Construction project delays emanates from multiplicity of different sources of risk events. This, combined with high uncertainty in cause-effect relationships between the events and their impacts on project completion dates, have created immense difficulties in apportioning project delay responsibilities amongst contracting parties. This challenge is now dealt with by various delay analysis approaches, yet delay claims settlement continues to be a troublesome undertaking. Empirical research on these approaches as to their application in practice is limited, although such studies provide important reference sources to practitioners and researchers. As a contribution to addressing this gap, this paper reports on practitioners’ views on the approaches based on a UK nation-wide questionnaire survey of construction and consulting companies. The key findings of the study include: (1) delay claims are often resolved late and not close in time of occurrence of the delay events, creating more difficulties; (2) simplistic delay analysis approaches are widely used in practice and form the basis of successful claim resolutions, although they have major weaknesses; (3) the sophisticated approaches, although are more robust, are generally not popular in practice. To promote the use of these reliable approaches and help reduce or avoid disputes amongst claims parties, programming and record keeping practices must be improved as they do not facilitate the use of the approaches.
References
[1]
Pickavance, K. Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts, 4th ed. ed.; Sweet & Maxwell: London, UK, 2010.
[2]
Akintoye, A.S.; Skitmore, R.M. Profitability of UK construction contractors. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1991, 9, 311–325, doi:10.1080/01446199100000025.
[3]
Majid, M.Z.A.; McCaffer, R. Factors of non-excusable delays that influence contractors’ performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1998, 14, 42–49, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1998)14:3(42).
[4]
Schumacher, L. Quantifying and apportioning delay on construction projects. J. Cost Eng. 1995, 37, 11–13.
[5]
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.
[6]
Rubin, R.A.; Fairweather, V.; Guy, S.D. Construction Claims: Prevention and Resolution, 3rd ed. ed.; Van Nostrand Rienhold: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
[7]
Society of Construction Law (SCL). Protocol for Determining Extensions of Time and Compensations for Delay and Disruption. Available online: http://www.eotprotocol.com (accessed on 23 August 2013).
[8]
Pinnell, S. How to Get Paid for Construction Changes: Preparation, Resolution Tools and Techniques; McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
[9]
Kraiem, Z.M.; Diekmann, J.E. Concurrent delays in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1987, 113, 591–602, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1987)113:4(591).
[10]
Galloway, P.D.; Nielsen, K.R. Concurrent schedule delay in international contracts. Int. Constr. Law Rev 1990, 386–401.
[11]
Arditi, D.; Rubinson, M.A. Concurrent delays in construction litigation. J. Cost Eng. 1995, 37, 20–30.
[12]
Mbabazi, A.; Hegazy, T.; Saccomanno, F. Modified but-for method for delay analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 1142–1144, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:10(1142).
[13]
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.
[14]
Kartam, S. Generic methodology for analysing delay claims. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1999, 125, 409–419, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:6(409).
[15]
Finke, M.R. Window analysis of compensable delays. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1999, 125, 96–100, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:2(96).
[16]
Gothand, K.D. Schedule delay analysis: Modified windows approach. J. Cost Eng. 2003, 45, 18–23.
[17]
Kim, Y.; Kim, K.; Shin, D. Delay analysis method using delay section. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 1155–1164, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1155).
[18]
Hegazy, T.; Zhang, K. Daily window delay analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 505–512, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(505).
[19]
Arditi, D.; Patel, B.K. Impact analysis of owner-directed acceleration. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1989, 115, 114–157.
[20]
Al-Gahtani, K.S.; Mohan, S.B. Total Float Management for Delay Analysis. In AACE International Transactions; AACE International: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2005.
[21]
Lee, H.; Ryu, H.; Yu, J.; Kim, J. Method for calculating scheduling delay considering lost productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 1147–1154, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1147).
[22]
Ibbs, W.; Nguyen, L.D. Schedule analysis under the effect of resource allocation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 131–138, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:2(131).
[23]
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI). Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis; AACEI: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2007.
[24]
Calekta, A. Forensic Scheduling Analysis—Recommended Practice or Protocol: What’s the Difference? ADR Digest 5. 2009. Available online: http://www.adrpartnership.com/media/pdfs/ADR_Digest_Summer_09.pdf (assessed on 29 August 2013).
[25]
Pickavance, K. Managing the Risk of Delayed Completion in the 21st Century: The CIOB Research, 2007. Society of Construction Law, D106. Available online: http://www.scl.org.uk (assessed on 23 August 2013).
[26]
Birkby, G. Contracts delay and disruption. Prof. RIBA J. 2002, 209, 67–68.
[27]
McCaffrey, G. Practical Planning and the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol. The Devil is in the Detail. In Proceedings of the Seminar of Adjudication Society, Edinburgh, UK, 27 February 2003.
[28]
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. 2004, 130, 50–59, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2004)130:1(50).
[29]
Adams, S. Better Ways than “The Best Way”? Improving the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2007, Available online: http://www.scl.org.uk (assessed on 23 August 2013).
[30]
Chartered Institute of Building(CIOB). Guide to Good Practice in the Management of Time in Complex; CIOB, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011.
[31]
Alkass, S.; Mazerolle, M.; Harris, F. Construction delay analysis techniques. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1996, 14, 375–394, doi:10.1080/014461996373250.
[32]
Bubshait, A.A.; Cunningham, M.J. Comparison of delay analysis methodologies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1998, 124, 315–322, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:4(315).
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.
[35]
Lucas, D.E. Schedule Analyser Pro—An aid in the analysis of delay time impact analysis. J. Cost Eng. 2002, 44, 30–36.
[36]
Lovejoy, V.A. Claims schedule development and analysis: Collapsed as-built scheduling for beginners. J. Cost Eng. 2004, 46, 27–30.
Shi, J.J.; Cheung, S.O.; Arditi, D. Construction delay computation method. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2001, 127, 60–65, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:1(60).
[39]
Yates, J.K. Construction decision support system for delay analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1993, 119, 226–244, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:2(226).
[40]
Abudayyeh, O.Y. A multimedia construction delay management system. J. Microcomput. Civ. Eng. 1997, 12, 183–192.
[41]
Scott, S. Delay claims in UK contracts. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1997, 123, 238–244, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:3(238).
[42]
Scott, S.; Harris, R.A. United Kingdom construction claims: Views of professionals. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 230, 734–741, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:5(734).
[43]
Harris, R.A.; Scott, S. UK practice in dealing with claims for delay. J. Eng. Constr. Architect. Manag. 2001, 8, 317–324.
[44]
Bogdan, R.C.; Biklen, S.K. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods; Allyn and Baccon: Boston, MA, USA, 1992.
[45]
Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.
[46]
Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approached, 2nd ed. ed.; Sage Publication Ltd: London, UK, 2003.
[47]
Rea, L.M.; Parker, P.A. Designing and Conducting Survey Research, 2nd ed. ed.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997.
[48]
Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Techniques, 2nd ed. ed.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990.
[49]
Barnet, V. Sample Survey Principles and Method; Edward Arnold: London, UK, 1991.
[50]
Furtrell, D. The Ten Reasons Why Surveys Fail. In Quality Progress; American Society for Quality: North Saint Paul, MN, USA, 1994; pp. 65–69.
[51]
Siegel, S.; Castellan, J.N., Jr. Nonparameteric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
[52]
Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Yogeswaran, K. Substantiation and assessment of claims for extensions of time. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 7–38.
[53]
Gorse, C.A.; Ellis, R.; Hudson-Tyreman, A. Prospective Delay Analysis and Adjudication. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ARCOM Conference—Association of Researchers in Construction Management, SOAS, University of London, London, UK, 7–9 September 2005; Khosrowshahi, F., Ed.; Volume 2, pp. 1133–1141.
[54]
Gorse, C.A. Monitoring, Planning and Tracking: Delay, Disruption and Legal Risk Management. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ARCOM Conference—Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 1–3 September 2004; Khosrowshahi, F., Ed.; Volume 2, pp. 1247–1257.
[55]
Kangari, R. Construction documentation in arbitration. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1995, 121, 201–208, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:2(201).
[56]
Scott, S.; Assad, S. A survey of the site records kept by construction supervisors. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1999, 17, 375–382, doi:10.1080/014461999371574.
[57]
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.
[58]
Egan, J. The Egan Report—Rethinking Construction. In Report of the Construction Industry Taskforce to the Deputy Prime Minister; HMSO: London, UK, 1998.
[59]
Craig, N.; Sommerville, J. Information management systems on construction projects: Case reviews. Rec. Manag. J. 2006, 16, 131–148.
[60]
Murdoch, J.; Hughes, W. Construction Contracts Law and Management, 2nd ed. ed.; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 1996.
