The time for performance of a project is usually of the essence to the employer and the contractor. This has made it quite imperative for contracting parties to analyse project delays for purposes of making right decisions on potential time and/or cost compensation claims. Over the years, existing delay analysis techniques (DATs) for aiding this decision-making have been helpful but have not succeeded in curbing the high incidence of disputes associated with delay claims resolutions. A major source of the disputes lies with the limitations and capabilities of the techniques in their practical use. Developing a good knowledge of these aspects of the techniques is of paramount importance in understanding the real problematic issues involved and their improvement needs. This paper seeks to develop such knowledge and understanding (as part of a wider research work) via: an evaluation of the most common DATs based on a case study, a review of the key relevant issues often not addressed by the techniques, and the necessary improvements needs. The evaluation confirmed that the various techniques yield different analysis results for the same delay claims scenario, mainly due to their unique application procedures. The issues that are often ignored in the analysis but would also affect delay analysis results are: functionality of the programming software employed for the analysis, resource loading and levelling requirements, resolving concurrent delays, and delay-pacing strategy. Improvement needs by way of incorporating these issues in the analysis and focusing on them in future research work are the key recommendations of the study.
References
[1]
Akintoye, A.S.; Skitmore, R.M. Profitability of UK construction contractors. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1991, 9, 311–325, doi:10.1080/01446199100000025.
[2]
Majid, M.Z.A.; McCaffer, R. Factors of non-excusable delays that influence contractors’ performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 1998, 14, 42–49, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1998)14:3(42).
[3]
Schumacher, L. Quantifying and apportioning delay on construction projects. J. Cost Eng. 1995, 37, 11–13.
[4]
Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M.; Deng, M.Z.M.; Nadeem, A. Improving existing delay analysis techniques for the establishment of delay liabilities. Constr. Innov. 2004, 4, 3–17.
[5]
Lovejoy, V.A. Claims schedule development and analysis: Collapsed as-built scheduling for beginners. J. Cost Eng. 2004, 46, 27–30.
[6]
Finke, M.R. Window analysis of compensable delays. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 1999, 125, 96–100, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:2(96).
[7]
Society of Construction Law (SCL). Protocol for Determining Extensions of Time and Compensations for Delay and Disruption; SCL: Burbage, UK, 2002. Available online: http://www.eotprotocol.com (accessed on 19 July 2013).
[8]
Pickavance, K. Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts, 4th ed. ed.; Sweet & Maxwell: London, UK, 2010.
[9]
Kartam, S. Generic methodology for analysing delay claims. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 1999, 125, 409–419, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:6(409).
[10]
Bordoli, D.W.; Baldwin, A.A. A methodology for assessing construction project delays. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1998, 16, 327–337, doi:10.1080/014461998372358.
[11]
Gothand, K.D. Schedule delay analysis: Modified windows approach. J. Cost Eng. 2003, 45, 18–23.
[12]
Lee, H.; Ryu, H.; Yu, J.; Kim, J. Method for calculating scheduling delay considering lost productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 2005, 131, 1147–1154, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1147).
[13]
Mbabazi, A.; Hegazy, T.; Saccomanno, F. Modified but-for method for delay analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 2005, 131, 1142–1144, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:10(1142).
[14]
Hegazy, T.; Zhang, K. Daily window delay analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 2005, 131, 505–512, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(505).
[15]
Ibbs, W.; Nguyen, L.D. Schedule analysis under the effect of resource allocation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 2007, 133, 131–138, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:2(131).
[16]
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI). Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis; AACEI: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2007.
[17]
Peters, T.F. Performing forensic delay analyses from deep within the black tent. AACE Int. Trans. 2007, 2, CDR.01.1–CDR.01.9.
[18]
Wickwire, J.M.; Groff, M.J. Update on CPM proof of delay claims. Sched. Update-Project Manag. Instit. Coll. Sched. 2004, 1, 3–9.
[19]
Alkass, S.; Mazerolle, M.; Harris, F. Construction delay analysis techniques. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1996, 14, 375–394, doi:10.1080/014461996373250.
[20]
Zack, J.G. But-for schedules—Analysis and defense. J. Cost Eng. 2001, 43, 13–17.
[21]
Alkass, S.; Mazerolle, M.; Tribaldos, E.; Harris, F. Computer-aided construction delay analysis and claims preparation. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1995, 13, 335–352, doi:10.1080/01446199500000038.
[22]
Pinnell, S. How to Get Paid for Construction Changes: Preparation, Resolution Tools and Techniques; McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
[23]
Bubshait, A.A.; Cunningham, M.J. Comparison of delay analysis methodologies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 1998, 124, 315–322, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:4(315).
Pilcher, R. Principles of Construction Management, 3rd ed. ed.; McGraw-Hill International Limited: Maidenhead, UK, 1992.
[26]
Lucas, D.E. Schedule Analyser Pro—An aid in the analysis of delay time impact analysis. J. Cost Eng. 2002, 44, 30–36.
[27]
Trauner, J.T. Construction Delays-Documenting Causes: Wining Claims, Recovering Costs; R.S. Means Company Inc.: Kingston, MA, USA, 1990.
[28]
Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd vrs The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth. Building Law Report, Available online: http://www.fenwickelliott.co.uk/research-insight/adjudication-case-notes/balfour-beatty-construction-limited-v-mayor-burgesses-london-borough-lambeth (accessed on 17 July 2013).
[29]
McAlpine Humberoak Ltd vrs McDermott International Inc.. 58 Building Law Report 1; Addison Wesley Longman Limited: London, UK, 1992.
[30]
Ascon Contracting Ltd vrs Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of Man Ltd.; Technology and Construction Court: London, UK, 1999.
[31]
Conlin, J.; Retik, A. The applicability of project management software and advanced IT techniques in construction delay mitigation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1997, 15, 107–120, doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00046-4.
[32]
Kelsey, J.; Winch, G.; Penn, A. Understanding the Project Planning Process: Requirements Capture for the Virtual Construction Site. Bartlett Research Paper 15; University College London: London, UK, 2001.
[33]
Sanders, M. Transparent CPM. In AACE International Transactions, PS.08; AACE International: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2005.
[34]
Winter, R. Making CPM more transparent. AACE Int. Trans. 2006, 1, p.10.1–p.10.9.
[35]
Maroto, C.; Tormos, P. Project management: An evaluation of software quality. Int. Trans. Op. Res. 1994, 1, 209–221, doi:10.1016/0969-6016(94)90021-3.
[36]
Kastor, A.; Sirakoulis, K. The effectiveness of resource levelling tools for resource constraint project scheduling problem. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 493–500, doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.006.
[37]
Winter, R. MS Project for Construction Schedulers. In Proceedings of the AACE International 55th Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA, 19–22 June 2011.
[38]
Forensic Claims Analysis. Available online: http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/forensic-claims-analysis (accessed on 19 July 2013).
[39]
Woodworth, B.M.; Shanahan, S. Identifying the critical sequence in a resource-constrained project. Int. J. Project Manag. 1988, 6, 89–96, doi:10.1016/0263-7863(88)90030-0.
Carmichael, S.; Murray, M. Record keeping for contemporaneous delay analysis: A model for effective event management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 1007–1018, doi:10.1080/01446190500521207.
[43]
Wickwire, J.M. Standards of Proof for Contractor Time Delay Claims—Case in Point. In Cause & Effect, News from CPMI on Construction Claims Analysis and Resolution, Issue 1; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2002; p. 3.
[44]
Scott, S.; Harris, R.A.; Greenwood, D. Assessing the new United Kingdom protocol for dealing with delay and disruption. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. ASCE 2004, 130, 50–59, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2004)130:1(50).
[45]
Martin, J. Concurrent Delay. In Proceedings of the Society of Construction Law, London, UK, 5 February 2002.
