Decision-Making Model for Selecting the Optimum Method

of Delay Analysis in Construction Projects

Nihal Ananda Perera 1; Monty Sutrisna 2; and Tak Wing Yiu, M.ASCE 3

Abstract: In construction, delay claims resolution is at the center of apportioning liabilities between the claiming party and the defending
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

party. This process generally consists of two phases of causation: (1) establishing each party’s potential liability for the claimed occurrence;
and (2) determining the quantum of the effect flowing from that liability. However, a lack of consensus among the practitioners of disputing
parties as a result of the existence of various theories, concepts, and methodologies for apportioning liabilities has been acknowledged as an
obstructing factor in delay claims resolution. When determining the quantum of the effects flowing from a liability, one potential main
obstacle in apportioning liabilities is the existing dichotomous use of method of delay analysis (MDA), which can be responsible for
the inconsistent outcomes of delay analyses and result in distrust among the disputing parties. Aiming to address this problem, the research
project was set to develop a decision making model (DMM) to support practitioners in this matter. Following its validation, the developed
DMM enhances fairness and transparency in apportioning liabilities, hence overcoming possible skepticism about the impartiality of the
chosen MDA. Addressing the current need for an objective way to select the MDA, this DMM has made a contribution to the body of
knowledge of construction engineering, particularly in the claims management aspects, by providing a novel tool that can be considered
objective, reliable, and defendable for selecting the optimum MDA under the given circumstances of a construction project, and therefore
minimizing the potential of conflict and disputes in apportioning delays’ liabilities. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000441. © 2016
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Delay analysis; Apportioning liabilities; Decision making.

Introduction
Construction projects inherently carry risk that can be managed,
i.e., avoided, mitigated, transferred, or accepted, but cannot be
ignored (PMI 2013; Latham Report 1994). In many cases, projects
often carry the risk of delayed completion (Keane and Caletka
2008). This is a major source of claims, conflict, and disputes.
Although claims may incur additional time and expense to deal
with its documentation (Alkass et al. 1996), the occurrence of con-
flict and disputes is of great concern in the construction industries
of many countries (Yates 1998). In Australia, for instance, the total
days lost to construction industrial dispute per 1,000 workers can
be as high as 900 work days in a year, which is significantly higher
compared with the average of other industries in Australia (ACA
1999). Construction delay has been suggested as one of the most
recurring and common problems (Mahamid et al. 2012; Rugaishi
and Bashir 2014; Gündüz et al. 2013), and modern construction
projects commonly suffer from it (Braimah 2013). Delay is ac-
knowledged as the most common, costly, complex, and risky prob-
lem in construction projects (Fawzy and El-adaway 2012). Such
delays in construction and the resulting claims require conscious
resolution through establishing liabilities and fair apportioning.
1
Forensic Claims Consultant and Chartered Surveyor, School of Built
Environment, Univ. of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, U.K. (corresponding
author). E-mail: nihal.a.perera@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, School of
Built Environment, Curtin Univ., Western Australia 6102, Australia.
3
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Auckland, Auckland 1145, New Zealand.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 12, 2015; approved on
January 11, 2016; published online on April 6, 2016. Discussion period
open until September 6, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management
in Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.
Thus, delay claims resolution can be considered central to the ap-
portioning of liabilities between the claiming party and the defend-
ing party. This process consists of two phases of causation:
(1) establishing each party’s potential liability for the claimed oc-
currence; and (2) determining the extent of the effect flowing from
that liability. The parties’ agreement for the approaches to be used
in both phases is of vital necessity for the success of delay claims
resolution. However, in many projects these approaches are left to
be decided until delay claims start emerging. This situation poten-
tially poses complication for the decision makers of both the claim-
ing and defending parties. A clear lack of consensus and uniformity
of methodology among the decision makers and in many cases re-
liant on decision makers’ individual perceptions and judgments
have been reported as the main problems (AACE 2011). Individual
judgments are generally intuitive and subjective, and with intuitive
decisions it is difficult to gain acceptance by others, particularly
when the decision maker is unable to justify it with persuasive logic
(Saaty 2006). It has been suggested that fair and equitable appor-
tioning of the parties’ liabilities may be fettered by many factors in
contemporary practices that are critical in deciding the outcome
(Braimah and Ndekugri 2007; Perera and Sutrisna 2010).
In determining the quantum of the effects flowing from a liabil-
ity, one potential obstructing factor in apportioning liabilities is the
lack of a universally acceptable method of delay analysis (MDA)
among practitioners (AACE 2011; Keane and Caletka 2008). As
literature and the findings of a previous in-depth research inquiry
posit (Perera 2012; AACE 2011; Keane and Caletka 2008), the
existing dichotomous use of MDAs was found to be primarily
responsible for inconsistent outcomes of delay analyses and sub-
sequently distrust and skepticism among the disputing parties. In
delay claims resolution, application of MDA has an essential role
in establishing the causation by technical proof, as opposed to proof
by inference. Farrow (2001) pointed out that although decision

© ASCE 04016009-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 makers (or analysts) have to consider and challenge a wide variety
of related issues, they would apply different degrees of personal
experience and judgment.
Al Sehaimi et al. (2013) contended that many problems in
construction could be mitigated through alternative and construc-
tive approaches that can assist in the development and implemen-
tation of innovative tools in tackling managerial problems of
construction, including that of delay. Thus, the aim of this paper
is to report the development of a DMM to assist decision makers
in choosing optimum MDA. This DMM has been designed to pro-
vide an objective, reliable, and tenable basis for delay analysis,
to enhance fair and equitable outcome in apportioning liabilities,
especially through overcoming possible skepticism about the im-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
partiality of the particular method chosen. This study contributes
to the body of knowledge in the field of construction engineering
management by providing a robust tool to assist practitioners in
deciding the most appropriate MDA, and therefore minimizing
the potential for conflict and disputes in apportioning delays’ liabil-
ities in the construction industry.
Review of MDA in Apportioning Liabilities
The general rules as to the recovery of damages (Schwartzkopf
and McNamara 2001) can be considered almost similar in the
U.K. and U.S. legal systems [e.g., Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
9 Ex 341, 156 ER 145; Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd., v.
Newman Industries Ltd., (1949) 2 KB 528; U.S. v. J. H. Copeland
& Sons [1928] 568 F.2d 1159; S. J. Groves & Sons Co., v. Warner
Co., (1928) 576 F.2d 524; Maxwell v. Schaefer (1955) 112 A.2d
69; R. J. Lampus Co., v. Neville Cement Products Corp. (1977) 378
A.2d 288; Roanoke Hospital Association v. Doyle & Russell, Inc.,
(1975) 214 S.E.1d 155; Rochey Bros., Inc., v. Rhoades (1975) 527
F.2d 891; S. J. Groves & Sons Co., v. Warner Co., (1928) 576 F.2d
524). According to these general rules, the complexities involved in
apportioning liabilities in construction delays are to be addressed
only through establishing causation (i.e., establishing the nexus
between the cause of the delaying event, and the quantum of delay
effects flowing from that cause). Generally, for determining such
quantum of delay effects, scholars (e.g., Keane and Caletka 2008;
Livengood 2007b; Farrow 2001; Baram 2000) have identified four
primary MDAs: impacted-as-planned (IAP), time impact analysis
(TIA), collapse-as-built (CAB), and as-planned versus as-built
(APvAB).
Impacted-as-Planned (IAP)
IAP takes the as-planned schedule and adds new activities that
generally represent the other party’s delays (contractor’s or employ-
er’s, depending on who uses the method), to demonstrate why the
project was delayed beyond the completion date (Zack 2001). The
theory in IAP is that when all of the owner’s changes are added to
the contractor’s original plan, the earliest date when the project
could have been completed because of the added work can be de-
termined (Fruchtman 2000; Keane and Caletka 2008; Bubshait and
Cunningham 1998). Lucas (2002) and Bubshait and Cunningham
(1998) observed that although the IAP approach was widely used
and accepted in the 1970s and early 1980s, it can now be rejected
by the courts primarily because of the subjectivity involved
(e.g., Gulf Contracting, ASBCA No. 37,939, 94-2 BCA Para26.726
[1994]). The IAP has been generally criticized for not accounting
for changes to logic or durations of planned activities, producing
theoretical results based on hypothetical question, and the inability
to identify true concurrent delay (Keane and Caletka 2008). It is
based on a schedule that does not reflect actual progress of the
© ASCE 04016009-2
J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009
works and assumes the project proceeded exactly as planned
(Fawzy and El-adaway 2012). Nevertheless, IAP remains the most
common analysis technique used by contractors on most projects
(Livengood 2007a). Thus, IAP continuously appears in text books
and professional protocols like the Delay and Disruption Protocol
of the Society of Construction Law (SCL) and the Recommended
Practice No. 29R-03 (RP-FSA) of the American Association of
Cost Engineers (AACE) International as one of the primary MDAs
in use.
Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
The TIA method attempts to address criticism pointed to IAP by
correlating the planned program with actual progress. TIA-based
analysis provides the consequences of an event on the assumption
that future (remaining at the time of occurrence of the event)
activities of the program will proceed as planned (as originally in-
tended). TIA is an evolution of the IAP method, and the difference
between the two is the use of multiple baseline programs in TIA as
opposed to a single baseline in the IAP (AACE 2007; Keane and
Caletka 2008). Although it is very time consuming and expensive
to implement (El-adaway et al. 2014), for many practitioners, TIA
is the most desirable approach to handle a delay claim, as long as
data and source documents are available in the required format and
at the required time frame (SCL 2002; Baram 1994), despite its
limitation of imprecise representation of the actual delay (SCL
2002, Section 4.8; Fruchtman 2000) or the fact that it does not scru-
tinize the delay type before the analysis (thereby requiring further
analysis to apportion entitlement). Moreover, the concurrent delays
are not immediately addressed, which necessitates further analysis
that may become too cumbersome if there is an overwhelming
amount of delaying events (Alkass et al. 1996).
Collapse-as-Built (CAB)
The CAB method generally relies on a simulation of a what-if sce-
nario, based on the critical path method (CPM). It models not the
intentions of the contractor, but rather his or her actual sequences
and durations, by using a deductive approach that is exactly the
opposite philosophy of an additive approach, which is relied on
by the IAP and TIA methods (Keane and Caletka 2008). The theory
of the CAB is that once the owner’s delays are subtracted from the
actual project duration, it would reveal how long the contractor
would have actually taken to complete the project without the own-
er’s delay (Fruchtman 2000; Keane and Caletka 2008; Bubshait and
Cunningham 1998). In its common form, CAB creates an as-built
schedule and identifies actual delays caused by one party, and then
removes them from that as-built schedule, to collapse the schedule.
The argument for CAB is that without these delays, this is when
the project would have been completed (Zack 2001). Associated
limitations of CAB include the high level of subjectivity, difficul-
ties in identifying as-built (contemporaneous) critical path, failure
to calculate delay based on the contractor’s contemporaneous in-
tentions (“at the time”) (Keane and Caletka 2008), and its inability
to make allowance for mitigation of delays (Lovejoy 2004). It is
suggested that CAB be used only when reliable as-built informa-
tion is available (El-adaway et al. 2014). Further discussions on
CAB can be found in the literature (e.g., Zack 2001; Fruchtman
2000; Al Saggaf 1998; Alkass et al. 1996; Schumacher 1995).
As-Planned versus As-Built (APvAB)
The APvAB method compares the actual and planned durations of
the project and claims the difference as an excusable/compensable
delay. It does not require CPM logic and can be used by comparing
J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 1. Typical Factors in Selecting MDA
According to AACE (2011)
Purpose of analysis
Source data availability and reliability
Complexity of the dispute
Contractual requirements
Forum for resolution and audience
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
According to Braimah According to Arditi and
and Ndekugri (2007) Pattanakitchamroon (2006)
Reason for the delay analysis Capabilities
Updated program availability; records availability; Availability of information: type of schedule,
nature of baseline program; baseline program updated schedule, adjusted schedule, type of
availability information, no CPM, no CPM but progress
record, CPM approved/not approved, updated
CPM approved/updated
Type of analysis
— —
Form of contract —
Dispute resolution forum; other party to the claim —

Legal or procedural requirements Applicable legislation —

Size of the dispute
Budget for forensic schedule analysis
Time allowed for forensic schedule analysis
Expertise of the forensic schedule analyst
and resources available
Custom and use of methods on the project
or the case
— Time of the delay; size of project; duration of the
Amount in dispute; nature of the delaying events; —
number of delaying events
Cost of using the technique —
— Time-cost effort
Skills of the analyst Level of effort
— —
Time of analysis, foresight, real time, hindsight
project; complexity of the project during performance period, hindsight, after project
completion

a graphic comparison of the as-planned schedule to the as-built
schedule, simply observing any variances between the start/finish
dates of the various activities. In other words, it resembles a total
claim (Zack 2001), in which the claimant is required to discharge a
similar burden of proof as in the case of global claims (i.e., in which
the contractor does not seek to prove precisely his or her loss from
an event, but pursues a claim for the total loss suffered from all of
the events). Accordingly, when its conventional version is used, the
contractor has to demonstrate that (1) the baseline program was
reasonable and realistic to succeed; (2) there were no contractor’s
critical delays contributing to the duration overrun; and (3) the time
overrun (difference between the duration of as-planned and that of
as-built schedules) is entirely attributable to the delays of the em-
ployer or for which he or she assumes responsibility. To calculate
the standalone effects of each of these delay events is impossible or
impractical, as they are too complicated and intertwined to separate.
In any case, considering its limitation to deal with concurrency and
dynamism of critical path, the results produced by this MDA may
be contentious because an apportionment of delay liability may re-
sult in a flawed outcome if the effect of concurrent delays and
changes in the critical path is overlooked (Alkass and Golanaraghi
2012).
Selection of MDA
Reflecting the multiple principles of MDA in practice as discussed
in the previous section, various scholars have recommended differ-
ent factors when selecting MDA. Bubshait and Cunningham (1998)
concluded that selection should be based on the time/resources
available and the accessibility of project documentation. Braimah
and Ndekugri (2007) identified 18 factors that influence the selec-
tion of MDA. Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2006) identified four
factors toward the selection of MDA. SCL (2002) identifies seven
factors that largely dictate the use of an MDA. In discussing the
choice of a forensic schedule analysis methodology, AACE (2011)
emphasized that, because individuals generally work for one party
in a dispute, skepticism often exists regarding the impartiality of the
particular chosen methodology. Table 1 has summarized the typical
factors in selecting MDA
In delay claims resolution, one critical aspect that a decision
maker may confront is the need to select an optimum MDA among
the MDAs used in contemporary practice. If such selection is based
on an intuitive and subjective approach, this would most likely in-
vite further disputes over the selected MDA and its outcome.
Although there is no generally accepted basis for what constitutes
a good decision (Harrison 1975), a decision can still be categorized
to the extent of its appropriateness, timeliness, effectiveness, and
efficiency (Friday-Stroud and Sutterfield 2007). Thus, an appropri-
ate decision-making model is expected to satisfy these character-
istics, to support appropriate decisions on the selection of the
optimal MDA.
The use of simple and yet sufficiently accurate techniques
(Ginevicius and Podvezko 2004) would allow the decision makers
to use the decision-making model with better understanding and
confidence than the one built on complex algorithms that are too
complicated to comprehend. In this paper, the authors intended to
choose one of the most widely used, simple methods like the ana-
lytic hierarchic process (AHP) (Saaty 1980, 2006, 2009) or the sim-
ple additive weighting (SAW) method (Hwang and Lin 1987;
Hwang and Yoon 1981; Yoon and Hwang 1995). Following an
in-depth literature review on the matter, SAW was determined to
be the most appropriate method for this research. Table 2 lists some
research findings on the applications of SAW and AHP.
In deciding between AHP and SAW, the main focus was the
need for adopting a straightforward and simple method to capture
the practitioners’ decision-making process. This input process
involved numerous criteria and attributes to be judged; hence, it
requires a simple but robust mechanism. The SAW method em-
ploys additive weighted preferences, whereas AHP uses a ratio
scale to bring out pair-wise comparisons to collect data in devel-
oping the system. Although both AHP and SAW are capable of
providing a robust algorithm, AHP typically requires a large num-
ber of pair-wise comparisons or judgments, whereas the SAW ap-
proach requires much fewer direct and individual rankings. Thus,

© ASCE 04016009-3 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 Table 2. Key Research Findings on SAW and AHP Applications
Main findings or applications on SAW
Description SAW AHP
Comparison of decision-making methods Main attractions of SAW and AHP are their simplicitya
Practicality and use Because of its simplicity and practicality, SAW is the AHP uses a ratio scale to bring out pair-wise
most popular method of classical MADMb; it is the comparisons to collect data in developing the
most widely used/probably the best-known MADM system; it requires a large number of pair-wise
methodc comparisons or judgments
a
Hobbs et al. (1992), Zanakis et al. (1995), Zanakis et al. (1998), and Saaty (1980, 2006, 2009).
b
Modarres and Sadi-Nezhad (2005).
c
Chou et al. (2008), Hwang and Yoon (1981), Chang and Yeh (2001), Virvou and Kabassi (2004), and Yoon and Hwang (1995).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the rationale for SAW’s main attraction to the practitioners over the
other multiple attribute decision making (MADM) methods is its
simplicity, which makes it extremely popular in practice (Hobbs
et al. 1992; Zanakis et al. 1995, 1998).
SAW Method in Research Perspective
The basic principle of SAW involves establishing a weighted sum
of mathematical performance ratings of each alternative under all
attributes (MacCrimmon 1968; Chen and Hwang 1992). It works in
two primary steps. First, it scales the values of all attributes, making
them comparable; then the total score for each alternative is com-
puted by multiplying the comparable value of each attribute by the
importance weight assigned to the attribute and summing up these
results over all of the attributes (Hwang and Yoon 1981; Virvou
and Kabassi 2004; Chou et al. 2008). This calculation process
of the value of an alternative can be submitted in the following
mathematical expression:
X
n n
VðAi Þ ¼ wj rij i ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; n ð1Þ
j¼0
where VðAi Þ = value function of the ith alternative; rij = compa-
rable rating or normalized value of xij (i.e., the rated value of the ith
alternative for jth attribute); and wj = importance weight of the jth
attribute.
The alternative with the highest score of value function is ranked
the best option.
SAW has the ability to recognize multiple constructed realities
in differences within perceptions, judgments, attitudes, and practi-
ces among practitioners dealing with delay claims. The judgments
and the like phenomena are intangible, and they have to be mea-
sured first before they can be used as variables. SAW can be used
readily as a tool or a method of relative measurements of such in-
tangibles. It allows for differences in opinion with an ability to de-
velop a best compromise. Using the Likert scale, such judgments
can be converted into numerical values, giving the advantage of
comparison of such subjective data and information on a uniform
basis (Bowling 1997; Burns and Grove 1997; Likert 1932). Thus, it
enables an objective quantification of emotional factors or attrib-
utes in a decision-making process. Accordingly, SAW fit into
the role in deriving (quantitative) measurements out of such sub-
jective and qualitative data for decision making (i.e., selection of
the optimum MDA). It helps to resolve conflicts in human percep-
tions and judgments, while bringing together different perspectives
of different practitioners to choose the best of a set of alternatives.
Thus, SAW enabled the combining of quantitative and qualitative
data through assignment of numerical values to qualitative (subjec-
tive) data, and firmly displayed its ability to use mixed methods.
Role of Attributes
In the problem-resolving process it is generally required to generate
the relevant attributes for each problem setting. This can be
achieved by reviewing literature and/or conducting interviews
(Keeney and Raiffa 1976). Yoon and Hwang (1995) stressed the
necessity that attributes represent the desired mission, and sug-
gested a way to derive the attributes hierarchically from a super
goal (as goal hierarchy formulation starts with the listing of overall
performance objectives serving a super goal). Such hierarchy is ex-
pected to consist of at least three levels: (1) focus or overall goal at
the top, (2) multiple criteria that define alternatives in the middle,
and (3) competing alternatives at the bottom. It is suggested that the
basic principle of SAW is to obtain a weighted sum of the perfor-
mance ratings of each alternative under all attributes (MacCrimmon
1968; Chen and Hwang 1992).
The weighted average of each criterion and attribute can be
mathematically expressed as
Pn
wx
WAi i¼0 i i ð2Þ
where wi = weight (rate) assigned to the jth option; xi = number
of respondents who selected the ith option; and n = number of
respondents).
Research Methodology
To capture these multiple perceptions and practices in resolving
delay claims, the research inquiry adopted a mixed method ap-
proach. Mixed methods research is an approach to inquiry that
combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative data and
analysis. The use of qualitative and quantitative approaches and
the mixing of both approaches concurrently or sequentially in a
particular way that the overall strength of a study is greater than
either the qualitative or quantitative research (Creswell and Plano
Clark 2007). In this case, the qualitative data (gathered from semi-
structured interviews) provided detailed understanding of a prob-
lem that arises out of studying few individuals and exploring their
perspectives in depth. In contrast, quantitative data (collected from
the questionnaire survey) provided a more general understanding of
a problem that stemmed from examining a relatively large number
of people and assessing the response to the proposed variables.
Thus, as suggested by Reams and Twale (2008), the mixed method
approach was found to be particularly appropriate in uncovering
information and perspective, increasing corroboration of the data,
and rendering less biased and drawing more accurate conclusions.
Data from the semistructured interviews were analyzed using a
content analysis technique (Weber 1990), and the data collected
from the questionnaire survey directly formed the SAW decision-
making model. For validation purposes, the case-study approach

© ASCE 04016009-4 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 (Yin 1994) was also used. This design of this research provided
rigor in the process, and therefore credibility in the research find-
ings. Moreover, inclusion of multiple sources from different points
of view in conceptualizing the problem situation(s) offered a com-
prehensive analysis that incorporates multiple viewpoints.
Because it was considered irrational to have a random sampling
of all practitioners engaged in delay claims (i.e., the existence of
such a database is lacking), the snowball sampling was considered
to be appropriate. The snowballing technique is typically consid-
ered a form of purposive sampling, and involves further circulation
of the questionnaires informed or assisted by the initially identified
respondents to reach the further intended respondents (i.e., practi-
tioners involved with delay claims). The initial respondents
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
were drawn from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS) and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) membership
database in the United Arab Emirates (UAE, particularly Dubai)
members, complemented by personal industry contacts. The practi-
tioners (who were actually involved in delay claims resolution)
came from contractors, consultants/project administrators, develop-
ers, independent claims consultants, and construction law back-
ground. Even though the data collection was conducted using
practitioners in the UAE (Dubai), the practices in UAE follow
(and therefore can be considered comparable to those in) practices
in other jurisdictions, primarily in the United Kingdom and the
United States. In addition, the nature of the UAE (Dubai) construc-
tion industry has attracted a significant number of international
practitioners working in the sector, thus bringing their international
perspectives, expertise, and ways of working. To a certain extent,
therefore, the UAE industry embodied similar constructs that are
perceived and practiced by the practitioners in other comparable
settings.
Results and Discussion
Initially, 520 potential respondents across the industry in Dubai/
UAE were identified through the snowball sampling technique
and circulated through the web-linked survey-questionnaire. This
selection was based on their career association with construction
claims. However, over 200 e-mails were returned as not deliverable,
Table 3. Composition of Two Groups
Cumulative
Group Frequency Percent percent
Contracting group 33 44.6 44.6
Consultants/owners group 41 55.4 100.0
Total 74 100.0 —
Table 4. Interviewees’ Background
Profession
1. Construction lawyer
2. Chartered quantity surveyor (FRICS)
3. Civil engineer
4. Civil engineer (BSc.)
5. Civil engineer (BSc., LLM, FCIArb.)
6. Chartered quantity surveyor (FRICS)
7. Quantity surveyor/claims consultant (BSc., LLB)
8. Chartered quantity surveyor (LLM., FCIArb., AAIQS)
9. Civil engineer (BSc., LLM, FCIArb.)
10. Civil engineer (BSc., LLM, FCIArb.)
© ASCE 04016009-5
J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009
reducing the potential responses to approximately 300. Finally, 74
respondents responded to the questionnaire survey. With regard to
the adequacy of the sampling population, sampling theorem was
used as the guide. It was considered important for the research in-
quiry to determine whether a normal distribution can be assumed.
Taylor et al. (2008) suggest that, in general, it is safe to apply the
theorem for samples of size n > 30; similarly, as a generally
accepted rule of thumb for any type of population distribution,
Bernstein and Bernstein (1999) argued that if n ≥ 30, then the sam-
ple size will typically be sufficiently large to apply the central limit
theorem with reasonable accuracy. Thus, considering the 74 eli-
gible respondents, the response rate was just approximately 25%.
To establish the sampling’s margin of error, the following
equation (Waller 2010; Sutrisna 2004; Cheung et al. 2009) was
considered:
Z2 × P × ð1 − PÞ
SS ¼ ð3Þ
C2
where SS = sample size; Z = Z value (Z value = 1.96 for 95% con-
fidence level); P = maximum variance occurred, 0.5 providing the
worst-case scenario; and C = margin of error.
Therefore
1.962 × 0.5 × ð1 − 0.5Þ
74 ¼ ; C ¼ 11.4%
C2
In the selected sampling approach, the number of eligible re-
spondents (74) has an estimated margin of error of 11.4 at 95%
confidence level.
Based on their actual involvement revealed in the responses to
the subsequent questions, these 74 respondents were then stratified
into two groups (Table 3)—the contracting group and the consult-
ing group—as the main competing parties in delay claims.
Ten follow-up semistructured interviews were then conducted,
100 min in length each, then audio-recorded and fully transcribed
with the permission of the interviewees. The content analysis of
the interview transcripts resulted in six major themes and 27 sub-
themes. The interviews were conducted and purposively selected
using primarily the snowballing technique until data saturation
was achieved (Glaser 1978; Goulding 2005).
All of these interviewees can be considered experts in delay
claims resolution, representing both sides of the fence (i.e., contrac-
tor and consultant/owner groups). Most of them were claims and
delay analysts with civil engineering and quantity surveying back-
ground, with a single case of a practicing construction lawyer (refer
to Table 4).
After analyzing both the qualitative (captured primarily through
the interviews) and quantitative (obtained primarily from the sur-
vey) data, the convergent or divergent findings were summarized,
Current designation/involvement
Head of construction and engineering department in Al-xxxxxxx.
and company (law firm)
Senior commercial manager (public sector)
Claims practitioner (freelance)
Claims practitioner (freelance)
Senior claims specialist (private sector)
Partner at X.X. Xxxxxx. (private sector)
Head of contracts department (private sector)
Senior contracts administrator (private sector)
Contracts and claims administration manager (private sector)
Claims specialist (private sector)
J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 5. Factor Relations in MDA Selection
Factor
1. Application parameters
2. Project characteristics (such as
project value, size)
3. Time of the project when the delay
analysis is to be carried out
4. Claimed value or amount of time
5. Availability of CPM baseline
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Behavioral effects on MDAs
• If the contract predefines the approach to be used for delay claims that may prevent use of the ideal MDA to suit
changing circumstances of a project [e.g., if “longest path” approach for delay claims is predefined, then TIA or
IAP (for prospective analysis) can operate but not collapse as built (which operates in retrospective analyses
only)]
• The higher the value/size, the greater the accuracy of analysis is expected; therefore, TIA is more suitable for
greater accuracy
• IAP may be adequate at a very early stage of a project (e.g., access delays at the beginning of a project may not
require a complex analysis for an obvious effect on completion date)
• Use of TIA or CAB requiring high expertise would not be economical and time-efficient if the claimed value/time
is not significant enough to justify the cost of delay analysis
• CPM-based baseline program may be necessary for some MDAs, but not for others (e.g., its importance for TIA,

program
6. Availability of CPM as-built
program updates
7. Existence of other records
8. Establishing causation
9. Establishing concurrency
10. Establishing responsibility
11. Cost of the delay analysis
12. Time required/allowed to carry
out delay analysis
13. Admissibility by triers-of-fact
IAP, or APvAB is high but not for CAB, which does not require a baseline program)
• This may be necessary for some MDAs, but not for others (e.g., it is essential for TIA but not for APvAB, which
can be implemented without frequently updated progress schedules)
• This is generally preferred by all MDAs, but for some they are essential (e.g., unless an as-built program is
mutually agreed by parties, CAB requires that its as-built critical path based be built on the other records)
• In general, for establishing causation for events in isolation, TIA, CAB, and IAP provide more convincing results
than APvAB
• If properly implemented, all MDAs are capable of establishing concurrency /mitigation, but IAP’s outcome is
more theoretical and subjective than others
• In general, CAB can directly illustrate isolated effects attributed to a particular delay event, and its source of
responsibility requires no further exercise; however, the other MDAs require a further round of evaluation to do
this
• IAP and APvAB are relatively cheaper to implement; however, when issues are complicated, use of TIA or CAB
is necessary, which may result in higher cost (for want of better expertise)
• In general, TIA and CAB take longer than IAP and APvAB
• Admissibility by arbitrators or judges may be higher for the MDAs like TIA and CAB than the other MDAs

compared, discussed, interpreted, and finally merged to see how
the quantitative results build or expand on the qualitative findings,
and how the merged results answer the research questions and
objectives.
Development of the Decision-Making Model
The formulation of the DMM was based on a thorough literature
review undertaken during the research project. This literature
review identified the selection factors used in this DMM and pro-
vided conceptualization for the model as summarized in Table 5.
Using the findings from the survey questionnaire, as tabulated in
Tables 6 and 7, the DMM was further developed and refined.
Elements of the Decision-Making Model
The current decision-making model uses a hierarchy of criteria,
attributes (or subcriteria), and alternatives; all of these elements
have been identified through the literature review and the findings
of the research. The purpose of the proposed DMM (or its super
goal) is the selection of optimum MDA under the given circum-
stances of a project. The selection of criteria is driven by the ability
and influence to achieve the super goal; likewise, the selection of
attributes is made as they emerge from each of the elements of
criteria in the level above. Although the number of criteria and
attributes depends on the nature of the problem, each of them
may have different units of measurement. These units may be quan-
titative (e.g., number, money) or qualitative (e.g., importance,
significance, necessity of presence). The use of assigned weights
are intended to indicate the importance of each criterion/attribute
relative to the others.
The survey questionnaire provided a measuring scale based on
a five-point Likert scale, to assess the relative importance of the
attributes in a ranking order. Tables 6 and 7 list the two groups
of respondents to the survey, who attribute the significance/
importance to each of the criteria at level 2 and the attributes
at level 3 of the proposed DMM, respectively. In both Tables 6
and 7, the test statistics (Kendall’s W and Critical W) show with
considerable confidence that the agreement or concordance among
the rankings of the respondents of the two groups is higher than it
would be by chance, had the scores and their rankings been selected
randomly or independently.
The use of the data in the development of the SAW model is
described in the next section.
The hierarchy of the proposed DMM is composed as
follows:
1. Level 1: The super goal (i.e., selection of the optimum method
of delay analysis);
2. Level 2: The criteria to achieve the super goal (the 7 criteria that
appear in Table 6 are identified, as generally informed by the
literature review);
3. Level 3: The attributes or subcriteria of these criteria (the 23
attributes that appear in Table 7, identified as they emerged
from the criteria and largely informed by the literature review,
as discussed previously); and
4. Level 4: The alternatives or methods of delay analysis; these
are the most widely used MDAs (i.e., as-planned versus as-
built, impacted-as-planned, collapsed-as-built, and time impact
analysis).
Application of SAW
Based on the hierarchy formulation of the SAW method, scores
(rates) for the alternatives were to be obtained by adding the
contribution from each strand of attribute/criterion. However, the

© ASCE 04016009-6 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 Table 6. Significance Index—Criteria in Level 2 of the Proposed Decision-Making Model
Contracting group Consulting group Overall
Criteria in level 2 of the proposed decision-making model
(weights used: 1 = negligible; 2 = slightly significant; Significance index Significance index Significance index
3 = significant; 4 = very significant; 5 = extremely significant) (weighted average) Rank (weighted average) Rank (weighted average) Rank
1. Contractually specified requirements as for delay analysis (CCR) 4.19 5 3.74 4 3.96 5
2. Project constraints (e.g., magnitude, complexity) (PC) 3.12 2.5 2.33 1 3.13 2
3. Claims magnitude and complexity (CMC) 3.19 4 3.56 3 3.31 3
4. Records availability (Reca) 4.42 7 3.96 7 4.19 7
5. Proof of causation (transparency of analysis) (Profc) 4.2 6 3.81 6 3.98 6
6. Time and cost of analysis (T&C) 3.12 2.5 2.96 2 3 1
7. Legal admissibility (by triers) (Ladms) 3.04 1 3.78 5 3.38 4
Note: Test statistics: Kendall’s W ¼ 0.85 > Critical W ¼ 0.74; for n ¼ 7 and k ¼ 3, at significance level α ¼ 0.01, df ¼ 6.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 7. Importance Index—Attributes in Level 3 of the Proposed Decision-Making Model

Contracting group Consulting group Overall
Attributes in level 3 of the proposed decision-making model
(weights used: 1 = negligible; 2 = slightly important; Importance index Importance index Importance index
3 = important; 4 = very important; 5 = extremely important) (weighted average) Rank (weighted average) Rank (weighted average) Rank
1. Concurrency and float ownership defined in the contract (C&F) 3.7 16 3.74 13 3.7 16
2. Analysis method defined in the contract (AM) 3.71 17 3.19 5.5 3.71 17
3. Value of the project (PV) 3.06 8.5 3.44 12 3.06 8.5
4. Size of the project (PS) 2.76 1 2.77 1 2.76 1
5. Duration of the project (PD) 2.98 6 3.15 4 2.98 6
6. Status (prevailing stage) of the project (PCS) 3.06 8.5 3.31 10 3.06 8.5
7. Complexity of the project (PC) 3.25 11 3.31 10 3.25 11
8. Amount of time claimed (MT) 2.84 2 2.81 2 2.84 2
9. Amount of cost (of prolongation) claimed (MC) 2.86 3 2.92 3 2.86 3
10. Number of events claimed and to be analyzed (NE) 3.04 7 3.19 5.5 3.04 7
11. Obscurity and sophistication of issues in prolongation claims (OBS) 3.24 10 3.28 8 3.24 10
12. Baseline program availability (ABP) 4.02 20 4.04 22 4.02 20
13. Baseline program type (e.g., CPM) (TBP) 4.08 21.5 3.85 16.5 4.08 21.5
14. As-built periodical updates of program (AB) 4.08 21.5 3.96 19.5 4.08 21.5
15. As-built periodical updates of program (mutually agreed) (AAB) 3.84 18.5 4.04 22 3.84 18.5
16. Availability of other records (e.g., daily records) (AOR) 4.12 23 3.96 19.5 4.12 23
17. High quality of transparency (clearly established causation) (LTR) 3.84 18.5 3.81 15 3.84 18.5
18. Need of showing concurrent delays/mitigation (NC) 3.69 15 4.04 22 3.69 15
19. Need to illustrate isolated delay effects (IEE) 3.37 14 3.77 14 3.37 14
20. Need of sequential (chronological) analysis (COA) 3.27 12 3.85 16.5 3.27 12
21. Expert skills (for analysis method) (XS) 3.34 13 3.88 18 3.34 13
22. Concern for cost of analysis method (CA) 2.94 5 3.23 7 2.94 5
23. Concern for time to be spent for analysis (TSA) 2.92 4 3.31 10 2.92 4
Note: Test statistics: Kendall’s W ¼ 0.92; sample x2 ¼ 60.53; critical x2 ¼ 48.27 (for n ¼ 23 and k ¼ 3, at significance level α ¼ 0.001, df ¼ 22).

ratings from the questionnaire respondents were based on differ- where m = number of alternatives as n is the number of attributes;
ent measurement units using a five-point Likert scale. Because xij = rated value of the ith alternative for the jth attribute; and xj =
different measurement units of items could not be added, a common maximum rated value scored by any of the alternatives for the jth
numerical scaling system, such as normalization, was to be used attribute.
to permit additions among the attribute values. Accordingly, the Then, 0 ≤ rij ≤ 1, and xij is more favorable as rij approaches 1.
scores of both criteria and attributes were normalized, and such Thus, each alternative is rated against 23 attributes and 1 cri-
normalization was applied on the weighted averages of their aggre- terion directly (criterion titled “legal admission” has no attributes
gated scores computed from the ratings given by the respondents. or subcriteria).
This was according to the literature review, which suggested that The value function of an alternative in the SAW method can be
the basic principle of SAW is to obtain a weighted sum of the per- mathematically expressed as
formance ratings of each alternative under all attributes.
Having established the weighted average of each criterion X
n
and attribute, the algorithm for the operation of the DMM was de- VðA1 Þ ¼ wj rij i ¼ 1; : : : ; m ð5Þ
veloped (using Microsoft Excel) in five major steps according to j¼1
the SAW principles. These five steps are given in Table 8.
The normalized value of xij can be presented as where VðAi Þ = value function of the ith alternative; and
rij = comparable rating or normalized value (see Step 3) of
xij ; and wj = importance weight (see Step 2) of the jth
rij¼ðxij =jÞ i ¼ 1; : : : ; m; j ¼ 1; : : : ; n ð4Þ attribute.

© ASCE 04016009-7 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 Table 8. Application of SAW
Step Action required
Step 1 • Calculate weighted averages for each of the criteria and attributes from the Likert scale–based rating of the significance/importance as expressed
by the survey respondents; convert weighted averages for the criteria and attributes into normalized weights (between 0 and 1); adopt this process
separately for each of the attributes grouped under the seven criteria
Step 2 • Compute an importance weight (W) for each attribute by multiplying its normalized weight by the normalized weight of its corresponding
criterion
Step 3 (Steps 1 and 2 are already completed in the first stage before it is used by the decision maker; from Step 3 onward, the input is from the decision
maker)
• Gather required information from the contract documents, the delay claims submitted, and all other relevant project records to feed the DMM
• Obtain a comparable normalized rating of each alternative for the corresponding attribute through the decision maker’s answers to specific
questions; rate each alternative on a scale ranging from 0(lowest) to 1 (highest)
• Attribute the scores to each alternative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Step 4 • Compute the value functions of each alternative to select the highest scoring alternative
Step 5 • Select the alternative with the maximum AVF; it is the optimal MDA that suits the specific circumstances of the project

Table 9. Case Study Description

Parameter Particulars
Contract • Scope of work is to construct a central utility complex of approximately 6,000 m2 for an expansion of an existing international airport
• Work consists of the construction of a reinforced concrete and steel framed structure with complex mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
services
• Project’s contract sum is AED 318 million (approximately US$86 million); the final account is expected to be AED 340 million
(approximately US$92 million)
• Form of contract is a bespoke version of modified FIDIC form, 4th edition (1987)
Completion • Overall completion of the project with four separate contractual milestones was to be achieved within 618 days; however, the work is
time substantially completed after 789 days from the commencement date, with 171 days of overrun time
Claims • Major delaying events notified: 27; other secondary events: 30
• Causes of delays claimed: variations, suspension of works, late issue of information, access delays by other interface contractors
• Overall claim: 200 days of entitlement to extension of time with a cost of approximately AED 15 million (approximately US$4 million);
the contractor gave the notices for claims within the prescribed time, but failed to give final particulars of the claims as prescribed until after
the substantial completion of the works; nevertheless, the engineer’s evaluation revealed that had the contractor complied with the
requirements of such technicalities, he would have been entitled to extension of time in principle
• Contractor used the IAP method to establish his entitlement, but that did not show any of his own culpable delays
Program and • CPM-based baseline program was submitted as required by the contract (Clause 14.1) and consented by the employer; however, no further
records revised program was required or submitted
• Regularly submitted look-ahead programs and monthly updates of the program activities are available
• Site records, including daily records of productivity, inspection requests, site instructions issued, and submittal logs, are available
Claims analysis • Engineer considers the contractor-submitted MDA should be on a more objective basis; the contractor disagreed. According to the
contractor, his method (IAP) is based on CPM, and has clearly established the cause and effect of the employer-caused delays, and
therefore the entitlement to extension of time
• In light of this, the engineer’s delay analyst ought to select the optimum MDA under the existing circumstances. Such selection should be
logical, objective, and defendable against possible onslaught from the contractor’s side
Other pertinent • Contract does not predefine any parameters for conducting delay analysis; however, it states that the project float is not exclusively owned
circumstances by either party, but can be consumed on a first come, first served basis; the form of contract requires the engineer to secure prior approval
from the employer as to the matters of extension of time; the employer’s panel always insists on (1) clearly established causation;
concurrent effects of the delays when prolongation costs claims are present; and (2) use of a robust, tenable MDA and outcome
• Decision maker’s input (relevant to the model attributes) as given in Table 10 is derived from the project-specific circumstances of this case
study

Application of the Model—A Case Study Validation

A real-world example is considered the best way to illustrate the
application of the DMM by a prospective decision maker. Table 9
presents the case study description and Table 10 provides the
application of the DMM and the decision maker’s input in the case
study.
Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate how the elements in levels 1, 2, 3 (Fig. 1),
and 4 (Fig. 2) interact and generate the hierarchical calculations of
the DMM from Steps 1 to 5, followed by the calculation of aggre-
gate value function (AVF) for each alternative. Accordingly, the
alternative Step 4 [i.e., the TIA method, which scored the highest
AVF value (1.0000)], was selected as the most optimum MDA for
delay analysis under the specific circumstances of the project in this
case study.
The DMM was required to be validated for the criteria objec-
tivity, reliability, appropriateness, timeliness, effectiveness, and
efficiency. Considering that other similar model(s) or other gold
standard benchmark for a real system was not available to compare
with the output of the developed model, the following three tech-
niques were used in the evaluation and validation: (1) face validity,
(2) content validity, and (3) internal validity.
The face validity and content validity were secured using a panel
of experts who judged these criteria through the instrument’s ap-
pearance, relevance, and representativeness of its elements (Burton
and Mazerolle 2011; Netemeyer et al. 2003). This panel of experts
consisted of one managing partner, one associate, one consultant,
two managers, one chief QS, and three delay claims practitioners.

© ASCE 04016009-8 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 Table 10. Decision-Making Model Application and Decision Maker’s Input in Case Study
Attributes
1.1. Concurrency and float
ownership defined in the
contract
1.2. Longest path approach
defined in the contract
2.1. Value of the project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2.2. Size of the project
2.3. Duration of the project
2.4. Status (prevailing stage)
of the project
2.5. Complexity of the
project
3.1. Amount of time claimed
3.2. Amount of cost
(of prolongation)
claimed
3.3. Number of events
claimed and to be
analyzed
3.4. Obscurity and
sophistication of issues
in prolongation claims
4.1. Baseline program
availability
4.2. Baseline program type
(e.g., CPM)
4.3. As-built periodical
updates of program
4.4. As-built periodical
updates of program
(mutually agreed)
4.5. Availability of other
records (e.g., daily
records)
5.1. High quality of
transparency (clearly
established causation)
© ASCE
Decision maker’s input
(based on the project-specific
MDA’s behavioral characteristics circumstances of the case study)
• Concurrency is possible to be established by all four MDAs, if properly Concurrency is not defined in the
implemented contract, but float ownership is
• APvAB is not directly affected by ‘float’ ownership but others are
• Only TIA or IAP can prospectively operate with the longest path approach Longest path approach is not required
in expressed terms in the contract
• APvAB and IAP are more effective for low-value projects Project value is high
• CAB and TIA are more effective for high-value projects
• Value is defined as low = < AED 10 million;
moderate = > AED 10 million but < AED 100 million;
high = > AED 100 million
• APvAB and IAP are more effective for small-size projects Project size is medium
• CAB and TIA are more effective for large-size projects
• Size is defined as small= <5,000 m2 ; medium = >5,000 m2 but <50,000 m2 ;
large = >50,000 m2
• APvAB and IAP are more effective for short-duration projects Project duration is medium
• CAB and TIA are more effective for long-duration projects
• Duration is defined as short = <1 year; medium = >1 year but <3 years;
long = >3 years
• At an early stage, APvAB and IAP are more effective Project is at completion stage
• CAB can be used ideally where the actual completion is achieved
• TIA method can be used in all stages
• For simple projects, APvAB and IAP are more effective Project is highly sophisticated
• For complex projects, CAB and TIA are more effective
• Complexity is defined as simple = normal mechanical and electrical (M&E)
works in the scope; moderately complex = some specialist M&E works in the
scope; highly complex = extraordinary M&E requirements in the scope
• If the claimed time is small, APvAB and IAP are more effective Amount of claimed time is moderate
• CAB and TIA are more effective when the claimed time is large
• Amount of claimed time is defined as small = <25% of contract duration;
moderate = >25% but <50% of contract duration; large = >50% of contract
duration
• If the claimed cost is small, APvAB and IAP are more effective Amount of claimed cost is moderate
• CAB and TIA are more effective when the claimed cost is large
• Amount of claimed cost is defined as small = < AED 5 million;
moderate = > AED 5 million but < AED 50 million;
large = > AED 50 million
• If the claimed number of events is few, APvAB and IAP are more effective Many events are claimed
• CAB and TIA are more effective when there are many claimed events
• Number of claimed events is defined as few = <5 events;
moderate = >5 events but <25 events; many = >25 events
• If the issues are simple, APvAB and IAP are more effective Project is complex
• CAB and TIA are more effective if the issues are highly complex
• Complexity of claimed events is defined as simple = no specialist
M&E input required to understand events claimed; moderate = some
specialist M&E input required; complexed = specialist M&E input required
throughout
• Availability and use of a baseline program is critically required for APvAB, Baseline program is in use
IAP, and TIA
• For CAB, a baseline program as not a must
• Availability and use of a CPM baseline program is critically required for IAP CPM baseline program is in use
and TIA
• APvAB and CAB do not need a CPM program
• For TIA, availability of such program updates is a must As-built periodical updates of
• CAB would be benefitted, although it can still do without such updates program are available
• APvAB and IAP do not need such updates
• TIA would be greatly effective with such mutually agreed information As-built periodical updates of
• CAB would be benefitted, although it can still do without program (mutually agreed) are
• APvAB and IAP do not need such updates available
• CAB needs such information (unless there is a mutually agreed as-built Other records are available
program)
• APvAB, IAP, and TIA could be benefitted, although they can still do without
them and rely on program updates
• TIA, CAB, and IAP can establish clear causation High quality of transparency is a
• APvAB’s ability to do this is inadequate priority need
04016009-9 J. Manage. Eng.
J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009
 Table 10. (Continued.)
Attributes
5.2. Need of showing
concurrent delays/
mitigation
5.3. Need to illustrate isolated
delay effects
5.4. Need of sequential
(chronological) analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Decision maker’s input
(based on the project-specific
MDA’s behavioral characteristics circumstances of the case study)
• If properly implemented, all four MDAs are capable of establishing Showing concurrency/mitigation is a
concurrency/mitigation priority need
• IAP’s outcome is more theoretical and subjective than the others
• CAB can satisfy this need directly and with no further exercise This is not a priority need in the
• APvAB, IAP, and TIA cannot satisfy that without further research and filtering, contract
as their delay effects are intertwined
• IAP and TIA methods (both prospectively and retrospectively) and CAB This is not a priority need in the
(retrospectively) can be generally carried out in a chronological order with no contract
extra effort

• APvAB cannot do this with efficient manner

6.1. Expert skills (for analysis
method)
6.2. Concern for cost of
analysis method
6.3. Concern for time to be
spent on analysis
7.0. Need to be readily
admissible in arbitration/
litigation
• APvAB and IAP methods are relatively simple to use and require no such Expert skills are available
expert skills
• CAB and TIA require more expert skills to implement
• APvAB and IAP methods are relatively economical Cost of analysis is not a constraint
• CAB and TIA are more costly to use
• APvAB and IAP methods are comparatively not time-consuming Time of analysis is not a constraint
• CAB and TIA are more time-consuming methods
• CAB and TIA methods are generally favored by arbitrators/courts This is a specified need
• APvsAB and IAP are not readily admissible

Among them were five fellows and one member of Chartered
Institute of Arbitrators, and all of them possessed Masters of
Law degrees in construction law and arbitration specialty. All nine
members of the panel used the DMM in their own case studies for
checking its performance under varying scenarios, confirming a fair
amount of interaction with the DMM.
In the outcome of the evaluation, 89% of the experts confirmed
that the content of the model was simple, comprehensive, and clear
for the user (with 67% stating it was “very simple, comprehensive
and clear”). Although during the model development stage several
iterations of the DMM were conducted to ensure a smooth running
of the final product, the panel of experts was also expected to use it
and evaluate the accuracy of the DMM. According to the results,
most (89%) of the panel decided that “the process is stable and runs
smoothly with no abnormal behavior.” The model’s representative-
ness of the breadth of domain knowledge was also an important
aspect of the evaluation by the experts. The results of this evalu-
ation showed 86% of the experts stating it was “highly adequate”
and 14% stating it was “reasonably adequate.” As to the scales of
scoring used in the DMM, the panel confirmed satisfaction, stating
they were “very suitable” (67%) or “generally suitable” (33%).
Consistency of the model’s delivery of the optimum MDA (output)
under varying scenarios/circumstances (input) was found to be
stable and corresponding to the intended application, when tested
through several iterations during the development stage of the
model. The panel of experts also requested to test this aspect for
determining whether the DMM yielded a satisfactory range of ac-
curacy consistent with intended application (Sargent 2003). The
results of this test showed an overall confirmation from the panel
of experts that the changing scenarios (“input” based on varying
case-study scenarios) applied to the model generated a consistent
and accurate output (the optimum MDA in relation to the “input”).
Of them, 67% thought “output is very consistent and accurate for
the intended purposes of the model.”
For testing internal validity, several iterations of the model
(runs) were carried out with varying potential scenarios in construc-
tion projects. The results proved a high consistency rate, showing
that all “actual” and “predicted” results in 21 times out of a total
32 comparisons were similar. The probability of having 21 similar
results out of 32 comparisons was tested using the exact binomial
probability test (Lowry 2008).
Using the Microsoft Excel 2007 binomial distribution
analysis formula [BINOMDIST (21,32,0.5,0.5)], Pð≤ 21Þ ¼
0.9749487701.
Thus, the probability of having 21 or more similar results from
32 relative comparisons was Pð≥ 21Þ ¼ 1 − ðP < 21Þ ¼ 1 − ½Pð0Þþ
Pð1Þþ · · · þPð20Þ ¼ 1 − 0.9749487701 ¼ 0.0250212299.
This result indicates that the probability of having this level of
consistency in performance occurring by chance was significantly
low. It confirms that the anomalies between the predicted and actual
outcomes of the DMM’s performance in each possible combination
were significantly minimal. These replications also plausibly dem-
onstrate that the model’s consistency in rational outcomes (causal
relationship between input and output) was highly satisfactory, and
thus having a sufficient internal validity.
Accordingly, the DMM demonstrated a reasonably high level
of objectivity, reliability, appropriateness, timeliness, effectiveness,
and efficiency.
Potential Limitations
The main potential limitation of the DMM stems from the input of
the respondents to the in-depth survey. The process of weighted
averages and their normalized weights converted the raw data
collected from the respondents’ ratings (of relative “significance”/
“importance” among the criteria and attributes) into a dimension-
less and comparable common numerical scaling system. However,
the original ratings were entirely determined by the individual
levels of perception and experience of the respondents, and the
competence of their judgments. Therefore, there is a high degree
of reliance toward the database of experts, albeit a significant level
of concordance between the rankings of both groups of survey re-
spondents, as indicated by the test’s statistical tests.
Another potential limitation that may affect the final outcome
are the parameters/factors and weighted ratings allocated for the
decision maker’s input. The currently fixed parameters and ratings
related to decision makers’ input are proven to have reflected
reasonably meaningful behaviors of the MDAs with reference to

© ASCE 04016009-10 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Application of the decision-making model in the case study at levels 1, 2, and 3

© ASCE 04016009-11 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Application of the decision-making model in the case study at level 4

© ASCE 04016009-12 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009

 the corresponding attributes, based on the database of experts gath-
ered in this research. Further expansion of the database will poten-
tially refine the parameters/factors and accuracy.
This DMM may be used in the projects regardless of their differ-
ent delivery methods (e.g., design-build, design-bid-build, design-
build-operate, engineering-procurement-construction). However,
unless the parties to the contract agree to use this DMM, it cannot
be used in a project when the applicable contract has already pre-
scribed a specific MDA for delay analysis.
Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This paper discusses the development and anatomy of the DMM
that was specifically designed to enable the practitioners to choose
the optimum MDA on a more objective and tenable basis for delay
analysis. It is an outcome of a recently completed doctoral research
project.
The development of the DMM was based on the simple additive
weighting method as its decision-making mechanism/algorithm.
The SAW method uses a simplified arithmetical process. Its
hierarchical components consist of a set of criteria and attributes
(or subcriteria) of which the relative significance/importance was
determined by a group of credible practitioners who participated
in the research project. Data collection was facilitated by semistruc-
tured interviews (qualitative data) and an in-depth questionnaire sur-
vey (quantitative data). The mixed-method approach was adopted to
capture these practitioners’ perceived judgments, which was then
captured in a database of experts to develop the DMM. The resulting
DMM is capable of taking the input of a decision-making event and
provided a recommendation in selecting the most optimum MDA
based on the specific characteristics of the particular project.
The DMM has been validated through a series of case studies
and also evaluated by an expert panel (the details of which will be
published in subsequent publications). The findings of the reliabil-
ity and validation significantly confirmed that the developed DMM
performs consistently to the purposes with an appropriate level of
accuracy. As evaluated by an expert panel, with a higher level of
consistency rate, the DMM demonstrated an ability to provide an
objective and tenable basis for selecting an optimum MDA, com-
pared with any other intuitive and one-sided approach for such se-
lection. Therefore, it can be concluded that the research has
developed a robust DMM to improve objectivity in the process
of selecting an optimum MDA to aid and yield a fair and equitable
outcome in apportioning liabilities. Thus, this research paper con-
tributes to the body of knowledge of construction engineering, and
particularly the claims management community, by providing a re-
liable, accurate, and objective tool that can be used in minimizing
the potential for conflict and disputes arising from apportioning li-
abilities in construction delays.
Nevertheless, because the main mathematical basis for the func-
tion of the DMM is largely determined by psychological constructs
of the individuals (respondents), further research is recommended
for ensuring continuous refinement and expansion of the DMM
in its database of experts by incorporating them into the DMM’s
database.
References
AACE International. (2007). Recommended practice No. 29R-03, 〈http://
www.aacei.org〉 (Oct. 28, 2008).
AACE International. (2011). Recommended practice No. 29R-03, 〈http://
www.aacei.org〉 (Jun. 18, 2012).
© ASCE 04016009-13
J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009
ACA (Australian Constructors Association). (1999). “Australian construc-
tion productivity: International comparison.” Canberra, Australia.
Alkass, S., and Golanaraghi, S. (2012). Modified isolated delay type
technique, 〈http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-23.pdf〉
(Jun. 30, 2012).
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., and Harris, F. (1996). “Construction delay analysis
techniques.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 14(5), 375–394.
Al Saggaf, H. A. (1998). “The five commandments of construction project
delay analysis.” Cost Eng., 40(4), 37.
Al Sehaimi, A., Koskela, L., and Tzortzopoulos, P. (2013). “Need for alter-
native research approaches in construction management: Case of delay
studies.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000148,
407–413.
Arditi, D., and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2006). “Selecting a delay analysis
method in resolving construction claims.” Int. J. Project Manage.,
24(2), 145–155.
Baram, G. E. (1994). “Delay analysis—Issues not for granted.” Transac-
tions of AACE, Morgantown, WV.
Baram, G. E. (2000). “The window methods of analyzing delay claims.”
AACEI Trans.
Bernstein, S., and Bernstein, R. (1999). Schaum’s outline of theory and
problems of elements of statistics II inferential statistics, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Bowling, A. (1997). Research methods in health, Open University Press,
Buckingham, U.K.
Braimah, N. (2013). “Understanding construction delay analysis and the
role of preconstruction programming.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000216, 04014023.
Braimah, N., and Ndekugri, I. (2007). “Factors influencing the selection
of delay analysis methodologies.” Int. J. Project Manage., 26(8),
789–799.
Bubshait, A. A., and Cunningham, M. J. (1998). “Comparison of delay
analysis methods.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(1998)124:4(315), 315–322.
Burns, N., and Grove, S. K. (1997). The practice of nursing research con-
duct, critique, and utilization, W. B. Saunders and Co., Philadelphia.
Burton, L. J., and Mazerolle, S. M. (2011). “Survey instrument validity.
Part I: Principles of survey instrument development and validation in
athletic training education research.” Athletic Training Educ. J., 6(1),
27–35.
Chang, Y. H., and Yeh, C. H. (2001). “Evaluating airline competitiveness
using multiattribute decision making.” Omega, 29(5), 405–415.
Chen, S. J., and Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making: Methods and applications, Springer, New York.
Cheung, S. O., Chow, P. T., and Yiu, T. W. (2009). “Contingent use of
negotiatiors’ tactics in construction dispute negotiation.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:6(466), 466–476.
Chou, S. Y., Chang, Y. H., and Shen, C. Y. (2008). “A fuzzy simple additive
weighting system under group decision-making for facility location se-
lection with objective/subjective attributes.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 189(1),
132–145.
Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting
mixed method research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
El-Adaway, E. H., Fawzy, S. A., Bingham, R., Clark, P., and Tidwell, T.
(2014). “Different delay analysis techniques applied to the American
Institute of Architects A201-2007 standard form of contract.” J. Legal
Affairs Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170
.0000145, 02514001-1–02514001-9.
Farrow, T. (2001). Delay analysis—Methodology and mythology, 〈http://
www.scl.org.uk〉 (Sep. 2, 2008).
Fawzy, S. W., and El-Adaway, E. H. (2012). “Contract administration
guidelines for effectively and efficiently applying different delay analy-
sis techniques under world bank- funded projects.” J. Legal Affairs Dis-
pute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000104,
35–44.
Friday-Stroud, S. S., and Sutterfield, J. S. (2007). “A conceptual framework
for integrating six-sigma and strategic management methodologies
to quantify decision making.” TQM Mag., 19(6), 561–571.
Fruchtman, E. Z. (2000). “Delay analysis—Eliminating the smoke and
mirrors.” AACE Int. Trans., Cdr.06.1–Cdr.06.4.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Ginevicius, R., and Podvezko, V. (2004). “Determination of weightiness
of the hierarchically-structured organization according to its commer-
cial activity.” Foundations of civil and environmental engineering,
Publishing House of Poznan Univ. of Technology, Poznan, Poland,
21–33.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology
of grounded theory, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management,
business and market researchers, Sage, London.
Gündüz, M., Nielsen, Y., and Özdemir, M. (2013). “Quantification of delay
factors using the relative importance index method for construction
projects in Turkey.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000129, 133–139.
Harrison, E. F. (1975). The managerial decision-making process,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queens University Libraries on 12/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Hobbs, B. J., Chankong, V., Hamadeh, W., and Stakhiv, E. (1992). “Does
choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resource
planning.” Water Resour. Res., 28(7), 1767–1779.
Hwang, C. L., and Lin, M. J. (1987). Group decision making under multi-
ple criteria: Methods and applications, Springer, New York.
Hwang, C. L., and Yoon, K. (1981). “Multiple attribute decision making–
Method and applications.” A state-of-the-art survey, Springer,
New York.
Keane, P. J., and Caletka, A. F. (2008). Delay analysis in construction
contracts, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
Keeny, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives,
Wiley, New York.
Latham, M. (1994). Latham Rep.—Constructing the Team, Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office, London.
Likert, R. (1932). “A technique for the measurement of attitudes.” Arch.
Psychol., 140, 1–55.
Livengood, J. C. (2007a). The new AACEI recommended practice on foren-
sic schedule analysis—Part five of a five-part series: Choosing the right
methodology, 〈http://www.aacei.org〉 (Apr. 7, 2008).
Livengood, J. C. (2007b). The new AACEI recommended practice on foren-
sic schedule analysis—Part one of a five-part series: The methodology
debate, 〈http://www.aacei.org〉 (May 28, 2007).
Lovejoy, V. A. (2004). “Claims schedule development and analysis:
Collapsed as-built scheduling for beginners.” Cost Eng., 46(1), 27–30.
Lowry, R. (2008). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics,
〈http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/webtext.html〉 (May 21, 2011).
Lucas, E. D. (2002). “Schedule analyzer pro—An aid in the analysis of
delay time impact analysis.” Cost Eng., 44(8), 30–36.
MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). “Decision making among multiple attribute
alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach.” RM-4823-ARPA,
RAND Corp., Santa Monica, CA.
Mahamid, I., Bruland, A., and Dmaidi, N. (2012). “Causes of delay in road
construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000096, 300–310.
Modarres, M., and Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2005). “Fuzzy simple additive weight-
ing method by preference ratio.” Intell. Autom. Soft Comput., 11(4),
235–244.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., and Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling proce-
dures: Issues and applications, Sage Publications, London.
Perera, N., and Sutrisna, M. (2010). Research methodological position for
a doctoral study on apportioning liability in delay claims, 〈http://www
.irbdirekt.de/daten/iconda/CIB18326.pdf〉 (Jul. 30, 2011).
© ASCE 04016009-14
J. Manage. Eng., 2016, 32(5): 04016009
Perera, N. A. (2012). “Apportioning liability in construction delay claims:
An evaluation of contemporary practices in the U.A.E. and a proposal
for improvements.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Salford, Salford, U.K.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013). A guide to the project man-
agement body of knowledge (PMBOK guide), 5th Ed., Sylva, NC.
Reams, P., and Twale, D. (2008). “The premise of mixed methods: Discov-
ering conflicting realities in the data.” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 31(2),
133–142.
Ruqaishi, M., and Bashir, H. A. (2014). “Causes of delay in construction
projects in the oil and gas industry in the Gulf cooperation council coun-
tries: A case study.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000248, 05014017.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analystic hierarchy process, Wiley, New York.
Saaty, T. L. (2006). Fundamentals of decision making and priority
theory with the analystic hierarchy process, 2nd Ed., RWS Publica-
tions, Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T. L. (2009). Theory and applications of the analytic network
process—Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks,
RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Sargent, R. G. (2003). “Verification and validation of simulation models.”
Proc., 2003 Winter Simulation Conf.
Schumacher, L. (1995). “Quantifying and apportioning delay on construc-
tion projects.” Cost Eng., 37(2), 11–13.
Schwartzkopf, W., and McNamara, J. J. (2001). Calculating construction
damages, 2nd Ed., Aspen Publishers, New York.
SCL (Society of Construction Law). (2002). Delay and disruption protocol,
〈http://www.scl.org.uk or http://www.eotProtocol.com〉 (Sep. 10, 2007).
Sutrisna, M. (2004). “Developing a knowledge based system for the
valuation of variations on civil engineering works.” Ph.D. thesis, Re-
search Institute in Advanced Technologies, Univ. of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, U.K.
Taylor, B., Sinha, G., and Ghoshal, T. (2008). Research methodology: A
guide for researchers in management and social sciences, Mudrak,
New Delhi, India.
Virvou, M., and Kabassi, K. (2004). “Evaluating an intelligent graphical
user interface by comparison with human experts.” Knowledge-Based
Syst., 17(1), 31–37.
Waller, D. L. (2010). Statistics for business, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken,
NJ.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yates, D. J. (1998). Conflict and disputes in the development process: A
transaction cost economics perspective, 〈http://www.prres.net/
proceedings/proceedings1998/Papers/Yates3Ai.PDF〉 (Nov. 26, 2014).
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Yoon, K. P., and Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making—
An introduction, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zack, J. G., Jr. (2001). “But-for schedules-analysis and defense.” Cost Eng.,
43(8), 13–17.
Zanakis, S., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S., Sahay, S., and Hong, S. (1995). “A
review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within
the service and government sectors.” Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci., 29(1),
59–79.
Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., and Dublish, S. (1998). “Multi-
attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods.”
Eur. J. Oper. Res., 107(3), 507–529.
J. Manage. Eng.