Ryu, H G; Lee, H S and Yu, J H (2003) A method for analysing delay duration considering lost productivity through construction productivity data model. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
A delay claim occurs due to the difference between the actual completion date and the contract completion date. Though the responsibility and duration of a delay is very important information on analysing a delay claim, it is generally difficult task because there are many factors complicatedly affecting the delay. Lost productivity or loss of productivity is one of major factors causing a delay. However, there are few studies on converting lost productivity into delay duration. Thus, to calculate fairly the delay duration of the liquidated damage, it is needed a calculating method related to many impact factors and their impacted productivity. This study proposes a method for analysing delay duration considering lost productivity by using strong points of schedule such as CPM, Bar chart consistent with the project phases and construction productivity database maintained data consistency and minimized data redundancy. The main outcomes of this study are: (1) a method of calculating delay duration caused by lost productivity, (2) a data model that is a basis of the database containing information regarding lost productivity. With these outcomes, delay durations and responsibilities could be more accurately calculated.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claim; database; data model; delay; lost productivity |
| Index terms: | data model, duration, construction productivity, productivity, database, redundancy |
| Subjects: | data science, operations management, management, project controls, data management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Digital Applications, Human Resources, Business Strategy, Project 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