Bordoli, D W and Baldwin, A N (1998) A methodology for assessing construction project delays. Construction Management and Economics, 16(3), pp. 327-337. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Different categories of delay and the different types of delay found on construction projects are identified. Existing methods for assessing the effect of delaying events are reviewed and the results of an industry survey presented. None of the commonly recognized methods for delay analysis allow the assessment of three important issues at the same time: the progress of the project at the time the delay occurred; the changing nature of the critical path; and the effects of action taken (or that should have been taken) to minimize potential delays. A new method of delay analysis is presented. This method takes into consideration all these issues, and is a clear, straightforward step-by-step approach to the calculation of the expected delay in the completion of the project as a result of delays in activities encountered during the project. It uses a dynamic model considered by both experts and practitioners to be the best method to take account of progress and form the basis of delay claims.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; critical path methods; delay analysis; project delays |
| Index terms: | critical path, survey, project delay, critical path method, methodology, construction project, practitioner, delay analysis |
| Subjects: | production management, research methods, project controls, practitioner, data collection methods, operations research |
| Topics: | Time Control, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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