Critical Path
Graduate Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County 32001, Taiwan b R&D Center for Construction Project Management, Chung Hua University, No.707, Sec.2, WuFu Rd., Hsinchu, 300 Taiwan Received 7 February 2010; received in revised form 12 June 2011; accepted 16 June 2011
Abstract Assessing schedule delay 's impact on total project duration to distribute delay liability remains a controversy. None of existing delay analysis methods is perfect because including an element of assumptions, subjective assessment and theoretical projection. Windows-based delay analysis methods are excellent in identifying and measuring construction schedule delays. Based on a previous study identifying potential problems in available windows-based delay analysis methods, this study proposes an innovative windows-based delay analysis method, called the effect-based delay analysis method (the EDAM method). The EDAM method performs delay analysis using extracted windows and determines delay impacts by considering the effects of delays on the critical path(s). According to its application to hypothetical cases and comparisons with other methods, the EDAM method is efficient in delay analysis and effective in solving concurrent delays and determining schedule shortened. The proposed EDAM method is a good alternative for schedule delay analysis for construction projects. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Delay analysis; Claim; Schedule analysis; Construction project
1. Introduction Construction projects generally have highly complicated situations during execution, involve many project stakeholders and interfaces, and are influenced by many external factors. Therefore, schedule delays in construction projects are common and affect total project duration in unpredictable ways. Delay information and evidence are usually recorded and represented in different records,
Abstract Assessing schedule delay 's impact on total project duration to distribute delay liability remains a controversy. None of existing delay analysis methods is perfect because including an element of assumptions, subjective assessment and theoretical projection. Windows-based delay analysis methods are excellent in identifying and measuring construction schedule delays. Based on a previous study identifying potential problems in available windows-based delay analysis methods, this study proposes an innovative windows-based delay analysis method, called the effect-based delay analysis method (the EDAM method). The EDAM method performs delay analysis using extracted windows and determines delay impacts by considering the effects of delays on the critical path(s). According to its application to hypothetical cases and comparisons with other methods, the EDAM method is efficient in delay analysis and effective in solving concurrent delays and determining schedule shortened. The proposed EDAM method is a good alternative for schedule delay analysis for construction projects. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Delay analysis; Claim; Schedule analysis; Construction project
1. Introduction Construction projects generally have highly complicated situations during execution, involve many project stakeholders and interfaces, and are influenced by many external factors. Therefore, schedule delays in construction projects are common and affect total project duration in unpredictable ways. Delay information and evidence are usually recorded and represented in different records,
References: Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., Harris, F., 1996. Construction delay analysis techniques. Construction Management and Economics. 14 (5), 375–394. Arditi, D., Pattanakitchamroon, T., 2006. Selecting a delay analysis method in resolving construction claims. International Journal of Project Management. 24 (2), 145–155. Arditi, D., Robinson, M.A., 1995. Concurrent delays in construction litigation. Cost Engineering 37 (7), 20–31. Bordoli, D.W., Baldwin, A.N., 1998. A methodology for assessing construction project delays. Construction Management and Economics. 16 (3), 327–337. Braimah, N., Ndekugri, I., 2008. Factors influencing the selection of delay analysis methodologies. International Journal of Project Management. 26 (8), 789–799. Cooper, K., Lee, G., 2009. Managing the dynamics of projects and changes at Fluor. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Access: http://www.systemdynamics.org/ newsletters/2009-10oct/application%20award%20paper.pd. de la Garza, J.M., Prateapusanond, A., Ambani, N., 2007. Preallocation of total float in the application of a critical path method based construction contract. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 133 (11), 836–845. Farrow, T., 2007. Developments in the analysis of extensions of time. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. 133 (3), 218–228. Gothand, K.D., 2003. Schedule delay analysis: modified windows approach. Cost Engineering. 45 (9), 18–22. Hegazy, T.M., Zhang, K., 2005. Daily windows delay analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 131 (5), 505–512. Ibbs, W., Nguyen, L.D., Simonian, L., 2010. Concurrent Delays and Apportionment of Damages. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 137 (2), 119–126. Kao, C.K., Yang, J.B., 2009. Comparison of windows-based delay analysis methods. International Journal of Project Management. 27 (4), 408–418. Kim, Y., Kim, K., Shin, D., 2005. Delay analysis method using delay section. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 131 (11), 1155–1164. Kraiem, Z., Diekmann, J., 1987. Concurrent delays in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 113 (4), 591–602. Mbabazi, A., Hegazy, T., Saccomanno, F., 2005. Modified but-for method for delay analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 131 (10), 1142–1144. Mohan, S.B., Al-Gahtani, K.S., 2006. Current delay analysis techniques and improvements. Cost Engineering 48 (9), 12–21. Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., Deng, M.Z.M., Nadeem, A., 2004. Improving existing delay analysis techniques for the establishment of delay liabilities. Construction Innovation 4 (1), 3–17. Nguyen, L.D., Ibbs, W., 2008. FLORA: New forensic schedule analysis technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 134 (7), 483–491. Sakka, Z.I., El-Sayegh, S.M., 2007. Float consumption impact on cost and schedule in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 133 (2), 124–130. Trauner Jr., T.J., Manginelli, W.A., Lowe, J.S., Nagata, M.F., Furniss, B.J., 2009. Construction delays: understanding them clearly, analyzing them correctly, Second edition. Elsevier Inc.. ISBN 978-1-85617-677-4. Weil, H.B., Rayford, L.E., 1990. System dynamics in dispute resolution. Proceedings of the 1990 International System Dynamics Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1311–1324. Access: http://www.systemdynamics.org/ conferences/1990/proceed/pdfs/weil1311.pdf. Yang, J.B., Yin, P.C., 2009. Isolated collapsed but-for delay analysis methodology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 135 (7), 570–578. Zack, J.G., 2000. Pacing delays—the practical effect. Cost Engineering 42 (7), 23–28. Zack, J.G., 2001. But-for schedules—analysis and defense. Cost Engineering 43 (8), 13–17.