Bubshait, A A and Cunningham, M J (1998) Comparison of delay analysis methodologies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(4), pp. 315-322. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
During a construction project, delays may result from many circumstances. Delays may be caused by the owner, the contractor, by acts of God, or a third party. They may occur early or late in the job, alone or with other delays. Negotiating a fair and timely damage settlement is beneficial to all parties. Network-based scheduling is an excellent vehicle for negotiating settlement of changes, disputes, and delays throughout the project. In the construction industry, however, there is no single, standard, and "accepted" procedure to determine the impact of schedule delays due to change orders or other unplanned developments. In this paper three delay measurement processes were studied. These procedures were employed to measure delay impact, utilizing computerized critical path method (CPM) analyses, performed on genuine construction schedules. Results indicate that outcomes of delay analyses are not predictable, nor can one method be used universally. However, in given circumstances, one procedure can be more beneficial than another. Guidelines for the utilization of each method have been presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | negotiating, delay analysis, construction project, methodology, critical path method, scheduling, construction industry, schedule delay, change order, dispute, owner |
| Subjects: | operations research, dispute resolution, industry analysis, sociology, project controls, conflict resolution, contractual condition, production management, research methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Contract Administration, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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