Arditi, D and Patel, B K (1989) Impact analysis of owner-directed acceleration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 115(1), pp. 144-157. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The purpose of owner-directed acceleration is to reach a certain milestone, maybe the completion of the project, before a certain deadline. What activities have to be accelerated and what the terms of payment to the contractor will be is the subject of this paper. If acceleration is ordered in the remaining portion of a project that has been delayed by owner-and contractor-caused events, the apportioning of extra acceleration costs between the parties is not simple. The various alternatives that are available for resolving this problem are reviewed in this paper, and a method is proposed to reach a fair and reasonable solution. The method is based on the premise that acceleration of the remaining portion of a project is typically ordered to compensate for the delays that occurred in the completed portion of the project and that acceleration conducted in the most economical way should follow accountability lines chronologically defined in previous delay impact analysis. This way, any replanning to suit the new conditions can be made amply clear by the party concerned. This will help the parties in reaching an agreement before inauguration of the change.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | owner, acceleration, accountability, impact analysis |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, sociology, project controls, liability law |
| Topics: | Time Control, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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