Mbabazi, A; Hegazy, T and Saccomanno, F (2005) Modified but-for method for delay analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(10), pp. 1142-1144. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
"But-for" is a widely used method for analyzing and apportioning project delays among the responsible parties. Despite its acceptability, the traditional but-for method suffers from serious drawbacks; namely its narrow focus on the point of view of a single party and its inability to accurately consider concurrent delays. In this technical note, several improvements have been made to the but-for method to produce repeatable results and to account for concurrent delays. Details of the modified but-for (MBF) method are provided along with an example to demonstrate its advantages. To automate the MBF method, it has been coded in a macro program on commercial project management software. The method is simple and can help practitioners in apportioning project delays in an accurate and equitable manner.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; computer applications; delay time |
| Index terms: | project management software, program, practitioner, delay analysis, project delay, computer application |
| Subjects: | digital technology, practitioner, project controls, software systems |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Time Control, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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