Abstract :
The increasing complexity of collaborative megaprojects has intensified the need for efficient dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms that minimize delays, preserve commercial relationships, and reduce reliance on costly institutional arbitration. This study examines the evolution of pre-arbitral dispute boards within collaborative megaproject contracting and evaluates their effectiveness in promoting claim avoidance compared to formal institutional arbitration. Employing a qualitative doctrinal research methodology based exclusively on secondary sources, the study analyzes international legal literature, arbitral rules, standard construction contracts, judicial decisions, industry reports, and comparative case studies. A data-driven analytical approach is adopted to identify trends in dispute board performance, including the frequency of dispute avoidance, early claim resolution, cost efficiency, and project continuity. The findings indicate that modern dispute boards have evolved from reactive adjudicative bodies into proactive collaborative institutions that facilitate early risk management, continuous stakeholder engagement, and timely dispute resolution. While institutional arbitration remains indispensable for resolving complex and high-value disputes, the research demonstrates that effective integration of dispute boards significantly reduces the number of disputes escalating to arbitration, thereby enhancing contractual certainty and project performance. The study concludes by recommending stronger contractual frameworks, institutional support, and standardized best practices to maximize the effectiveness of pre-arbitral dispute boards in future megaprojects.