Bhih, M and Hegazy, T (2023) Multiple-window modified but-for analysis of project delays and accelerations. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(4), pp. 686-696. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
But-For analysis is a popular technique for apportioning the responsibility for project delays among various parties. In the literature, Modified But-For (MBF) methods utilized Venn representations and set theorem to avoid conflicting results and identify concurrent delays. Moreover, the MBF was extended further to analyse cases involving schedule delays and accelerations. However, due to its single-window implementation, the MBF analysis is not sensitive to event chronology and thus can produce wrong results. This article thus proposes a multiple-window MBF analysis to account for critical path fluctuations and consider the detailed chronology of progress events, which are key requirements of the professional delay analysis guidelines of AACEI and ASCE. The proposed method is comprehensive enough to analyse concurrent delay and acceleration events under multiple baseline updates. After introducing the proposed method, a case study is used to demonstrate its superiority and practical application.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | acceleration analysis; baseline updates; but-for; collapsed as-built; concurrent delay; delay analysis; modified but-for |
| Index terms: | schedule delay, case study, implementation, acceleration, chronology, critical path, window, delay analysis, project delay |
| Subjects: | architectural elements, time analysis, project controls, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, operations research |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Time Control, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here