Scott, S (1993) The nature and effects of construction delays. Construction Management and Economics, 11(5), pp. 358-369. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A method for assessing delay claims, regularly used in the USA, is described, together with procedures which have been proposed for dealing with concurrent delays. These treatments are reviewed to identify their shortcomings which in some instances stem from a view of the nature of delays which is not consistent with the way in which delays actually occur. The various types of delay are examined to consider how these treatments might be amended to provide more realistic solutions. It is suggested that concurrent delays need only be separately considered when they affect a single activity, and the concept of parallel critical paths in an as-built network is thought to be invalid. The delays themselves are not always fixed in when they might have their effects and it is felt to be important that this be recognized. Finally a procedure is suggested to select days of exceptional adverse weather artificially, so that critical path method (CPM) analyses may be carried out.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concurrent delays; construction; cpm assessment of delays; delay claims |
| Index terms: | construction delay, weather, critical path method, critical path |
| Subjects: | project controls, operations research, air quality |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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