Gorse, C A; Bates, M and Hudson-Tyreman, A (2006) Practicalities of delay analysis: Retrospective analysis. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
The legal arguments that surround delay and disruption claims offer little practical guidance for the 'delay analyst'. Most publications proclaiming guidance overlook the technicalities of documenting, recording and analysing project data. Embedded in delay analysis are 'logical' assumptions used to interlink tasks and activities. Practices vary and there is little reliable advice on what 'logic' is and is not acceptable. Through a case study, retrospective analysis was applied to a subcontractor's work package to assess the impact of delays caused by the main contractor. The report discusses the practical issues associated with retrospective analysis and the obstacles that need to be overcome in order to produce a coherent model of events. Reflections on the experience of gathering data associated with time, resource and logic from both subcontractor and contractor are discussed along with the issues associated with retrospective analysis. Although many emphasise the importance of the critical path analysis, it is argued that this is just a part of the resource logic and the disruption surrounding the critical path can be equally important. Logical assumptions made and their potential limitations are presented and discussed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | delay; disruption; time impact analysis |
| Index terms: | critical path, project data, case study, package, main contractor, impact analysis, publication, subcontractor, critical path analysis, delay analysis, reflection |
| Subjects: | operations research, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, practitioner, project controls, professional development |
| Topics: | Time Control, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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