Rustom, R N (2006) Formulation of generic simulation models for analyzing construction claims. Construction Economics and Building, 6(2), pp. 11-19. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
While there are several techniques for analyzing the impact of claims on time schedule and productivity,very few are considered adequate and comprehensive to consider risks and uncertainties.A generic approach for claims analysis using simulation is proposed. The formulation of the generic methodology presented in this paper depends on three simulation models;As-Planned Model (APM),As-Built Model (ABM), and What-Would-HaveBeenModel(WWHBM). The proposed generic methodology as presented in this paper provides a good basis as a more elaborate approach to better analyze claims and their impacts on project time and productivity utilizing discrete event simulation.The approach proposed allows for scenario analysis to account for the disputed events and workflow disruptions. The proposed models will assist claimants in presenting their cases effectively and professionally.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; construction; modeling; simulation; time impact analysis |
| Index terms: | methodology, as-built model, scenario analysis, discrete event simulation, workflow, productivity, construction claim, modelling, impact analysis |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, data analysis and analytics, modelling and simulation, technical documentation, payment, policy studies, research methods, management |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Governance, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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