Consultants’ Perceptions on Construction Delay Analysis Methodologies

Resolving the delay claims that usually trail delayed completion of construction projects is beset with immense difficulties that often lead to disputes between the parties involved. The research reported in this paper is a part of a wider study aimed at developing a framework for reducing the attendant disputes and aiding cost-efficient dispute resolution. The focus of the part reported here is owner consultants’ perceptions on existing methodologies for analyzing project delay. Based on a survey of U.K. construction consulting organizations, the study examined, among others, the awareness and use of these methodologies, their perceived reliability, expert involvement, and obstacles to their use. The main study findings are: (i) delay analysis is a multidisciplinary task, with the project quantity surveyor often playing the leading role on the owner’s side; (ii) the simpler methodologies are used more often than the complex ones although the former are known to be less reliable than the latter; and (iii) the principal obstacles to the use of the sophisticated methodologies are: lack of adequate project information, the use of programmes not in CPM network form, and poorly updated programmes. It is thus argued that improvement in current programming and record-keeping practices will promote the use of the more reliable methodologies which, in turn, will facilitate smoother resolution of delay claims.     

Analysis Methods in Time-Based Claims

Assessing the impact of delay and resolving disputes are contentious issues since courts and administrative boards do not specify standard delay analysis practices. First, the advantages and disadvantages of widely used delay analysis methods, including the as-planned versus as-built, impact as-planned, collapsed as-built, time impact, and productivity analysis methods are summarized. Fifty-eight claim cases associated with time-based disputes in government work during the 1992–2005 period are extracted and analyzed to observe issues in time-based claims, including the reasons why they occur and the common practices in their resolution. The effects of various factors on the selection of a delay analysis method are examined. These factors include the type of schedule used, the schedule updating practice, the use of existing versus newly created schedules, and the availability of expertise, information, time, and funds. A project management system that makes use of regularly updated network schedules, and that maintains adequate project records should allow a scheduling expert to select a delay analysis method that would make a claim quite convincing.     

Delay Analysis Method Using Delay Section

The most common cause of construction claims is delay. Moreover, delay claims are often extremely complex and difficult to resolve. For this reason, the construction industry requires an effective and reliable method for analyzing the causes and effects of construction delay. Presently, the methods of analysis in common use do not adequately account for several commonly encountered situations. As a result, project time extensions are often considered without rigorous analysis. Therefore the objective of this study is to propose and describe an effective and logical method for evaluating construction delays that adequately accounts for commonly encountered situations. To achieve this objective, the writers propose a new methodology called “delay analysis method using delay section” (DAMUDS) as a means of overcoming two limitations of existing methods: (1) inadequate accounting of concurrent delay and (2) inadequate accounting of time-shortened activities. The DAMUDS method builds upon the widely used method of contemporaneous period analysis. The writers’ points are illustrated through the use of an example case.     

Construction Delay Computation Method

Delay is one of the most common problems in the construction industry. This paper presents a method for computing activity delays and assessing their contributions to project delay. The method consists of a set of equations, which can be easily coded into a computer program that allows speedy access to project delay information and activity contributions. The proposed method contrasts the as-planned and as-built schedules. It is not based on critical path analyses; therefore, it does not require the calculation or updating of the critical path, and it is even not necessary to update the as-planned schedule, as required by the traditional delay analysis methods. The results calculated from the proposed method include various variations of activity schedules and their contributions (in days) to the overall project delay. They provide an objective baseline for determining responsibilities of delays. The method can be integrated into any delay analysis system to further improve and automate the construction delay analysis process. Practical examples are used to illustrate the computation mechanism.     

Generic Methodology for Analyzing Delay Claims

It is common for a construction project to encounter delays. There are several reasons that can contribute to delaying a project. Analyzing the various causes that contribute to a project's delay is an important task to resolving it. Determining, in a scientific manner, the impact, timing, and the contributing effect of each of those causes to the overall delay should assist in helping the parties settle the delay without litigation. Project participants are becoming more aware of the high costs and risks associated with delay claims and their litigation. Thus, the construction industry needs to develop methodologies and techniques to prevent and more efficiently resolve delay claims. While many practitioners have been following some kind of a methodology for analyzing delay claims, a written exposition of such a methodology is not widely available in the literature. Thus, this paper presents a written exposition of a generic methodology for analyzing delay claims. This methodology has been developed and successfully used, by the writer, in various projects to resolve delay claims. The developed methodology will be illustrated through its application in those projects. Moreover, this methodology shows that while there are several techniques for analyzing delay claims, very few of these can be considered adequate. The use of such an adequate technique is a key in obtaining a fair allocation of the delay responsibility. This paper's methodology utilizes one of these few adequate techniques for analyzing delay claims.     

Schedule Analysis under the Effect of Resource Allocation

The construction industry has employed various schedule analysis techniques to support delay claims. Paradoxically, resource-related issues are frequently ignored even though they can affect project completion time, too. The research presented here shows that delay analysis without resource allocation practice substantially affects results of schedule analysis. Some delay can cause unrealistic resource allocation in downstream work, which in turn may further delay the project. The effect of resource allocation can either add to or reduce the severity of some delaying event. Apportionment of delay responsibility may be inaccurate unless resource allocation practice is considered in the analysis. Practical and necessary steps are proposed to enhance the existing window analysis technique. A case study is presented to compare the enhanced window analysis with the existing window analysis. This research enables practitioners to make delay analyses and claims more practical and reliable. Further studies are needed to improve the usability, credibility, and acceptability of schedule analysis considering resource allocation.     

Visualization of Construction Progress Monitoring with 4D Simulation Model Overlaid on Time-Lapsed Photographs

The ability to effectively communicate progress information and represent as-built and as-planned progress discrepancies are identified as key components for successful project management that allow corrective decisions to be made in a timely manner. However, current formats of reporting (e.g., textual progress reports, progress curves, and photographs) may not properly and quickly communicate project progress. Current monitoring methods also require manual data collection and extensive data extraction from different construction documents, which distract managers from the important task of decision making. Therefore, to facilitate progress monitoring, this paper proposes visualization of performance metrics that aims to represent progress deviations through superimposition of four-dimensional (4D) as-planned model over time-lapsed photographs in single and comprehensive visual imagery. As a part of the developed system, registration of the 4D model with photographs, augmenting photographs, and occlusion removal for progress images are presented. While contextual information is preserved, the as-built photographs are enhanced and augmented with 4D as-planned model in which the performance metrics are visualized. The augmented photographs provide a consistent platform for representing as-planned, as-built, and progress discrepancies information and facilitate communication and reporting processes.     

Isolated Collapsed But-For Delay Analysis Methodology

Schedule delays are common in construction projects. Although many methods have been developed for analyzing and measuring schedule delays for construction projects, each method has functional limitations and use prerequisites. No one method is acceptable for all project participants under all circumstances. This study presents the isolated collapsed but-for (ICBF) method, an innovative delay analysis method for construction projects. During analysis, the ICBF method requires as-planned and as-built schedules as well as identified liability documents with key delay events to perform its analysis approach. Based on its application to an illustrative case and comparisons with other methods, the ICBF method is effective for delay analysis. Results provided by the proposed method can be easily traced to the actual case in an as-built schedule.     

Constructability State of Practice Report

This report reviews guidance on constructability programs from a variety of sources and presents the current practice of constructability. The advice of several organizations and researchers is summarized to describe expectations for ideal constructability. Actual current constructability practice, based on results and analysis of a Constructability State of Practice survey, is described. Approximately 100 owners, architects, engineers, consultants, contractors, and construction managers answered the survey’s ten questions and provided written comments. The results provide a picture of current constructability practices in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry and progress in recent years. Major conclusions include: (1) constructability has gained acceptance throughout the industry; (2) constructability efforts are clearly beginning in early project phases; (3) a wide variety of constructability techniques and new technologies are being implemented; and (4) obstacles to improving constructability remain, but may be changing. Finally, recommendations are provided based on areas where constructability practice can still be improved. This report is relevant to both industry practitioners and researchers.     

Computerizing ICBF Method for Schedule Delay Analysis

Schedule delay is a common construction dispute. For analyzing schedule delays, a previous study had proposed an academic analysis method, the “isolated collapsed but-for” (ICBF) method. However, because many construction projects involve numerous complex activities, the procedure of using the ICBF method for schedule delay analysis is time-consuming. Therefore, this study used Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) language and spreadsheet techniques to develop an Excel-based program for rapid delay analysis rather than manual calculation. A case study confirmed that the program automatically produces analytical results with only common delay documents (as-planned and as-built schedules and identified delay events). Compared with previous studies, schedule analysts can obtain analysis results quickly and correctly. Research results provide not only a convenient tool for schedule delay analysis but also a guide to computerize various academic delay analysis methods in the future.     

Multiobjective Linear Programming Model for Scheduling Linear Repetitive Projects

Linear repetitive construction projects require large amounts of resources which are used in a sequential manner and therefore effective resource management is very important both in terms of project cost and duration. Existing methodologies such as the critical path method and the repetitive scheduling method optimize the schedule with respect to a single factor, to achieve minimum duration or minimize resource work breaks, respectively. However real life scheduling decisions are more complicated and project managers must make decisions that address the various cost elements in a holistic way. To respond to this need, new methodologies that can be applied through the use of decision support systems should be developed. This paper introduces a multiobjective linear programming model for scheduling linear repetitive projects, which takes into consideration cost elements regarding the project’s duration, the idle time of resources, and the delivery time of the project’s units. The proposed model can be used to generate alternative schedules based on the relative magnitude and importance of the different cost elements. In this sense, it provides managers with the capability to consider alternative schedules besides those defined by minimum duration or maximizing work continuity of resources. The application of the model to a well known example in the literature demonstrates its use in providing explicatory analysis of the results.     

Study of Real Options with Exogenous Competitive Entry to Analyze Dispute Resolution Ladder Investments in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Projects

Architecture, engineering, and construction industry participants often find it pragmatic to implement a project-specific dispute resolution ladder (DRL) as a managerial tool to assist in the prompt resolution of claims and change orders (CCOs) that might arise during the project construction phase. This project-specific DRL consists of a single or multiple alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques that require capital expenditures to cover the expenses incurred by the owner’s/contractor’s employees and third-party neutrals. If a project-specific DRL is properly chosen, then the capital expenditures are outweighed by the expected benefits from the DRL implementation; namely, prompt resolution of the CCOs without incurring excessive cost overruns on an already financially stressed project budget, as well as avoiding the escalation of the claims to a dispute that requires long protracted litigation for final settlement. Typically, the decision as to which ADR techniques to include in the project-specific DRL is undertaken during the project planning phase prior to the actual occurrence of the CCOs. In this case, the project owner decide to invest in a DRL in exchange for the expected savings in the project. This decision regarding the project-specific DRL is usually done based on the experience of the project parties with the ADR techniques. However, such a decision needs to be guided by a financial tool that allows the project owner to evaluate alternative DRLs and choose the most economically feasible alternative based on the project and ADR characteristics. In this paper, a financial model is developed to evaluate DRL implementations in construction projects by drawing analogies from real option theory with exogenous competitive entry. More specifically, the occurrence of a given CCO will result in a reduction in the value of expected savings in the project due to DRL implementation. This is similar to the reduction in the gross value of a capital investment project in a commercial property due to competitive entry by another similar commercial property developer in the market. At the same time, the CCO resolution due to an effective DRL implementation will allow project owner to recover part of the losses in the expected savings in the project due to the DRL implementation. The model presented in this paper takes into account the characteristics of the various ADR techniques included in the project-specific DRL, and the characteristics of the CCOs occurring during the construction phase of the project. A case study of a real construction project is used to illustrate the practical implementation of the model. The results indicate that for this case project and from a financial point of view, the investment in the chosen project-specific DRL was not worthwhile because of the high uncertainty in the project, and the low effectiveness of the selected DRL. These conditions did not provide the owner with the anticipated advantage of the DRL implementation in reducing the value of the CCOs occurring in the project. At the same time the cost of the DRL implementation exceeded the actual savings attained in the project.     

Unabsorbed Overhead and the Eichleay Formula

One of the less understood elements in construction damage claims is the home office expense that is incurred when a project is delayed. In compensable delay cases, there is no doubt that home office overhead is a legitimate expense of the contractor. However, the methodology for the calculation of the expense incurred has been widely debated as well as the circumstances under which the methodology should be applied. The Eichleay formula was born in 1960, and has come a long way over the past 40 years in its use and application. Court and board decisions have shaped the prerequisite criteria for its application and made it what it is today. This paper provides the background concept of compensable damage due to project delay, the effects of delay on home office overhead, the Eichleay formula evolution, precedence for prerequisite criteria for the formulas’ application, and other formulas and methods that have evolved and been used. A “Direct Method” is proposed by the authors, which is straightforward and simple to apply. In the final analysis, obtaining a 100% accurate estimate of home office expenses is practically onerous. Therefore, representative formulas and techniques are used to arrive at a reasonable value for the unabsorbed overhead.     

Effective Practice Utilization Using Performance Prediction Software

A successful capital facility project requires effective usage of practices to satisfy the expected high level of project objectives. To provide an effective practice usage plan, the impacts of implementing practices need to be quantified and better methods or tools for practice usage plan and control are also required. Despite a number of efforts at quantifying the impact of practice usage, little interest has been shown in developing the tools and techniques for improved implementation of practice use. This paper develops performance prediction models for project cost and schedule performance using predictive discriminant function analysis (DFA). The models are integrated into an automated and practical software program named the DFA program that helps deliver effective and dynamic project planning. The DFA program has a user-friendly interface that project managers or field engineers can easily apply to their projects to predict cost and schedule performance and to allow for improvement where possible. An overall project performance improvement process using the DFA program application is provided.     

Hybrid Model Incorporating Real Options with Process Centric and System Dynamics Modeling to Assess Value of Investments in Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques

Project-specific dispute resolution ladders (DRLs) are typically implemented in construction projects to resolve issues arising between the project participants. The DRL typically consists of single or multiple alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques to address construction issues at the three levels of escalation: conflicts; disputes; and claims. However, a DRL requires significant investments to cover the direct costs incurred in-house by the project participants or, externally, if construction specialists and lawyers are recruited to assist in the resolution. Thus, the benefits of the DRL implementation in a construction project must outweigh its costs for the implementation to be worthwhile. This paper presents a methodology to study the effect of different resolution strategies on the value of the investment in a DRL using option/real option theories from financial engineering, process centric modeling, and system dynamics methodology. Of particular interest in this paper is the integration of these research methodologies into a computer model to support the evaluation of the DRL investment in a particular construction project by taking into account the characteristics of (1) the project and (2) the different ADR techniques chosen for the DRL implementation. Finally, an example is presented to illustrate the application of the computer model in a real construction project. The results of the simulation serve two main purposes. First, the results of the simulation are used to verify the intended model behavior in terms of proper integration of the three methodologies (i.e., real options, process centric, and system dynamics) in one computer system. Second, the model application to a real construction project using actual project data illustrates the potential of the model in providing the project participants with information related to the expected number of claims and change orders resolved at each level of the DRL, the change in the expected savings during the construction phase, and finally the value of the investment from the perspective of the project owner.     

Avoiding and Mitigating Delay and Disruption Claims Conflict: Role of Precontract Negotiation

Delay and disruption claims often generate conflict and contract dispute in the delivery of building and civil engineering projects. If construction delay claims conflict can be avoided or mitigated, there could be substantial financial savings on projects. This study explores the effect of precontract negotiation as a means of avoiding or mitigating delay and disruption claims conflict. The data collection instrument was a structured questionnaire administered face to face on 41 contractors’ personnel on 41 completed projects in Singapore. The data were analyzed using structural modeling with partial least squares estimation approach. The results indicate that when the contractors received an unfavorable outcome from the contract administrator’s decision on their claims for delay, the intensity of conflict was lower when there was precontract negotiation and precontract agreement regarding the rules for quantifying and assessing the impact of anticipated delays than when there was none. It was also discovered that the higher the level of precontract negotiation and precontract agreement on the rules for quantifying and assessing delays, the higher the contractors perceived the quality of the decision-making process for delay claims during the construction phase. Further, the higher the contractors perceived the quality of the decision-making process for delay claims, the lower the intensity of conflict. At the time of entering into contracts, owners and their project management team need to pay more attention to precontract negotiation and agreement with their contractor to clarify and agree on the rules for quantifying and assessing the impact of anticipated delay and disruption. Aspects that require precontract negotiation, agreement, and clarification include: the rules of evidence for claims, the record requirements for claims and the procedure for keeping the records, form of construction program including the software for the preparation of the program and the procedure updating the program, the methodology for analyzing delay claims, formula for quantifying unabsorbed head office overhead component of prolongation cost, the method for quantifying disruption cost, the handling of concurrent delays, profit—whether claimable and the rate of profit to be paid, acceleration—circumstances under which it will be compensated and basis of compensation, and the question of who owns the float. These are, typically, not adequately covered by most standard forms of contracts. The agreements on these matters may be incorporated as part of partnering agreement or as a supplement to the contract agreement. Precontract negotiation, clarity, and agreements could produce instrumental and noninstrumental (social psychological) effects, which could facilitate delay and disruption claims assessment and their resolution. It could mitigate conflict even when the outcomes are unfavorable to a party.     

Change Agent Competencies for Information Technology Project Managers.

In the past few years, the project management (PM) profession has grown exponentially. Yet recent studies in the information technology (IT) sector have found that the use of PM methodologies alone does not guarantee project success. In fact, IT project success is seen to rely on the ability of project managers to be agents of change (i.e., individuals who lead organizational change efforts), a traditional role of practitioners of organization development and change. This article identifies the knowledge, skills, and competencies that are common to organization development (OD) practitioners and project managers, as represented by 6 principles or competencies that OD and PM change methods snare: communication, teamwork, process management, leadership, training, and continuous learning. The importance of these 6 principles in developing professional project managers as effective agents of change is explored with the intent of finding means to improve upon current IT project success rates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Clinical quality measurement. Comparing chart review and automated methodologies

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the use of data from automated systems within a large managed care plan to create indicators of clinical quality. METHODS: Measures from the first year of Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, HEDIS 2.0, are used to compare chart review and automated analysis methodologies. The contributions of various data systems in creating clinical quality measures are evaluated. RESULTS: Chart review data usually are better for creating clinical quality indicators, although the level of agreement between the two methodologies often is quite high. Computerized patient record systems are found to be the most reliable automated data source, and automated claims are found to be the least reliable. This study's findings suggest that automated encounter systems may provide relatively reliable data. CONCLUSIONS: Managed care plans may not want to rely on automated data alone for clinical quality measurement. The results reported here support the use of combined methodologies such as the "hybrid" method, which utilizes both automated and chart-review data.     

Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Building and Civil Engineering Projects’ Claims Process: Interactive Effects of Outcome Favorability and Procedural Fairness

Cooperation is fundamental to successful procurement and delivery of building and civil engineering projects. This study explores the role of perceived fairness as a motivator of cooperative behavior in the process for administering project claims. The objective is to investigate how a contractor’s perceptions about fairness of the procedure for administering project claims would interact with the outcome received from the claims to influence the contractor’s cooperative behavior in terms of conflict intensity and potential to dispute. The data collection instrument was a structured questionnaire. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 41 contractors’ personnel regarding their experience with claims on 41 completed projects in Singapore. The data were analyzed using the structural modeling approach. The results indicate that on projects where contractors did not receive a favorable outcome from claims, there was lower intensity of conflict and lower potential to dispute when contractors perceived that the procedure for administering the claims was fair than when the procedure was perceived to be unfair. The findings suggest that, in construction, cooperative behavior is a combined function of the outcome and procedure leading to that outcome. It also suggests that enhancing cooperative behavior goes beyond formal contract provisions but rather how the contract is administered in practice. It is recommended that employers’ project management team whose actions of rejecting invalid claims may be misinterpreted and disputed pay greater attention to how decisions on claims are reached. A fair procedure could cushion the effect of an unfavorable decision and thereby reduce a contractor’s uncooperative attitude.     

Assessing the New United Kingdom Protocol for Dealing with Delay and Disruption

The recent publication of the U.K. Society of Construction Law’s protocol for dealing with delay claims has finally provided a good opportunity to make progress with a continuing difficulty that besets most substantial construction projects. The protocol makes recommendations on the issues that arise when delay claims must be managed. A report of recent research is conducted to test how U.K. professionals understand some of these issues and how they deal with them in practice. The conclusions show some areas of good agreement, notably in the way that early completion should be handled and the way that prolongation costs should be assessed. There are, however, areas that give rise to some concern. The methodology “time impact analysis” appears not to be well used in practice, and it also seems that contractors will have difficulty with the position taken on float ownership and concurrent delays.