Closing the information gaps: A systematic review of research on delay and disruption claims

Ali, B; Aibinu, A A and Paton-Cole, V (2024) Closing the information gaps: A systematic review of research on delay and disruption claims. Construction Innovation, 24(3), pp. 790-810. ISSN 1471-4175

Abstract

Purpose: Delay and disruption claims involve a complex process that often result in disputes, unnecessary expenses and time loss on construction projects. This study aims to review and synthesize the contributions of previous research undertaken in this area and propose future directions for improving the process of delay and disruption claims. Design/methodology/approach: This study adopted a holistic systematic review of literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A total of 230 articles were shortlisted related to delay and disruption claims in construction using Scopus and Web of Science databases. Findings: Six research themes were identified and critically reviewed including delay analysis, disruption analysis, claim management, contract administration, dispute resolution and delay and disruption information and records. The systematic review showed that there is a dearth of research on managing the wide-ranging information required for delay and disruption claims, ensuring the transparency and uniformity in delay and disruption claims’ information and adopting an end-user’s centred research approach for resolving the problems in the process of delay and disruption claims. Practical implications: Complexities in delay and disruption claims are real-world problems faced by industry practitioners. The findings will help the research community and industry practitioners to prioritize their energies toward information management of delay and disruption claims. Originality/value: This study contributes to the body of knowledge in delay and disruption claims by identifying the need for conducting more research on its information requirements and management. Subsequently, it provides an insight on the use of modern technologies such as drones, building information modeling, radio frequency identifiers, blockchain, Bigdata and machine learning, as tools for more structured and efficient attainment of required information in a transparent and consistent manner. It also recommends greater use of design science research approach for delay and disruption claims. This will help to ensure delay and disruption claims are the least complex and less dispute-prone process.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: claims; construction; data; delay; digital technology; disputes; disruption; extension of time; information; productivity; review
Index terms: claim management, blockchain, building information modelling, systematic literature review, complexity, machine learning, design science research, transparency, resolution, construction project, practitioner, body of knowledge, delay analysis, science, database, drone, radio frequency, methodology, dispute, productivity, meta-analysis, contract administration, digital technology
Subjects: project controls, conflict resolution, artificial intelligence, management, practitioner, communication, systems engineering, professional development, information systems, data management, specialized education, research methods, contractual condition, automation and robotics, computing systems, design practice, production management, research evaluation and metrics, knowledge management, dispute resolution, contract management
Topics: Project Management, Research Practice, Education, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Time Control, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Information Management
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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