Al-Gahtani, K S (2009) Float allocation using the total risk approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(2), pp. 88-95. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Float ownership is one of the controversial issues in the litigation of delay claims. As float time does not always affect the overall project completion time, many believe that this time can be used by any of the project parties and that it does not belong to a particular party. This study introduces the "total risk approach" for float allocation, a new approach that integrates several current approaches to allocate float among project parties. The approach is based on the basic concept that the party who has the greatest risk in a project should be entitled to float ownership and deserves compensation from other project parties who increase the risk associated with the project by consuming the float. This new approach takes into consideration the changes in float that may occur as a result of actions that delay or accelerate the project's schedule.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; risk management; scheduling |
| Index terms: | litigation, risk management, ownership, compensation, scheduling, project party, completion time |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, risk assessment, operations research, economics, sociology, project controls |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Time Control, Organizational Design |
| 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