Arditi, D and Pattanakitchamroon, T (2008) Analysis methods in time-based claims. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(4), pp. 242-252. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Assessing the impact of delay and resolving disputes are contentious issues since courts and administrative boards do not specify standard delay analysis practices. First, the advantages and disadvantages of widely used delay analysis methods, including the as-planned versus as-built, impact as-planned, collapsed as-built, time impact, and productivity analysis methods are summarized. Fifty-eight claim cases associated with time-based disputes in government work during the 1992-2005 period are extracted and analyzed to observe issues in time-based claims, including the reasons why they occur and the common practices in their resolution. The effects of various factors on the selection of a delay analysis method are examined. These factors include the type of schedule used, the schedule updating practice, the use of existing versus newly created schedules, and the availability of expertise, information, time, and funds. A project management system that makes use of regularly updated network schedules, and that maintains adequate project records should allow a scheduling expert to select a delay analysis method that would make a claim quite convincing.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; delay time; litigation; scheduling |
| Index terms: | dispute, productivity, litigation, resolution, project management, scheduling, delay analysis |
| Subjects: | operations research, dispute resolution, conflict resolution, project controls, management, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Time Control, Project Management, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management |
| 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