multidisciplinary teams of construction projects [38]. Poor communication, such as ambiguous instructions or cultural misunderstanding, is one of the most common causes of interpersonal conflict. Leadership styles also contribute; autocratic leadership prevents teamwork, and leadership disengagement creates role ambiguity [21]. On the other hand, participative and transformational leadership styles promote trust and alignment. Furthermore, team dynamics, which are influenced by differences in expertise and unclear roles, can create conflict. Applying this theoretical lens helps identify strategies such as active listening, open communication, and inclusive leadership to manage conflicts and enhance team cohesion [39].

2.5. Frameworks for Understanding and Mitigating Disputes

In the construction industry, effective mitigation of disputes requires a strong framework that can handle the origins of conflict and requires cooperation and transparency [15]. This section discusses some of the key frameworks that have proven instrumental for dispute minimization, such as standardized contractual approaches, early contractor involvement, and partnering models.

2.5.1. Standardized Contractual Frameworks

Standardized contracts provide a structured foundation for managing construction projects and defining the roles, responsibilities, and risk-sharing mechanisms among stakeholders. In Norway, two widely used frameworks are NS 8405 and NS 8407, tailored for specific project delivery methods [40]:

• NS 8405: This framework applies to execution contracts (utførelsesentrepriser), where the contractor is responsible for implementing the project based on the owner’s design and specifications.
• NS 8407: This framework is designed for design-and-build contracts (totalentrepriser), where the contractor assumes responsibility for both the design and execution of the project.

These standardized frameworks aim to minimize disputes by providing clear guidelines on critical aspects such as payment schedules, variation orders, and dispute resolution mechanisms [41]. However, despite their benefits, the following challenges remain:

• Ambiguities in Contract Language: Vague or overly complex language can lead to differing interpretations, particularly in clauses related to risk allocation and scope changes [42].
• Unrealistic Expectations: Unrealistic timelines, budgets, or deliverables often create friction as stakeholders struggle to meet unattainable objectives [32].

Addressing these challenges requires meticulous attention during contract drafting and negotiation. Clear and concise language, realistic project goals, and active engagement with stakeholders can significantly reduce the potential for disputes.

2.5.2. Early Contractor Involvement (ECI)

Early contractor involvement (ECI) incorporates contractors at planning and design as early as is feasible in order to involve and collaborate with clients in the first stages of designing and planning ahead of the tendering process from traditional methods instead of after this design phase to address potential early risks [38,43,44]. The input by contractors at such stages ensures risks are equitably allocated and practical mitigation strategies developed. Early involvement also enhances communication, aligns expectations, and builds trust among stakeholders [45]. Contractors’ contributions also improve the practicality of design and constructability, thereby making plans cost-effective and decreasing errors. It creates a more integrated project environment by addressing the potential conflicts earlier, which then minimizes the disputes and generally improves the overall outcomes.

2.5.3. Collaboration and Partnering Models

Partnering is one of the models for collaborative project delivery aimed at establishing trust, transparency, and common objectives with the stakeholders. In contrast to traditional adversarial approaches, partnering focuses on cooperation relationships and solving problems together [46]. Some essential aspects are building mutual trust through open communication, aligning interests by risk and reward-sharing mechanisms, and regular collaborative meetings to address any challenge proactively and in harmony. In Norway, partnering models have increasingly been adopted in state-managed projects, for example, involving InfraGov and BuildGov, where partnering helps reduce risk and facilitate faster decision-making processes [38]. Partnering models address well-known conflict triggers, such as unclear tender documents, misaligned risk allocation, and communication barriers. By promoting collaboration and relationship management, partnering reduces adversarial dynamics, encourages a cooperative environment, and promotes overall project efficiency.

2.6. Interrelationship Between Causes

The interdependence of disputes in construction projects is seldom solitary; instead, they are intertwined and compound each other, creating a complex network of relationships. A comprehensive understanding of this interconnection will be useful in effectively dealing with disputes without their escalation [42,44].

Combinations of technical, contractual, managerial, external, and behavioral factors give rise to the majority of disputes on construction projects. In any case, one factor affects others in rather complicated ways [27]. For example, contractual ambiguity coupled with poor project management may escalate into arguments over responsibility, time, or budget dimensions [26,47]. External factors, such as economic fluctuations or unexpected site conditions, can further stretch finances, but again, if risks are not properly allocated, disputes will arise concerning additional costs or delays that exacerbate tensions. Poor communication has also increased these issues because design errors or contractual misunderstandings left unaddressed lead to delays, added costs, and mistrust among stakeholders [48].

These interactive causes have the possibility of forming feedback loops that can accelerate conflict escalation [24]. For instance, a poorly defined change order process in the contract can cause disagreements concerning scope changes. Without proper communication, the delays and financial strain can exacerbate the conflict [3,18]. Likewise, a lack of trust between the stakeholders might hamper cooperation over solving unforeseen conditions and will ignite more arguments about risk distribution [44].

Effective dispute management requires an integrated approach that takes into account these interdependencies. Technical, contractual, and managerial activities associated with integrated planning should uncover clarity on roles and expectations [34]. Risk collaboration, whereby all stakeholders participate in the review and allocation of risk, ensures alignment in perceptions and enhances trust levels [36]. Effective communication strategies, along with an open culture, can avoid misunderstandings and quickly deal with the development of particular issues [27]. Also, the acknowledgment of interpersonal dynamics and promotion of a non-adversarial environment may ease conflicts before their escalation. Also, by addressing interrelated causes of disputes, construction projects may avoid or minimize their likelihood and impact, thereby paving the way for a smoother and more efficient project execution [38].

2.7. Strategies for Dispute Mitigation

Conflict in construction projects needs to be mitigated by taking active steps to target conflict triggers before they grow [49]. Determining the root of the conflict and working toward policies can help create a collaborative environment for the project, thereby bringing together a few groups that may not experience much misunderstanding and can come to an efficient resolution [50]. The critical strategies for mitigating disputes are clear contracts, robust planning, collaboration, and provision of early intervention mechanisms [51].

Clear contracts construction projects are founded on contracts, and the clearness of such contracts is the only way to minimize disputes. Most ambiguities arise from unclear terms, roles, or responsibilities, especially those related to payment terms, variations, and risk allocation [52]. Preventive measures include drafting explicit terms, using standardized frameworks like NS 8405 or NS 8407 in Norway to clearly define the risk-sharing guidelines, and ensuring that all stakeholders review contracts for alignment and understanding [44].

Effective planning prevents disputes with delays, overruns in costs, or issues of shortages in resources. There is a need for realistic timelines with contingencies, accurate cost estimates with detailed analyses, and early risk management plans [53]. The definition of potential issues and risks during the planning phase of the project reduces the possibilities of disputes about unforeseen conditions and the complexities of project execution with fewer problems [54].

Fostering collaborative environments and a collaborative culture reduces adversarial relationships and fosters problem-solving [27]. Open communication protocols, regular progress meetings, and accessible avenues for the airing of concern prevent misunderstanding. Partnering approaches emphasizing shared goals and mutual respect promote alignment and reduce conflict [21]. Leadership development is also a critical role in project leadership, equipping the project leaders to mediate conflicts and foster cooperation within diverse teams.

Early stages of conflict can be so important because they prevent disagreements from becoming worse disputes. Early detection systems like periodic audits and feedback mechanisms help in the early detection of issues before they become worse [36,44]. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods by mediation and arbitration also provide a fast and cheaper alternative to litigations [15]. Proactive dispute management, with specific coordinators who monitor the resolution process, ensures that disputes are addressed promptly and effectively [28].

Preventive measures such as clear contracts, robust planning, and collaboration, along with early intervention mechanisms, are crucial for effective dispute mitigation [55]. These strategies greatly reduce the possibility of disputes, protect stakeholder relationships, and ensure the successful delivery of construction projects.

3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1. Research Design

Mixed-Methods Approach

The study was a mixed-methods kind, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods in a comprehensive analysis of the causes of conflicts in state-managed infrastructure and building projects.

This part included a survey that was sent out to key stakeholders, including contractors, project managers, and client representatives, to provide statistical insights about common conflict triggers and sectoral differences. The qualitative part involved semi-structured interviews carried out with industry experts to provide contextual depth with respect to the conflicts explained by the quantitative patterns.

The mixed-methods approach was selected to leverage the strengths of both methodologies:

• Quantitative data offered breadth, identifying patterns and prevalence of conflict causes across different stakeholder groups.
• Qualitative insights added depth, enabling a richer exploration of underlying dynamics, such as perceptions of contract ambiguities, risk allocation disputes, and sector-specific challenges.

Thus, triangulating results from both approaches would enhance validity and reliability since identified patterns were supported statistically but were also well-contextualized [56,57,58]. Overall, this integrative approach has provided a general view of conflict in Norwegian state infrastructure projects, both systemic in terms of issues that are procedural and contractual in nature and interpersonal aspects, such as stakeholder relationships and communication lapses.

3.2. Data Collection Methods

3.2.1. Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review was carried out to develop a theoretical underpinning and establish the most common causes of conflict in a construction project. Academic databases accessed were Oria, Scopus, and Google Scholar using a targeted keyword string such as construction conflicts, causes of dispute, and owner–contractor relationships for both Norwegian studies and international perspectives on the potential causes of escalated conflict, risky allocation, lack of contractual certainty, and personal disputes.

The literature review directly informed the survey and interview design, ensuring that the empirics of this study were aligned with established theories and findings from prior research. In refining some of the key variables relating to conflict triggers, sector-specific differences, and stakeholder perceptions, it improves the conceptual framework of the study.

3.2.2. Surveys

Separate surveys were designed to quantify the prevalence and perceived importance of conflict causes among key stakeholder groups. Each survey was tailored to specific respondent categories, including contractors, project managers, and representatives from InfraGov and BuildGov, ensuring that the questions were relevant to their roles and experiences.

A total of 57 respondents participated in the survey, representing a balanced cross-section of professionals from both the infrastructure and building sectors. The survey consisted of structured multiple-choice questions supplemented by open-ended fields to allow for more qualitative insights. For instance, participants were asked to rate conflict triggers like “unclear contract terms”, “frequent changes to the project scope”, and “poor communication” on a scale from 1 to 5. They were also given open-ended questions to share details about specific disputes they had experienced.

To ensure clarity and reliability, the survey was pre-tested with a small group of industry professionals, who provided feedback on question wording and relevance before the full distribution. The final survey was conducted online via Nettskjema, a secure digital platform, ensuring both participant anonymity and ease of access.

Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions and percentage comparisons, to identify recurring conflict patterns within and across sectors. For example, analyses looked at whether infrastructure projects had more disputes due to unclear technical details, while building projects saw more conflicts caused by design changes and disagreements among stakeholders.

Separate surveys were designed for quantifying prevalence and perceived importance of conflict causes among key stakeholder groups; each survey targeted specific respondent categories, such as contractors, project managers, and representatives from InfraGov and BuildGov, considering their roles and experiences.

A total of 57 respondents were included in the survey, thus representing a balanced cross-section of professionals from both infrastructure and construction sectors. The survey had structured multiple-choice questions with open-ended fields for the collection of more qualitative information. The survey was pre-tested for clarity and reliability on a small group of industry professionals before it was widely circulated.

A survey was conducted online through the safe online method Nettskjema in order to assure participants anonymity and accessibility. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics as frequencies and percentages to determine conflicts within and across sectors.

3.2.3. Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were held with three senior industry experts, including senior managers and project leaders from the construction sector, to add depth to the survey findings and better understand conflict dynamics. These interviewees were chosen for their extensive experience in Norwegian building and infrastructure projects, ensuring their insights were relevant to identifying conflict causes and solutions.

The interviews were open-ended, allowing detailed discussions on key issues like the quality of tender documents, risk allocation, scope changes, and collaboration practices. For example, participants were asked to share specific examples where unclear contract terms caused disputes or where involving contractors early helped avoid conflicts. All responses were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically to identify common patterns and themes.

This qualitative approach had three main goals:

1. Validate survey findings by providing real-world examples of conflict triggers.

2. Identify contextual factors influencing disputes, such as regulatory challenges or organizational culture.

3. Explore stakeholder perspectives beyond numbers, offering a deeper understanding of the challenges in state-led construction projects.

By combining quantitative survey data with qualitative interview insights, the study provides a thorough and balanced understanding of conflict causes in Norwegian state-led construction projects.

3.3. Sampling and Recruitment

3.3.1. Target Population

The target population of this study consisted of significant individuals engaging themselves with state-managed construction projects in Norway. It was targeted at all professionals associated with InfraGov (infrastructure projects) and BuildGov (building projects). Selection was based on the direct experience held by the individuals, as it covered managing, overseeing, or executing the projects within the scope of study.

The most immediate participant groups included the following:

• Contractors responsible for project execution and risk management.
• Project managers overseeing planning, coordination, and dispute resolution.
• Client representatives from InfraGov and BuildGov, who manage procurement, contracts, and project oversight.

This selection ensured that the study captured a broad range of perspectives on conflict causes and mitigation strategies within Norwegian infrastructure and building projects.

3.3.2. Sampling Strategy

To ensure that the participants had relevant expertise and direct experience with conflicts in state-managed construction projects, a purposive sampling strategy was adopted. This type of sampling strategy was preferred because data relevance and quality would be maximized in cases where only participants with large industry experience were included.

To ensure that both sides are fairly represented, the study involved participants from the owner organizations, such as InfraGov and BuildGov, and the contractor side, so a comparison of views can be more in-depth. Participants were selected from the following:

• Organizational directories (ensuring access to relevant professionals).
• Professional networks (leveraging industry contacts for targeted recruitment).
• Industry recommendations (referrals from existing contacts to access experienced individuals).

The sample included people in different roles, such as project leads, senior managers, and contractors, to ensure that the findings reflected the complexities of owner–contractor relationships in state-led projects. Participants were recruited through direct invitations, with selection criteria prioritizing experience in conflict resolution, contract management, and project execution.

This strategy ensured that the data collected was sector-specific conflict challenges, thus enhancing the validity and applicability of the findings.

3.4. Data Analysis

3.4.1. Quantitative Analysis

A study analysis was conducted using Excel and SPSS to make sure it was error-proof and reliable. Descriptive statistics consisting of frequency and percentages summarized conflict prevalence, key causes of disputes, and stakeholder viewpoints. Comparative analysis was performed to probe role-based and sectoral variation between the contractors, project managers, and client representatives, as well as infrastructure and construction projects. The results are presented in the text format along with two graphs that give visual expressions of important trends to provide clarity in interpretation.

3.4.2. Qualitative Analysis

Semi-structured interviews were analyzed qualitatively through thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns and insights into the causes of conflict. Recordings of interviews were transcribed and coded systematically, with responses categorized under predefined themes derived from the literature while also allowing for emerging themes unique to the study’s context. Coding was performed manually to ensure rigor through iterative review and refinement. The findings were presented entirely in text, containing narrative descriptions of important drivers of conflict and stakeholder perspectives.

3.4.3. Integration of Results

The mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative findings, with an emphasis on providing a complete understanding of the conflict causes, helped validate statistical results through numerical evidence based on surveys in addition to interview insights that could explain the underlying reasons behind the trends. Results mainly appeared in text, although two graphs were used to indicate distribution patterns for conflict causes. Triangulation, therefore, helped validate stakeholder perceptions and identify sector-specific variations in conflict dynamics.

4. Results and Findings

The results section provides an in-depth analysis based on survey and interview data with respect to conflict levels, most common causes of conflicts, contract size impact, and early contractor involvement. The main findings include the differences between the sectors and the technical and contractual ambiguity affecting infrastructural projects while the building sector faces scope change and adaptability. The proposed improvements are supported by data visualizations like bar charts, tables, and word clouds of enhanced collaboration, risk management, and flexible contracting models. The results provide actionable insights into how to mitigate conflict in both sectors.

4.1. Level of Conflict

Results from the survey reveal some insightful findings on perceived levels of conflict in infrastructure and building projects and differences across roles and sectors. A considerable number of respondents, mainly the contractors, accepted the fact that conflicts are rampant. Of them, those working with InfraGov were the worst hit. In total, 55% of contractors explicitly stated that they perceived conflicts as the greatest challenge in their projects. On the contrary, owners in both InfraGov and BuildGov reported relatively low conflict perceptions, probably because of the oversight role and, hence, less involvement in operational disputes.

Sector-specific differences were also apparent. Contractors in infrastructure projects reported a slightly higher level of conflict than those in building projects, mainly due to technical ambiguities in tender documents and unclear risk allocation. Owners in the building sector were more uncertain, with 20% reporting that they did not know the extent of conflicts, which implies less direct involvement in dispute resolution processes.

Overall, more than half of the respondents (about 55%) agreed that the level of conflict in projects is very high, which emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to address these issues. Contractors who are directly involved in the execution of projects have a higher level of conflict, while owners have a more mixed view, often disagreeing or being unsure about the level of conflict.

These results highlight the owners and contractors’ discrepancies in perceptions towards conflicts and draw attention to how partnerships and effective communication may neutralize disputes between them. Overcoming these issues is essential to ensuring better project outcomes in the two markets.

4.2. Common Causes of Conflicts

Some of the most salient causes that emerged, which were common to sectors and roles, include flaws in tender documents, differences in the interpretation of terms under the contract, and scope changes/additions. The frequency most cited source was flaws in tender documents, which was reported as the most significant source of disputes in infrastructure and construction, with 40% and 45%, respectively. The second most prevalent was contractual ambiguities, which were covered by 35% of the participants concerning infrastructure and 30% concerning construction. Scope changes and additions were another recurrent issue both in sectors, reported by 25% of the participants.

The analysis of the causes of conflicts in construction projects showed that they occur significantly differently and to a different extent. To gain further insight into this, the total occurrences of each identified cause were calculated and are visualized below. This graph shows the distribution of the causes, indicating which issues were most frequently cited among stakeholders.

Figure 1 identifies the leading causes of disputes in state-managed infrastructure and building projects. Interestingly, “errors in the request for tender” and “disputes over risk and responsibility” became the highest ranked causes that show systemic failures in project planning and execution for state projects. The results suggest that specific solutions need to be directed at such crucial issues for effective resolution.

Focusing on how to mitigate these primary causes would help the project stakeholders improve the collaboration, decrease disputes, and enhance the overall outcome of projects. The rest of the subsequent sections will give a more profound explanation of the causes and describe their underlying factors and provide some evidence-based recommendations for more harmonious project environments.

The following figure illustrates the main causes of disputes, classified under two distinct sectors: infrastructure and buildings. These sectors, represented by their respective percentages, indicate sectors whose potential points of conflict are commonly raised during project execution. Each cause is measured in terms of its prevalence, as reported across both groups, giving insight into sector-specific challenges.

Figure 2 clearly shows which contributors to disputes are the greatest by sector among state-managed infrastructure and building projects. So, for example, “mistakes in tenders” has ranked high under both sectors: this was, however, marginally stronger for buildings and conversely more serious for risk and responsibilities “disagreements”. The contrast between the two sectors underlines that the nature of challenges is diverse, which is most probably driven by differences in project scope, complexity, and stakeholder dynamics. These findings can be applied to targeted interventions to mitigate disputes effectively in each sector.

Sector-specific trends showed that higher challenges in tender document quality and the allocation of risk in infrastructure projects highlighted the dependency of the sector on detailed planning and technical accuracy. Construction projects, however, had a higher number of problems based on changes to scope during execution, further emphasizing the need for greater flexibility in managing project alterations.

Compressed perceptions vary based on the differing roles. Owners said clear and comprehensive tender documents are paramount, thus putting emphasis on the very beginning stages of a project. Contractors, however, pointed to changes in scope and lack of clarity surrounding risk allocation as key issues affecting the implementation of a project.

Interpersonal conflicts were less often discussed but still a factor in interviews for broader disputes to arise in projects that are complicated and have significant stakes. In this respect, the quality of tender documents must be improved, along with clearer definitions of terms, and bettering change management would reduce interpersonal and other conflicts across both sectors.

4.3. Influence of Contract Size on Conflict Levels

The survey results showed a low relationship between the size of the contract and the conflict levels in infrastructure and construction projects. About 70% of the respondents agreed that the size of the contract had little to no direct effect on conflicts. However, 30% reported that larger contracts have higher conflict levels because such projects are associated with complexity and scope variations. No respondents believed that smaller contracts have higher conflict levels.

Sector-specific insights revealed different dynamics. In the case of infrastructure projects, disputes were more associated with contractual obscurity and operational issues than with the size of the contract. Construction projects showed a slight bias toward larger contracts being associated with higher levels of conflict, an indication of added complexity and higher stakes.

Role-based perspectives make the findings above even more complex. Owners saw less connection to contract size when it came to conflicts and saw more overarching issues with management. Contractors, however, presented divided views, with some associating higher costs with amplified tensions, especially in large-scale projects operating on tight margins.

Indirect factors highlighted through interviews include more stakeholders becoming involved in bigger contracts, thereby aggravating the disputes. However, most of the disputes were associated with the unclear allocation of risks and changes in scope rather than the financial size of the contracts.

These findings point out that the root cause of disputes is operational, and they are contract issues rather than size of a contract. Moreover, the scale of the project seems to be irrelevant in order to reduce the level of conflicts.

4.4. Impact of Early Contractor Involvement

The survey and interview data bring out the significant role of early contractor involvement in mitigating conflicts in infrastructure and construction projects. Less than 5% of respondents believed that contractors were sufficiently involved during the early project phases, a gap consistently identified as a missed opportunity to reduce disputes. In contrast, 90% of participants agreed that investing more resources in early collaboration could significantly lower conflict levels.

The perceived advantages of early input include enhanced tender quality as inputs from contractors may help iron out flaws and ambiguities in tender documents—indeed, often quoted as the leading reason for such conflicts. Early cooperation over risk allocation and responsibility, therefore, improves shared understanding while utilizing contractor expertise in further elaboration of project scope and minimizing changes during execution.

Sector-specific insights depict that in infrastructure projects, value is captured in early input from the contractor to solve complex technical challenges. In construction projects, the benefit is in aligning expectations toward feasible design and execution strategies.

However, respondents do point out that some barriers exist in early involvement, such as rigid procurement rules and limited budgets in the planning phase. For example, in state-funded projects, public procurement regulations do not allow much pre-construction collaboration.

To overcome these difficulties, participants suggest that collaborative procurement models, partnering contracts, and training programs should be implemented to enlighten the members on the value of early contractor engagement. It is evident, therefore, that early collaboration between the parties needs to be enhanced to reduce conflicts, make the process efficient, and improve the quality of the results overall.

4.5. Sector-Specific Insights

Notable differences in the nature and dynamics of conflicts between infrastructure and construction sectors are brought out and soare their specific approaches to resolving conflict.

In infrastructure projects, flaws in tender documents were identified as the main source of conflict, cited by 40% of respondents. Such errors and ambiguities in the documents were linked to disputes in technical execution. Differences in interpretations of contract terms, especially concerning risk allocation, were also very common. High interdependency in tasks in infrastructure projects further increased conflict, as technical challenges frequently escalate disputes.

Most drivers of conflict for construction projects had to do with scope changes and additions. Most contractors complained of the inability of the project requirement to change due to the flexibility of the tendering process using the lowest-bid criteria as the basis, which often degraded the quality of the project as well as facilitated disputes.

Conflict levels also differed between sectors. Infrastructure projects reported moderate conflict levels, with structured project management approaches that reduce some of the disputes, although contractual disagreements are still prevalent. Construction projects had higher conflict levels because of the dynamic nature of tasks and changes in scope and execution.

Role-based insights showed that owners in both sectors focused on flaws in tender documents and unclear risk allocation, while contractors highlighted operational challenges such as scope changes and inadequate planning. The approach to dispute resolution also differed: infrastructure projects tended to favor formal mechanisms such as mediation, whereas construction projects relied on informal methods, such as direct negotiation, which often left tensions unresolved.

These results indicate that the infrastructure project would involve upgrading the quality of tender documents and ensuring risk allocation is made clearer in contracts. Construction projects, however, require more flexible approaches to contracting and more collaboration to solve their dynamic challenges. Conflict mitigation strategies must, therefore, be tailored to the distinctive characteristics of each sector to enable the reduction of disputes and better outcomes.

4.6. Insights from Interviews

The qualitative interviews added value to the understanding of the underlying dynamics of conflicts in infrastructure and construction projects, complementing the quantitative survey data. Key professionals, such as directors and project leaders, from both owners and contractors were interviewed to get nuanced perspectives on the causes of conflicts, sector-specific challenges, and potential solutions.

Interviewees repeatedly mentioned that defects in tender documents and ambiguous risk sharing have been the primary conflict drivers. But these were more of a concern for infrastructure projects, of which technical complexity increases disputes. Construction projects were affected by scope changes frequently, reflecting their dynamic and ever-evolving nature.

The findings from the interviews also stressed that early involvement of the contractor in the development process can also minimize conflicts. Interviewees opined that integrated planning at the early stages of project development can facilitate higher quality of tender documents and a common understanding of the roles; however, the inflexible regulations related to the procurement process had been identified as a major obstruction in achieving these integrations.

Yet another important theme was the role of interpersonal dynamics. Interviewees pointed to poor communication and lack of trust as some of the main reasons disputes snowballed, regardless of project size or sector.

These would drive systemic changes along the lines of improved communication mechanisms, collaborative contracting models, and targeted risk management practices. Once these were assimilated by the two industries, they would directly tackle the very sources of disputes and thereby upgrade project performance.

4.7. Suggested Improvements to Reduce Conflicts

A survey and interviews with project participants found that there are some practical recommendations toward reducing conflict in infrastructure and construction projects. Those suggestions addressed the root causes and systemic challenges of disputes by emphasizing early engagement, better communication, and improved risk management.

Major recommendations included further investment in earlier phases of a project, whereby 90% of respondents proposed the use of early contractor involvement for the attainment of shared understanding concerning project objectives, risk distribution, and scope. The enhancement of tender document quality was another highlighted area whereby better clarity in detailed documents will ensure less ambiguity and dispute occurrence in execution.

Communication and cooperation were repeatedly emphasized as necessary. Regular owner–contractor workshops were proposed to align expectations of both parties and make them look into the same direction. Open communications have to be developed from all stages of the project to avoid minor issues building up to become large disputes.

Respondents also suggested that flexible and collaborative contract models, such as partnering or alliance frameworks, be adopted to build trust and accountability among stakeholders. Revising public procurement regulations to enable early contractor engagement and flexible contracting was cited as a necessary step for facilitating collaboration.

Stronger risk management practices included clearer risk allocation in contracts and conducting shared risk assessments during project initiation to align stakeholders on potential challenges and mitigation strategies.

Recommendations by sector were as follows: for infrastructure, resolving technical ambiguities in tender documents and oversight of infrastructure projects; for construction, dynamic contracting approaches and adaptive management due to the high rate of scope changes.

If most of these suggestions were implemented, fights would be much reduced in size, efficiency increased, and collaborations promoted in infrastructural and construction project sites.

5. Interpretation and Discussion

5.1. Introduction to the Discussion

This study aimed to identify and analyze the main causes of conflicts between contractors and owners in infrastructure and construction projects managed by InfraGov and BuildGov. In keeping with the recommendation to use both quantitative and qualitative methods, such as surveys and in-depth interviews [57,58], the research sought to provide insights into how contractual practices, early-phase involvement, and interpersonal dynamics contribute to the prevalence and intensity of conflicts.

Key findings from the study show that entities that contributed the most to the occurrence of disputes included errors or inadequacies in tender documents, different interpretations of risk and responsibility allocation, and changes to projects frequently. Another factor that proved to be prominent was person-related conflicts and insufficient contractor involvement during early project phases. These findings affirm the need for improving the clarity of contracts, sharing with each other, and addressing interpersonal issues for an effective avoidance of conflict.

5.2. Interpretation of Key Findings

• Key Finding 1: Errors or Inadequacies in Tender Documents

The most important discovery was that, without exception, errors or shortcomings in tender documents represented the primary source of conflict between contractors and owners. In this regard, the findings agree with earlier studies [29] that underline the role of incomplete or vague project documentation as a source of misunderstanding and conflict. Inadequate specifications and mistakes in the first tendering stage can lead to misaligned expectations and costly delays in the projects [45]. Errors at this point have a strong impact on the industry since these errors are echoed throughout the lifecycle of the project. To rectify this situation, industry players must embrace thorough quality assurance when preparing tenders. For instance, employing third-party audits of tender documents and using digital tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) to ensure accuracy and consistency can minimize discrepancies.

• Key Finding 2: Differing Interpretations of Responsibility and Risk Allocation

One critical finding is frequent disputes over misinterpretations regarding the risk and responsibility allocations of contracts [52]. These findings align with the literature more broadly, pointing to unclear contract terms as leading causes of dispute during project execution [34]. The research highlights a need for greater emphasis on transparent and collaborative contract drafting [46]. Standardized forms, such as NS 8405, only provide a foundation; application and tailoring have to be adjusted to meet specific project needs [44]. Owner–contractor collaborative workshops pre-construction would clarify the expectations of the parties, which, in turn, can ensure a common basis for the agreement of risk [38]. Further studies would investigate whether or not partnering agreements, which also include alternative forms of dispute resolution, help with clarifying the ambiguity in contract obligations.

• Key Finding 3: Changes and Project Modifications

The third major source of conflict was identified as changes during project execution. Changes in project scope, design, or timelines not only cause disruptions in workflows but also increase disputes over compensation and accountability. This is in line with the research findings of [21,59,60], which point out the financial and operational burden caused by mid-project changes. Improvement in change management protocols is what the industry needs to address this issue. The impact of changes can be minimized by applying stricter processes of evaluation and approval of changes with better communication between project stakeholders, as suggested by [61,62]. Flexibility could also be integrated into the initial project plan to reduce extensive changes later on.

• Key Finding 4: Person-Related Conflicts

Person-related issues were also on the list: the problems with communication and dynamics among people were reported by the surveyed and the interviewees. It is quite coherent with what has been researched in [62], which has associated person-related conflicts with enhanced stress levels and decreased productivity within project-oriented contexts. Improvement of interpersonal dynamics will be achieved by investing in soft skills training for project managers and team leaders concerning conflict resolution and effective communication [63,64]. Implementing a culture of teamwork by encouraging teambuilding activities and assessment feedback increases relationships and reduces friction [65].

These important findings may be addressed by the construction and infrastructure sectors in the development of targeted strategies to minimize conflict, hence streamlining efficiency and stakeholder satisfaction. From this perspective, these insights also lay an important foundation for further research into proactive conflict prevention mechanisms.

Influence of Local Regulations on Conflict Triggers

The persistence of tender document errors and unclear risk allocation in state-led projects cannot be fully understood without considering the regulatory environment in which InfraGov and BuildGov operate. Norwegian public procurement regulations, designed to ensure transparency and fairness, often limit early contractor involvement and restrict flexible interaction during the tendering phase. These constraints reduce the ability of project owners to clarify technical requirements collaboratively or adjust risk-sharing frameworks pre-contract. Additionally, the use of the lowest bid criteria in public tenders may discourage quality-focused bidding, thereby contributing to scope ambiguities and unrealistic expectations. These structural barriers help explain why well-known conflict causes remain common in Norwegian public sector projects despite widespread awareness of their impact.

5.3. Comparison Between Sectors

5.3.1. Similarities Between Infrastructure and Building Projects

The study revealed many overlapping challenges within infrastructure and building projects. Issues arising from the two sectors emanate from incorrect tender documents, misaligned risk and responsibility allocations, and changes in projects [42]. These are complicated by the level of complexity and interdependence of the project stakeholders [66]. This problem further includes the lesser early engagement of contractors who cause disputes in both industries [44]. The study revealed that the mutual issues result primarily from the project planning and delivery systems’ defects, for instance, insufficient owner–contractor cooperation and communication in the initial phases of the projects [7].

5.3.2. Differences Between Infrastructure and Building Projects

While there are similarities, differences between infrastructure and building projects were found to be very significant. Risks in infrastructure projects are much higher because the integration of existing infrastructure is a complex process, and public services should not be disrupted. There are also higher safety and technical standards in infrastructure projects, which may lead to disputes over compliance and responsibilities. In contrast, the building projects seem to face more interpersonal conflicts as a result of the higher heterogeneity of subcontractors and suppliers involved, creating coordination problems [18,44].

The infrastructure group respondents reported a problem in that the track lay is too accurately aligned, while the signaling is complex, thereby requiring highly skilled professionals. These technical demands bring about quarrels on the technical specification and workmanship quality, and similarly, as identified by [67], it is about the interpretation that creates conflict when aesthetic and functional considerations of the building projects bring about disputes on subjective meanings. For example, infrastructure projects usually involve the use of public funds and more rigorous governmental supervision. Building projects, especially those privately funded, are more liberal with contractual conditions.

5.3.3. Unique Challenges in Each Sector

The infrastructure sector is noted for its dependence on long-term planning and adherence to very rigid schedules because interruptions in operations can have major public and financial implications. Added to this complexity are the requirements to coordinate with various public authorities and comply with detailed regulations [66,68]. The construction sector is relatively more variable with project scope as it involves constant design changes, and it is more customized with a high possibility of conflicts arising from scope and cost adjustments [21,69].

The specific factors facing sectors require unique solutions. For infrastructures, investment in advanced planning tools, as well as frameworks for collaborative governance, will enhance the handling of risks and consistency in roles between administrators [70]. Building projects can ensure that conflicts resulting from changes and interpersonal relationships are mitigated through enhanced communication protocols and adaptation flexibility [50,71].

With these distinctions and similarities at hand, infrastructure and building sector project managers would be able to use focused policies to enhance the prevention and resolution of such conflicts.

5.4. Impact of Contract Standards and Practices

5.4.1. Influence of Contract Standards on Conflict Levels

The study showed that contract standards, including NS 8405 for execution contracts and NS 8407 for design and build contracts, are critical in determining conflict dynamics. The detailed provisions on responsibility and risk allocation in NS 8405 were seen to contribute to higher conflict levels in building projects [38]. The respondents claimed that the inelasticity and prescriptive character of NS 8405 often spark conflicts, especially if the parties in question contemplate unforeseen issues in a certain clause because they will interpret it differently [50]. Conversely, the NS 8407, with more flexibility being placed upon the contractor, had lower conflict levels in some cases. This is because it calls for proactive ways of problem-solving, innovation, and proactive initiative.

Even though these standards are broad and extensive, a repeated theme emerges from the research: parties make too much use of standard terms and do not adapt them well enough to fit their specific projects [27]. The differences might be worsened as such standard terms usually do not solve special complexities within projects. Further, ambiguity regarding mechanisms of conflict resolution within the contract tends to extend conflicts for a longer time with more expenses.

5.4.2. Contract Strategies and Their Effectiveness

The research indicates that contract strategies dramatically influence collaboration as well as conflicts. Traditional techniques, such as lump-sum and execution contracts, are more contentious because they put emphasis on minimal cost and strongly allocate risks to one party and not the other [72]. Such contracts often lead to adversarial behavior, where the contractor and owner would focus on getting their interests met rather than their collaboration [73].

On the other hand, partnering or “samspill” models were reported to have the potential for lowering conflict levels [46]. These models are characterized by early contractor involvement, shared risk and reward mechanisms, and open communication channels that create a cooperative environment [74]. Respondents were of the view that when the contractors are involved during the planning and design phase, it would lead to a shared understanding of project objectives and remove ambiguities related to risk allocation [34].

Further findings suggest that, for complex projects, especially infrastructure projects, there is a trend towards using strategies of contract based on transparency and flexibility, which are IPD and alliance contracting. Such methods enable the participants to adapt themselves to the circumstances of change rather than seeking relief in formal disputes.

5.4.3. Challenges and Recommendations

Although collaborative contracts hold much promise, implementing them is no easy task. Most stakeholders do not know much about these models and, therefore, tend to incur high cultural and procedural change requirements when adopting them [75]. Moreover, any public procurement regulation will most likely restrict the applicability scope of collaborative contracts, such as in the case of projects managed through InfraGov and BuildGov.

To overcome such challenges, the industry should implement training programs for stakeholders to acquaint them with the principles of collaborative contracting [27]. Policy makers should consider amending the public procurement rules to promote the adoption of flexible and cooperative models of contracts. In addition, contract documentation should include clearly stated mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, such as project-integrated mediation or dispute boards, so that disputes can be resolved expeditiously without increasing the cost of disputes [55,76].

By shaping contract standards and strategies to meet the project’s needs and leveraging collaboration, the industry can reduce conflict, increase efficiency, and create deeper relationships between project stakeholders.

5.5. Role of Early Involvement

5.5.1. Impact of Limited Contractor Involvement in Early Phases

The study found a strong correlation between the under-involvement of contractors in the early stages of projects and the emergence of conflicts [50]. According to the survey, only less than 5% of the contractors were adequately involved in the initial stages of projects, such as planning and design. This lack of engagement usually results in misaligned expectations, incomplete designs, and inadequate risk assessments. These elements form the basis of the argument in the construction phase [42].

In infrastructure projects, the absence of contractors early in the process aggravates technical challenges because their experience in practical implementation is not used when developing project plans. In building projects, the lack of early collaboration results in designs that are impractical or too expensive to execute, leading to many changes and disagreements over additional costs. The findings agree with previous studies [47,57], which highlight the importance of integrating contractor insights in the early stages to enhance project outcomes and minimize misunderstandings.

5.5.2. Recommendations for Enhancing Early-Phase Collaboration

• Adopt Collaborative Planning Models: Implementing collaborative contract strategies, such as partnering or integrated project delivery (IPD), can formalize early contractor involvement [77]. These models ensure that contractors contribute their expertise during critical decision-making stages, reducing ambiguities and enhancing design efficiency.
• Invest in Early Contractor Engagement (ECE) Frameworks: Frameworks that mandate contractor participation in early design workshops and risk assessment sessions can help align stakeholder objectives [78]. For instance, involving contractors in the preparation of tender documents ensures that designs are practical and comprehensive, minimizing errors and subsequent disputes.
• Leverage Digital Collaboration Tools: Tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) enable all stakeholders, including contractors, to visualize and interact with the project design from its inception [26]. BIM can facilitate early identification of potential issues, fostering a collaborative problem-solving approach before construction begins.
• Policy Revisions for Public Procurement: For public projects governed by strict procurement regulations, such as those managed by InfraGov and BuildGov, revisions to policies could allow for more flexible tendering processes. This includes permitting two-stage tenders, where contractors are selected based on qualifications and included during the design phase before finalizing project costs.
• Capacity Building and Training: Providing training for project owners and contractors on the benefits and practices of early collaboration can encourage a cultural shift in the industry [44]. Understanding the long-term cost savings and efficiency gains of early involvement may incentivize adoption.

5.5.3. Conflict Reduction Potential

The results indicate that the three most common causes of conflict identified in the study could be addressed by investing resources in early-phase collaboration: errors in tender documents, differing interpretations of risk allocation, and frequent changes. Ninety percent of the survey respondents believed that conflicts could be significantly reduced if more resources were allocated to early-phase activities, as also mentioned by [10].

Early involvement helps minimize rework, accelerates decision-making, and fosters trust because it allows the shared understanding of all stakeholders before construction begins [79]. The collaborative foundation thus reduces adversarial relationships and forms a basis for constructive conflict resolution as problems occur.

Early contractor involvement emphasizes proactive conflict prevention, thus increasing the efficiency of the project and the satisfaction of the stakeholders [44]. Future studies may assess the cost–benefit ratio of early involvement practices to further demonstrate their value in reducing conflicts across the construction and infrastructure sectors.

The causes of disputes in construction projects differ between infrastructure and building sectors; thus, the impacts differ, and solutions need to be tailor-made for a sector.

Table 1. Causes of disputes in construction projects: infrastructure and building sector impacts with proposed mitigation strategies.

Category	Key Causes	Infrastructure Sector Impacts	Building Sector Impacts	Proposed Solutions
Tender document issues	Errors or ambiguities in tender documents	Technical execution delays; higher contractor disputes	Misaligned expectations between owners and contractors; cost escalations	Use third-party audits, enhance document clarity, and implement digital tools like BIM [18,42,80]
Risk and responsibility	Unclear risk allocation in contracts	Disputes over operational and financial responsibilities	Frequent disagreements over liability for design or construction changes	Conduct collaborative workshops during pre-construction to align with risk-sharing [42,44,55]
Scope changes	Frequent design or scope modifications	Disruptions to technical workflows; disputes over additional compensation	Increased costs and delays due to frequent redesigns	Introduce stricter change management protocols; incorporate flexibility in initial plans [18,42,44]
Interpersonal conflicts	Poor communication and adversarial culture	Breakdown in collaboration between contractors and owners	Reduced productivity and strained relationships among stakeholders	Invest in soft skills training, foster team-building activities, and enhance communication [24,80]
Contract size and practices	Complexities of larger contracts	Greater stakeholder involvement leading to coordination challenges	Increased operational complexity and resource management difficulties	Adopt collaborative contracting models like “samspill” and integrate dispute boards [18,24,44,55]

depicts a comparative overview of the main causes of disputes, their sector-specific impacts, and the proposed mitigation strategies that can be demonstrated. This table emphasizes the interrelation of these factors, highlighting how they together affect project outcomes. These issues can be addressed through targeted strategies, and actionable insights can be gained by stakeholders to enhance the management of disputes and foster more collaborative project environments.

Table 1 gives the main causes of disputes in construction projects, encapsulated in the main themes of tender document issues, risk allocation, scope changes, interpersonal conflicts, and contract practices. A comparative impact from the causes also analyzes the challenges by each sector: infrastructure and building. Sector-specific issues are identified as technical execution delays from the infrastructure side and more cost escalations on the building side. Finally, it provides solutions that are tailored to address these challenges, and it emphasizes the importance of collaboration, clarity, and flexibility in project management.

As discussed earlier, these causes align closely with the study’s findings on conflict dynamics in infrastructure and building projects, highlighting the need for sector-specific strategies. This comparative analysis underscores the importance of targeted interventions, such as early contractor involvement and enhanced risk-sharing mechanisms, to reduce conflicts and improve project outcomes.

These insights form the groundwork for further research on fine-tuning joint practices and reviewing policy frameworks for dispute-avoidance tailoring. With conflict causes being better understood, stakeholders can create smoother and more efficient project climates throughout the construction industry. The citations used in the proposed solution section are some examples; there are numerous other studies on the very same topic.

5.6. Practical Implications

Project managers are very important in minimizing conflicts and ensuring the success of a project. They should emphasize the need for clear and comprehensive tender documents to avoid misunderstandings and encourage stakeholders to collaborate as early as possible [38,81]. The use of BIM will further improve the planning, communication, and design of the project.

Contractors should proactively act to prevent conflicts through early participation during the planning phase to set expectations and minimize the confusion caused by misinterpretations [26]. Developing internal capacity for collaborative contract models, such as “samspill”, and preparing contractors with training on risk management and dispute resolution will help contractors better navigate conflicts and negotiate better contracts [38].

The regulatory framework governing project dynamics is influenced by policymakers. Most of the issues related to conflict can be addressed by encouraging collaborative contract models and revising public procurement guidelines to include provisions for early contractor involvement [27]. The inclusion of standardized mechanisms for dispute resolution, such as mediation or dispute boards, in public contracts would further enhance conflict management.

Theory and our empirical study mention some critical actionable solutions, such as adopting collaborative contracts, integration of early contractor involvement into public projects, and adoption of digital tools like BIM for coordination and design efficiency [44,47]. Flexible contract provisions should be established to accommodate unforeseen changes, reducing disputes during implementation.

These measures will help the construction and infrastructure industries to solve the root cause of conflicts and improve project outcomes. It will only be possible if there are collaborative and efficient relations among all stakeholders in the industry, and such conflicting situations are resolved in the best manner possible with minimal wastage of resources at the other end.

5.7. Limitations of the Study

This study has a number of limitations that position its findings. It only focused on InfraGov and BuildGov projects, which are only examples of public sector projects in Norway. Findings cannot be generalized fully to the conflict dynamics happening within private sector projects or elsewhere in the construction industry because public sector procurement differs so dramatically from private sector projects.

Given a sample size based on 57 responses and three in-depth interviews, the results provide valuable information but cannot adequately represent all possible industry perspectives. The relatively low sample size can also increase risks of bias associated with participants that may have very positive or unusually negative experiences associated with these firms.

The study relied on qualitative and quantitative methods to explore perceived causes and effects of conflicts, potentially overlooking objective data such as financial or time-related impacts, which could strengthen the conclusions. Moreover, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to observe long-term outcomes or evolving practices in conflict resolution.

These limitations reduce the generalizability of the findings, especially beyond the Norwegian public sector. Future research should include a wider range of projects, incorporate private-sector cases, and explore cross-sector comparisons. Longitudinal studies tracking conflict trends and resolution practices over time would further enhance the understanding of these issues and their broader implications.

This discussion has portrayed that the conflict is multi-faceted, including flawed tender documents, risk and responsibility interpretations not aligned with one another, change orders frequently made, and issues related to the person. It has also amplified the point that the involvement of contractors at an early stage leads to mismatched expectations and minimal collaboration between stakeholders.

Contract standards, such as NS 8405 and NS 8407, and collaborative models, such as “samspill”, either enhance or derogate their application, and early collaboration, communication, and adaptive contract practices are something which, if practiced, would increase a cooperative environment that minimizes disputes. Public projects by InfraGov and BuildGov reveal the need for policy changes to act in favor of flexibility and early contractor engagement.

These conflict dynamics can be improved in project outcomes, reduce the costs of society, and build up the construction sector’s resilience. This would also have greater implications in terms of benchmarking better practices for sustainable infrastructure development globally.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore the underlying reasons for disputes in state infrastructure and building projects in Norway, focusing more specifically on projects supervised by InfraGov and BuildGov. Through the mixed-methods methodology of completing supplementary semi-structured interviews following questionnaires, it was possible to find critical causes of conflicts. Among them are incomplete tender documentation, indistinct risk allocation, too many changes in scope, and interpersonal disagreements. Such conclusions point out that managing state infrastructure projects can be more challenging than one imagines and that tailored approaches to mitigate disputes are important.

6.1. Key Insights and Contributions

The study’s findings reveal that contractual ambiguities and misaligned expectations remain central to conflicts in both infrastructure and building projects, particularly the following:

• Tender document flaws were identified as the most prevalent conflict source, particularly in infrastructure projects, where technical requirements demand high precision and clarity.
• Risk allocation disputes emerged as a significant issue, with contractors perceiving a disproportionate burden, leading to strained relationships and frequent disputes.
• Frequent project modifications and scope changes contributed to increased conflicts in building projects, emphasizing the need for greater flexibility in contract structures.
• Limited early contractor involvement was recognized as a missed opportunity for reducing disputes, with 90% of respondents indicating that earlier engagement could improve project efficiency and collaboration.

These findings bridge an important knowledge gap by offering sector-specific insights into conflict dynamics, distinguishing the distinct challenges in infrastructure versus building projects.

6.2. Practical Implications for Industry and Policy

Addressing these conflict causes requires systemic improvements in contract management, procurement strategies, and communication practices. Based on the study’s findings, several key recommendations can help mitigate conflicts and improve project outcomes:

• Enhancing the quality of tender documents through rigorous pre-review processes, third-party auditing, and leveraging digital tools (e.g., BIM) to reduce errors and ambiguities.
• Improving risk allocation mechanisms by ensuring contracts clearly define roles, responsibilities, and risk-sharing frameworks, thereby reducing misinterpretations and disputes.
• Encouraging early contractor involvement in project planning and design phases, particularly in complex infrastructure projects, to leverage technical expertise and foster collaboration.
• Adopting more flexible and collaborative contracting models, such as partnering agreements and “samspill” frameworks, to align stakeholder interests and reduce adversarial relationships.
• Strengthening communication and conflict resolution mechanisms, including regular stakeholder engagement meetings, mediation protocols, and structured dispute resolution processes.

By implementing these strategies, the industry can reduce disputes, improve stakeholder collaboration, and enhance the overall efficiency and success of state infrastructure projects.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although this paper is valuable to the field of study, limitations do exist that should be accounted for. As the research examined only state-owned projects in the InfraGov and BuildGov databases, conclusions may not carry over fully into private sector-based projects or applications in other regions. Moreover, the sample is representative but quite small, precluding generalizable industry-wide statements.

Future research should explore the following:

• Comparative studies between public and private sector projects to examine whether conflict drivers differ under different procurement models.
• Longitudinal analyses tracking conflict resolution outcomes over time to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution methods.
• Expanding the study to include additional stakeholders, such as legal experts, procurement specialists, and government regulators, to provide a more comprehensive perspective on conflict management strategies.

6.4. Final Remarks

This empirical study focuses on the importance of proactive conflict management in state-led infrastructure projects, with a strong rationale emphasizing the message of clear contractual frameworks, collaborative engagement, and improvement in communication strategies. It will address these findings toward improving the efficiency of the project, safeguarding public investments, and fostering a more cooperative construction environment. Finally, these contributions contribute to furthering academic knowledge, as well as practical industry solutions within which to build conflict prevention and resolution skills towards enhancing the Norwegian construction sector’s performance.