Cumulative effect of project changes for electrical and mechanical construction

Hanna, A S; Camlic, R; Peterson, P A and Lee, M J (2004) Cumulative effect of project changes for electrical and mechanical construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(6), pp. 762-771. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Change is inevitable on construction projects, primarily because of the uniqueness of each project and the limited resources of time and money that can be spent on planning, executing, and delivering the project. Change clauses, which authorize the owner to alter work performed by the contractor, are included in most construction contracts and provide a mechanism for equitable adjustment to the contract price and duration. Even so, owners and contractors do not always agree on the adjusted contract price or the time it will take to incorporate the change. What is needed is a method to quantify the impact that the adjustments required by the change will have on the changed and unchanged work. Owners and our legal system recognize that contractors have a right to an adjustment in contract price for owner changes, including the cost associated with materials, labor, lost profit, and increased overhead due to changes. However, the actions of a contractor can impact a project just as easily as those of an owner. A more complex issue is that of determining the cumulative impact that single or multiple change orders may have over the life of a project. This paper presents a method to quantify the cumulative impact on labor productivity for mechanical and electrical construction resulting from changes in the project. Statistical hypothesis testing and correlation analysis were made to identify factors that affect productivity loss resulting from change orders. A multiple regression model was developed to estimate the cumulative impact of change orders. The model includes six significant factors, namely: Percent change, change order processing time, overmanning, percentage of time the project manager spent on the project, percentage of the changes initiated by the owner, and whether the contractor tracks productivity or not. Sensitivity analysis was performed on the model to study the impact of one factor on the productivity loss (%delta). The model can be used proactively to determine the impacts that management decisions will have on the overall project productivity. They may also be used at the conclusion of the project as a dispute resolution tool. It should be noted that every project is unique, so these tools need to be applied with caution.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction management; electrical equipment; mechanical system; structural; project management
Index terms: change order, correlation analysis, owner, productivity, dispute, project manager, multiple regression model, mechanical system, project management, estimate, duration, testing, resolution, labour productivity, construction contract, profit, sensitivity analysis, management decision, construction project
Subjects: dispute resolution, profession, contract type, mechanical systems, professional practice, financial and cost management, economic analysis, production management, contractual condition, project management theory and practice, management, decision-making and reasoning, environmental hazards, statistical analysis, conflict resolution, project controls, sociology
Topics: Cost Management, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Site Management, Time Control, Contract Administration
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