ng, S T; Skitmore, M; Deng, M Z M and Nadeem, A (2004) Improving existing delay analysis techniques for the establishment of delay liabilities. Construction Innovation, 4(1), pp. 3-17. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
When construction delays occur, it is necessary to ascertain the liabilities of the contracting parties and to direct the appropriate amount of resources to recover the schedule. Unfortunately, delay analysis and schedule compression are normally treated as separate or independent aspects. This paper examines the feasibility of integrating the delay analysis and schedule compression functions into a broad-scoped two-stage process. The main issue is shown to be the kind of delay analysis required for each stage of the process and seven existing techniques are illustrated for use in conjunction with schedule compression. Since the current form and assumptions of delay analysis techniques are unlikely to provide the necessary level of feedback reliability for recovering delays, it is necessary to modify these techniques by incorporating some means of delay type scrutiny, excusable delays updating, and treatment of concurrent delays. The modified delay analysis techniques can serve as a basis for negotiation between the client and contractor and hence improve the interdisciplinary relations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction delays; delay analysis; delay typology; planning; scheduling |
| Index terms: | negotiation, contracting party, liability, excusable delay, construction delay, delay analysis, scheduling, schedule compression |
| Subjects: | operations research, project controls, conflict resolution, practitioner, liability law |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Time Control |
| 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