2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Disputes are common on construction projects, often triggered by scope changes, design clarifications, or disagreements over cost and schedule impacts. These conflicts can delay work, raise costs, and strain working relationships. Mediation is widely used in construction as a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), yet it is seldom taught as a hands-on exercise in construction classrooms. That gap leaves students with limited practice in a process they are likely to encounter early in their careers.
This paper describes a classroom assignment that introduced mediation in an upper-level construction management course focused on construction law and contract administration. The class enrolled about 45 students, composed primarily of construction engineering technology majors, with a smaller number of graduate students and several from design-oriented programs. Students were organized into eight teams of about six (with limited role sharing where needed). Roles included the general contractor’s project manager and superintendent, the mechanical subcontractor’s project manager and superintendent, a design consultant, and a mediator. Each team worked on a realistic case involving a disputed VAV system upgrade that required an additional 120 linear feet of custom ductwork, revised piping, and a more advanced control system. Materials provided to students consisted of a narrative case packet paired with AIA A201 General Conditions to anchor discussion of scope, changes, and claims.
The assignment had two parts. Teams first held an in-person mediation outside class with a 75-minute target duration and caucuses permitted. Student mediators used a sample opening statement handout and were instructed to facilitate the process, but not to propose settlement options or assign fault. Each team produced a one-page settlement memo stating agreed scope actions, responsible party, timing, and cost terms without admissions of liability. Teams then returned to class for a 10-minute presentation, followed by a brief question-and-answer period to explain their resolutions, describe key turning points, and justify cost and schedule adjustments using case facts and relevant contract language.
Structured instructor observation notes from the eight team presentations were reviewed to identify recurring implementation patterns that can inform facilitation and debriefing. All eight teams reached agreement, most commonly through cost-sharing structures, and about half also included schedule relief. Observed patterns included role-dependent framing of disputes as multi-issue rather than purely clause-based, predictable communication breakdowns under conflict, the difficulty of mediator neutrality and meeting control without structure, and the importance of preparation and contract-grounded reasoning for producing workable resolutions. The paper provides a low-cost mediation assignment template and instructor-observed implementation patterns to support adaptation and replication; transferability beyond this course context remains to be tested through additional offerings and cohorts.