Yang, J B and Tsai, M K (2011) Computerizing ICBF method for schedule delay analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(8), pp. 583-591. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Schedule delay is a common construction dispute. For analyzing schedule delays, a previous study had proposed an academic analysis method, the isolated collapsed but-for (ICBF) method. However, because many construction projects involve numerous complex activities, the procedure of using the ICBF method for schedule delay analysis is time-consuming. Therefore, this study used Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) language and spreadsheet techniques to develop an Excel-based program for rapid delay analysis rather than manual calculation. A case study confirmed that the program automatically produces analytical results with only common delay documents (as-planned and as-built schedules and identified delay events). Compared with previous studies, schedule analysts can obtain analysis results quickly and correctly. Research results provide not only a convenient tool for schedule delay analysis but also a guide to computerize various academic delay analysis methods in the future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical techniques; delay time; dispute resolution; information systems; liability; scheduling |
| Index terms: | liability, spreadsheet, delay analysis, resolution, dispute, documents, program, information system, scheduling, case study, construction project, schedule delay, construction dispute |
| Subjects: | information systems, software systems, project controls, data collection methods, dispute resolution, conflict resolution, liability law, operations research, production management, professional development, data science |
| Topics: | Information Management, Legal Issues, Time Control, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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