Yang, J B and Yin, P C (2009) Isolated collapsed but-for delay analysis methodology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(7), pp. 570-578. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Schedule delays are common in construction projects. Although many methods have been developed for analyzing and measuring schedule delays for construction projects, each method has functional limitations and use prerequisites. No one method is acceptable for all project participants under all circumstances. This study presents the isolated collapsed but-for (ICBF) method, an innovative delay analysis method for construction projects. During analysis, the ICBF method requires as-planned and as-built schedules as well as identified liability documents with key delay events to perform its analysis approach. Based on its application to an illustrative case and comparisons with other methods, the ICBF method is effective for delay analysis. Results provided by the proposed method can be easily traced to the actual case in an as-built schedule.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical techniques; claims; delay time; dispute resolution; liability; scheduling |
| Index terms: | construction project, methodology, delay analysis, documents, liability, scheduling, resolution, dispute, schedule delay |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, operations research, professional development, production management, research methods, liability law, project controls, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Time Control, Legal Issues |
| 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