T ECHNICAL A RTICLE
nique gives an unrealistic result, since the
Current Delay Analysis
Techniques and Improvements
Dr. Satish B. Mohan and Khalid S. Al-Gahtani
ABSTRACT: Although, ‘but-for,’ and ‘windows’ methods are widely used in analyzing delays on
construction projects, these methods suffer from several weaknesses, and need improvement.
This article discusses some improvements to the currently used delay analysis techniques. An
ideal method should include all types of delays, accelerations, pacing delays; and a definition of
concurrent delay that matches with real resources allocation profiles. Also, the delay analysis
should proceed one day at a time, accounting for the changes in criticalities of the project activ-
ities. A version of this article was included as paper PS.20 on the 2005 AACE International
Transactions CD.
KEY WORDS: Acceleration, construction, critical path, delay analysis and pacing delays
everal techniques have been devel-
S oped for analyzing delay claims by
using CPM, in the last two decades.
Of the ten techniques mentioned in the lit-
erature, ‘but-for’ and ‘Windows’ methods
are widely used in analyzing delays on con-
struction projects. However, these methods
suffer from several weaknesses, and need
improvement.
The ‘concurrent delay’ does not have a
uniform definition across all of the tech-
niques, which can give widely varying enti-
tlements. Pacing delays, and accelerations
have not been included in the analyses.
All of the techniques work on a time
window, or the total delay event, in one
shot. Critical paths might change during
the window time, thus changing the com-
putation of project delay. Also, during the
course of the project, actions of various
project participants continually change
floats of noncritical activities, and affect the
resource allocation flexibility available to
the construction firms. Activity float is con-
sidered as an asset, the equivalent of
money, but the current methods do not
take any account of this fact.
An ideal method should include all
types of delays, accelerations, pacing
delays; and a definition of concurrent delay
that matches with real resources allocation
profiles. Also, the delay analysis should pro-
ceed one day at a time, accounting for the
changes in criticalities of the project activi-
ties. Since a delay on one activity affects
the floats of several other activities in the
network, the responsibility of each delay
should include all network wide conse-
quences.
12 Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006
total delays are much bigger than the actu-
al project overrun. As result, this technique
overstates the entitlement of delays. In
addition, this technique ignores the effect
of concurrent delays. Also, this technique
dose not scrutinize delay types. Therefore,
responsibilities for delays can not be fixed.
Finally, this technique ignores the delay on
critical path which assumes that every
delay has an equal impact on the project
duration.
As-Planned Technique
The as-planned technique is also
known as the “What if technique” [14, 15].
This method uses an as-planned schedule
as the baseline schedule. It simply impacts
the as-planned schedule with owner-
caused delay. Then it compares the affect
Delay Analysis Techniques
The following techniques have been
mostly used for analyzing delay claims in
of the as-planned schedule before and after
the impact, to determine the compensable
damages. On the other hand, liquidated
damages can be calculated by impacting
US construction.
the as-planned schedule by all contractor
caused delay events. Then, compare the
• global impact technique, [2];
project completion date between the two
• as-planned technique, [6, 7];
schedules [6].
• impacted as-planned technique [18];
This technique is implemented by two
• as-built technique, [6, 7];
methods [7]. The first method uses a gross
• time impact technique, [2];
measure, which impacts the as-planned
• but-for technique, [2];
schedule of owner-caused delay or contrac-
• isolated delay type (IDT), [2];
tor-caused delay as one shot. Figure 1
• window snapshot technique, [2, 5,10];
shows the flowchart of this method. The
• window but for technique [5]; and
second method uses a unit of measure
• total float management technique [1].
which impacts each individual delay event
on the as-planned schedule to determine
Global Impact Technique
each of their effects.
The global impact technique is a sim-
One of the negative side of the as-
plistic way to depict the impact of delay-
planned technique is the fact that it ignores
causing events.
the affect of other party delay events and
In this method, the delay start and fin-
excusable, noncompensable, delay events.
ish dates are determined for each event,
This method uses the as-planned schedule
and all the delays and disruptions are plot-
as a baseline schedule. This doesn’t repre-
ted on a bar chart. The total delay to the
sent the actual sequence of the project and
project is calculated to be the sum total of
the change orders. Also, this method dose
the durations of all delaying events [2].
not take into account the fact of changing
The implementation of this technique
the critical path during the project
is done in the following three steps.
progress. Finally, this method dose not
define exactly the concurrent delay.
• Determine start and finish dates of
each delay event.
Impacted As-Planned Technique
• Plot all delays and disruptions on a bar
This technique is closest to the as-
chart.
planned technique unit of measure. This
• Total project delay = ∑ All delayed
method starts by sorting the delayed events
events.
in a time sequence manner. Also, the criti-
cal path(s) of the as-planned schedule are
Obviously, this technique has many
identified. Then, the critical path is placed
weaknesses. First, the outcome of this tech-
on a time sequence with sorted delayed
events. The difference between each
impacted as-planned critical path(s) and
the previous one, is the delay resulting from
the delayed event. Compensable damages
will be the summation of all critical path
delayed events of owner-caused-delay. On
the other hand, the summation of all criti-
cal path delayed events of contractor
caused delay will be the liquidated dam-
ages. Figure 2 shows the flowchart of this
method.
Several weaknesses were found in this
method [18]. Freezing the as-planned criti-
cal path is not quite right. This is because
the critical path might shift during the proj-
ect progress. Also, this method ignores
updating the schedule with as-built data.
This might lead to a failure to depict the
actual situation of delay events. Inaccurate
analysis might result.

As-Built Technique
This technique is also termed as the
net impact technique [2]. This technique
simply compares the calculated dates on an
as-built schedule with an as-planned sched-
ule. This technique was implemented by
comparing the as-planned total float with
the delayed events of each activity [7]. Figure 1 — As-Planned Technique (Gross Measure)
Figure 3 shows the flowchart of this tech-
nique.
The adjusted as-built technique has
the same concept as the as-built technique
[1]. The adjusted as-built technique is used
when an as-built schedule is not available.
The as-planned schedule is adjusted by
inserting delay events as new activities to
the schedule. Then, one adjusts the
sequence of the project.
One of the negative sides of an as-built
technique is not considering the real time
delay during the progress of the work. In
addition, the concurrent delay issue is not
addressed. Consequently, this technique is
not a favorite one to use.

Time Impact Technique Analysis

The time impact method is used by
the US Corps of Engineers. This technique
is termed as an “updated impact” or a “con-
temporaneous impact” technique [6].
The time impact technique examines
the effects of delays, or delaying events, at
different times in the project. It is different
from other window techniques in that the
time impact technique concentrates on a
specific delay or delaying event, not a time
or window period.
The idea is to obtain a ‘stop-action’
Figure 2 — Impacted As-Planned Technique

Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006 13

 picture of the project before, and/or after, a
major delaying event has occurred on an
activity.
For each delayed activity, the as-
planned schedule is updated with as-built
data before starting that activity. Then,
impact the updated schedule with the
delay event to get a new completion date.
The difference between the two comple-
tion dates of two schedules is the effect that
the particular delay event had on the proj-
ect [1]. Figure 3 show the flowchart of this
technique.
Although the time impact technique is
an excellent technique to use to analyze a
delay claim, this technique fails to address
the issue of concurrent delay accurately.
This technique analyzes each delayed
event independently. So, if there are two
concurrent delay events, the technique will
not ignore the concurrency period of delay,
rather it will consider the both delayed
events, as they are not concurrent. In there
are many delayed events, this technique
process will become overwhelming.

But-for or Collapsing Technique

The but-for technique is viewed as the
most acceptable method by US courts [20]. Figure 3 — As-Built Technique
Anther popular name for this technique is
the collapsed technique [18]. This tech-
nique is implemented twice, once from the
owner’s point of view and the other from
contractor’s point of view.
The but-for schedule from the owner’s
view point starts with taking off all the con-
tractor delay events from the as-built sched-
ule, and comparing the as-built schedule
with this collapsed schedule.
By doing this, the difference will rep-
resent the contractor delays for liquidated
damages.
A but-for schedule from the contrac-
tor’s view point is the opposite of the
owner’s but-for schedule. It starts with tak-
ing off all the owner delay events from the
as-built schedule to determine owner
delays by comparing the as-built schedule
with the collapsed schedule. The differ-
ence will represent the owner delays, for
which the owner is liable to pay damages to
the contractor. Figure 4 represents the
flowchart of this method.
There are two implementation meth-
ods for this technique, gross measure and
unit of measure [18]. Gross measure is the
most popular methodology and is as previ-
ously described. The unit of measure is
rarely used. It is different from gross meas-
Figure 4 — Time Impact Technique

14 Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006

ure in that rather than collapsing the as-
built schedule with all delayed events of
one party, it collapses each delayed event
individually.
Although the but-for technique is a
popular technique, it has a major weakness.
Delay events are collapsed in one shot to
the as-built schedule; and any changes in
the critical paths during the course of the
delay event are not considered. This has the
potential of giving inaccurate results.
Concurrent delay is not addressed in an
accurate way.
Isolated Delay Type (IDT) Technique
The IDT technique is one of the tech-
niques that uses the windows concept. It
divides the total project time into shorter
analysis periods or windows.
The IDT technique isolates the analy-
sis by the type of delays. For example, NE,
EN, and EC; and then applies them once
from the owner’s viewpoint and then from
the contractor’s viewpoint.
Each period of analysis includes the
delay events of each entitlement schedule,
depending on each party’s responsibility
(excusable compensable delay (EC), and
non-excusable delay for the contractor
(NE), or excusable non-compensable delay
(EN)). Any modification of the as-planned
schedule should be effected in each period
of analysis or window. Figure 5 shows the
flowchart of this technique.
There are some weaknesses to the IDT
technique. First, incorporating delays in
one shot in each time period or window is
not realistic. The critical path(s) might
change during the process. Also, weather
conditions cannot be determined from the
entitlements schedule [9]. Also, any con-
currence of delays is not precisely account-
ed for.
Window Snapshot Technique
This method is the most popular win-
dows techniques method. This technique is
used to determine: the amount of delay that
has occurred on a project, when the delay
occurred, and the cause(s) of the delay.
The total project duration is divided
into a number of time periods, snapshots, or
windows. The dates of these snapshots usu-
ally coincide with major project milestones,
significant changes in planning, or when a
major delay or group of delays is known to
have occurred.
The relationships and duration of the
as-built data within the snapshot period are
Figure 5 — But-For Technique (Gross Measure)
between as-built technique and but-for
imposed upon the as-planned schedule,
technique. The major weakness of but-for
while maintaining the relationships and
technique is not considering the changing
duration of the as-planned schedule for the
of the critical path during the project
remaining activities after the snapshot peri-
progress. This technique treats this defi-
od. The project completion date of the
ciency by repeating the but-for methodolo-
extended schedule is compared with the
gy in window periods to catch the changing
established, as-planned completion date of
of the critical path. This technique is also
the project prior to this procedure.
termed as contemporaneous period analysis
The difference between the comple-
(CPA) [14,15]. This technique repeats the
tion dates is the amount of delay that
analysis in each window by collapsing each
occurred to the project as a result of delay-
party's’ delay events and comparing the
ing events during that snapshot period.
project completion dates before and after
Once the amount of delay is determined,
the collapsing. Figure 7 shows the flow-
the causes of delay are assessed [2]. Such
chart of this method.
analysis is done for all snapshot periods,
This technique is the most accurate for
and the total delay is then computed as the
analyzing delay claims. However, this
sum of delays in each period. Figure 6
method may not catch the shifting of the
shows the flowchart of this process.
critical path if it occurs during the window
The weakness of this technique is that
periods. This might lead to inaccurate
it does not scrutinize delay types prior to
results.
the analysis; therefore the responsibilities of
the delaying parties can not be appor- If the window periods are changed, a
different result may occur. There is a ques-
tioned. However, many other studies try to
tion of how to define the concurrent delay
assign methodology to assign the delays
period by using the but-for technique. M.
responsibilities [5, 9, 10, 14, 15].
Finke, in 1999, introduced a methodology
to determine the concurrent delay period
by using the window concept, combined
Windows-But for Technique with the collapsing technique [9].
This technique is a combination However, the proposed method focuses
Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006 15
 only on determining compensable damages PREREQUISITES OF A SOUND may then be on a critical path.
for the owner. Finke explained a minor defi- DELAY ANALYSIS SYSTEM In view of this phenomenon, the previ-
ciency of defining the concurrent delay peri- ous techniques have the following three
od. He called it false concurrent. This minor Real time Analysis groups.
deficiency appears when the window inter- The delay analysis should use the
val is changed. CPM network that was in effect when the • The first group, which applies total
delay event started. Critical path(s) is/are delays in one shot, ignores the change
Total Float Management Techniques changeable during the project time. As the of the critical path which leads to inac-
This technique is a new technique project progresses, delays and disruptions curate results.
which follows a different approach. The occur. Delays on the critical path(s) delay • The second group, such as the win-
methodology for the TF management tech- the project’s completion date, while dows techniques, are trying to catch
nique follows a day-by-day analysis, rather delays/disruptions on the noncritical paths the change of critical path by applying
than using a Window periods analysis. do not. But at some point in the middle of the concept of the window. However,
In each delayed day, three major analy- the delay process, some non-critical path(s) the critical path might be change dur-
ses are performed. First is defining the criti- may turn critical, and a portion of the delay ing the window period which might
cal path delays. Second is addressing the
concurrent delays responsibilities. Since the
daily method is used, the accuracy of defin-
ing the concurrent delay period is high.
The third analyses concerns of defining
the responsibility of delaying on noncritical
paths and total float (TF). Defining the
responsibilities of delaying on TF, results on
the outcome results of all the techniques
being different. Some issues like pacing
delay have only recently occurred [20].
Figure 10 shows the flowchart of this tech-
nique.
One concern of using the day-by-day
analysis is the availability of time and data
for the delay events. TF management is
designed to work during the project progress
by integrating the calculation of the analysis
with the updated schedules. For example, by
the end of month, the owner and contractor
know about the delay times and responsibil-
ities. Also, they know the TF and TF’s enti-
tlement for each party.
Another concern is about affecting the
approved change order and planned accel-
eration on the daily analysis. For this reason,
the analysis requires an updating of the
schedule as soon as the change order and
owner-directed-acceleration is approved, as
shown in figure 10. The previous concerns,
as well as other concerns such defining the
delay of productivity and multiple calendars
in the schedule, can be solved by including
the delay/acceleration responsibilities in the
scheduling software.

Other Techniques for Measuring Delays

Some other techniques have been intro-
duced in other studies concerning calculat-
ing delay in CPM schedules [13, 16, 17].
These methods use mathematical patterns
and logical relationships to measure the
delay on the schedule. None of these meth-
ods define responsibility for the delay.
Figure 6 — Isolated Delay Type (IDT) Technique

16 Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006

 lead again to inaccurate results.
• The third group is the daily analysis
technique, and this is the most accu-
rate technique to use in trying to catch
the critical path. This technique can
be time consuming if it does not follow
a systematic approach and program. A
day-by-day concept was introduced in
some studies [3, 13]. However, it
applied day-by-day in a different way
with a purpose of defining the critical
path and TF management.
Cost of Delay and Acceleration
All of the currently available tech-
niques calculate the total project delay, and
its apportionment between the project par-
ticipations. During the delay analysis, some
activities are delayed, and some others
might have been accelerated. None of the
current delay analysis considers the respon-
sibility of an accelerating project in delay
analysis [19].
None of the techniques define the
responsibility of acceleration when it is
considered as part of the analysis. The
acceleration responsibilities should be
defined as follows.
allel path activities in the same time peri-
od. The concurrent delays may be all on
critical paths, all on noncritical paths or
distributed between critical paths and non-
critical paths. Additionally, if two delayed
events are caused by two different parties
on the same activity, in the same time
frame, then such delay is also included in
the definition of concurrent delay.
Concurrent delay is an important issue
in delay analysis claims. The complexity of
this type of delay occurs because of the dif-
ficulty in determining the concurrency
period and in fixing the responsibility.
Several court cases reviewed in the litera-
ture for this article had different apportion-
ment of responsibilities for concurrent
delay [3, 4, 8, 11, 12].
There are two rules to define the con-
current delay responsibilities in US courts.
These are referred to as the “Easy Rule”
and “Fair Rule” [11]. The fair-rule appor-
tions the responsibility of concurrent delay
between both contract parties, while the
easy-rule does not. However, in both rules,
any delay concurrent with excusable non-
compensable delay (EN) apportions only a
time extension, without compensable
costs[11].
There are three major difficulties in
calculating concurrent delay [3]. First is
the difficulty on how to agree on the con-
currency period of two or more delay
events. Usually, the concurrent delay
events occur in two or more concurrent
activities, which have different start and fin-
ish dates, and only portions of these activi-
ties are concurrent [3, 11].
The phenomenon of forming new crit-
ical paths because of consuming the total

• Owner Directed Acceleration (OA)—

any acceleration that the owner is
responsible for.
• Contractor Acceleration (CA)—any
voluntary acceleration from the con-
tractor.
• Schedule Acceleration (SA)—any
acceleration that is not caused by the
owner or contractor such as an
improvement in weather conditions.

In addition, the impact of delay or

acceleration on all of the project activities
is assumed to be equal, which is not true.
Each of the activities has a unique cost
slope, (i.e., the cost of compression, or sav-
ings of decompression per unit time are dif-
ferent for each of the activities.) This dis-
tinction should be reflected in a sound
analysis.

Concurrent Delay
Any delay analysis system must take
into account the concurrence of delayed
activities to avoid the error of multiple
counting of the project delay days.
The type of delay on each of the con-
current activities should also be known for
distributing the delay between the responsi-
ble parties. Concurrent delays occur in par-
Figure 7 — Window Snapshot Technique

Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006 17

 floats of noncritical activities presents the maximize profit. However, this right is not difficulties, consider a situation where the
second major difficulty. clearly applicable because some of the owner caused a delay in the critical path
The third difficulty is introduced with issues in delay analysis have not yet been which resulted in increasing the total floats
the issue of pacing delay. If the concurrent of the non-critical path activities. Now, if
solved to the satisfaction of all parties. For
delays are on critical paths, and if the example, consider the following issues. the contractor consumed this increased
owner delays the critical path, the contrac- total float by decelerating his work in any
tor can decelerate his work on the parallel • Who owns the total float in the initial of the non-critical activities (by minimizing
critical paths in order to be critical. as-planned schedule? his crew size, for example), the contractor
By forming a concurrent critical path, • As a result of changing the initial total will have two types of cost savings.
the contractor can take advantages of float, who has the right to get a credit
decelerating the concurrent activity [20]. or discredit for changing the total • he/she will claim compensation for
Using the fair rule partially solves the prob- float? any damages that are caused because
lem, because the contractor will use the • How to solve the issue of pacing delay of delaying the project time, and
concurrent delay period for deceleration. that falls within concurrent delay? • he/she will also get benefits of decom-
However, in these circumstances, it is pressing some of the non-critical activ-
necessary to also consider the delay in any ities
noncritical activity. This manipulation, These issues have been addressed by
whether intentional or unintentional, can James G. Zack in a July 2000 Cost Such a situation of double benefits
be avoided. This is done by the contractor Engineering article, Pacing Delays - the may also occur when the owner delays on
using only his/her total floats (by assuming Practical Effect [20]. To understand these a critical activity, and the contractor uses
he/she owns the float by the contract), not
any total floats owned by the owner.
Several techniques have tried to solve
these issues [2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11]. Some of
them make approximations and some oth-
ers are accurate but difficult to apply. The
ideal technique to solve these issues is
monitoring the concurrent delay one day at
a time throughout the analysis period.
Starting with the baseline schedule,
delayed events will be added, one day at a
time, until the as-built schedule is reached.
If two delayed events affect the schedule
concurrently on a certain day, then any
changes to project completion will be
apportioned between the parties, according
to the fair rule. The proposed day-by-day
analysis is the most accurate method.
Use of the but-for technique solves the
concurrent delay issue. However, this tech-
nique fails to address any changing of the
critical path, and it fails to catch the con-
currency periods. This technique does not
solve the concurrent delay in an accurate
way. Also, the Windows technique fails to
solve the three concurrent delay issues in
an accurate way.

Pacing Delay
The definition of pacing delay is as fol-
lows. “Deceleration of the project work, by
one of the parties to the contract, because
of a delay to the end date of the project
caused by the other party, so as to maintain
steady progress with the revised overall
project schedule.”
The ‘means and methods’ clause
grants the contractor the right to decelerate
his work in order to lower his/her cost and Figure 8 — Window But-For Technique

18 Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006

the delay on a critical activity, on a parallel
path.
None of the current delay analysis
techniques have addressed pacing delay
[20]. Most of these techniques, such as but
for, isolated delay type (IDT), and windows
techniques, have solved the problems of
pacing delay that fall within concurrent
delay by isolating the delay types based on
responsibilities. Since the analysis sched-
ule is different from the project schedule,
pacing delay is not clearly identified. An
accurate technique that formulates the cal-
culation of concurrent delay and pacing
delay that occur simultaneously has been
examined in the total float management
technique [1].
The but-for technique decreases com-
pensable delay as a result of pacing delay,
because it shortens the compensable time
between when the project would have
ended but-for the owner-caused delays
[20]. The but-for technique clearly gives
unexpected results because the total floats
that are in the project are different from the
total floats that the owner or contractor
have in their entitlement schedules.
This technique and other techniques
that depend on isolating delays into two
entitlement schedules, such as in windows
and IDT techniques, fail to address the Figure 9 — Total Float Management Technique
issue of who owns the float? [2, 5, 9, 10].
By making two entitlement schedules in the activities of the path in some ration- • The number of days the project
the but-for technique, both the owner and al manner. Several distribution methods completion was delayed by each
the contractor own the same initial total have been suggested; the owner and the party, and
float. In the project schedule there is only contractor(s) should agree to a formula • The changes in total floats on each
one total float on each path to deal with. If before the start of the project. With of the activities caused by each
one party consumes the total float, the total every change in the floats, because of a party.
float that can be consumed by the other delay event, the party responsible for
delay should be credited or discredited Both of the above measures can be
party is reduced or becomes zero.
for the corresponding changes in total quantified in dollars.
Float Ownership floats (TFs).
One of the formulas is fixing respon- Fuzzy Logic
Since the inception of CPM, man-
sibility for delays. The responsibility for It is not always possible to recon-
agement has an effective tool to opti-
each delay should include the following struct an as-built project schedule with
mize the allocation of resources by
two elements. acceptable accuracy. This is because of
focusing on critical and near-critical
the lack of a complete database of all
activities. This has made the ownership
• Type of delay; and delay events as they happened. However,
of floats on noncritical activities a criti-
cal matter. • Change in total floats on noncritical there are statistical techniques, and
Although the CPM analysis gives an activities that occurred because of a methods using artificial intelligence
independent float (IF), and also a free delay on any critical or noncritical which take partial and/or incomplete
float (FF) to each noncritical activity, activity. data and estimate the values of missing
these floats do not consider the total data. Such fuzzy analysis techniques
effort in terms of duration, cost, or work- A running tally of the above two require information on some of the data
er-hours, and do not necessarily lead to a delay responsibilities for each activity points spread throughout the project
fair distribution. should be maintained until the end of time. Currently, a fuzzy logic analysis
The total float (TF), which belongs the analysis. The end result of the delay for delay analysis has not been formulat-
to a path within the network, provides a analysis should be expressed in the fol- ed, and needs to be developed as soon as
number that can be distributed between lowing two units. possible.

Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006 19

 From the previous discussion of the
prerequisites, there are three common
delay types that should be addressed in
all of the techniques. The three types
include the following.

• concurrent delay;
• real time delay; and
• pacing delay.

Table 1 compares all the currently

used techniques with the three common
issues in the delay claims analysis.

A Proposed Delay Analysis System

In view of some obvious and some
potential problems, a suggested delay
analysis technique should include the
following elements.

• The system should use CPM; and

also a bar chart, both on the same
page. Table 1 — Comparison of Current Techniques on Delay Types Used
• The system should distribute the
ownership of the path’s total float
(TFs) to individual activities on the
path, at the beginning of the analy-
sis.
• The analysis should start with the
first delay, and then other delays in a
chronological order.
• On the first day of the first delay
event, all concurrent delays should Table 2 — Output of a Delay Analysis
be included in the analysis.
• The type of delay and the corre- delays and changes in total floats, been described, and an algorithm for its
sponding responsibility of each • The analysis should proceed one implementation provided.
delay should be identified. Any delay-day at a time until the end of A new concept introduced in this
changes in the network total floats, the project. A running tally of all article is the value of total float on non-
because of the one-day delay, should delays, accelerations, suspensions, critical activities. Since the availability
be credited to the party responsible and interruptions, etc, should be of total float on an activity enables a con-
for this one-day delay. maintained throughout the project. tractor to decompress the activity, he/she
• Pacing delays, accelerations, and Also the corresponding responsibili- can affect savings. A suggestion has also
suspensions should be identified ties for each event should be record- been made to insert delays one day at a
and assigned responsibility. ed, time, so that the changes in criticalities
• Since the cost of one day decom- • The end results of the analysis of the activities are accounted for in the
pression, or compression is unique should be tabulated as in Table 2. next day analysis. ◆
for each activity, the cost slope of
his article has presented the cur- REFERENCES

each of the project activities should
be determined, and tabulated.
• The delay in project completion
date, and the changes in total floats
of all noncritical activities because
of one-day delay events should be
recorded.
• The project schedule should be
updated each day, including all
T
rently available delay analysis 1. Al-Gahtani, Khalid S. and Satish
techniques, and brought out the B. Mohan, Total Float
weaknesses of each of them. Of the ten Management for Delay Analysis,
techniques, the but-for and windows 2005 AACE International
techniques are most often used. These Transactions, CDR.16, AACE
techniques have improved over the earli- International, Morgantown, WV,
er techniques, but have some weakness- 2005.
es. An ideal delay analysis technique has 2. Alkass, S., M. Mazerolle, and F.

20 Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006

 Harris. Construction Delay
Analysis Techniques. Construction
Management and Economics, 14,
(1996): 375-394.
3. Arditi, D., and M.A. Robinson.
Concurrent Delays in Construction
Litigation, Cost Engineering,
AACE International, Morgantown,
WV. Vol. 37, No. 07, (1995).
4. Baram, George E., Concurrent
Delays - What Are They and How to
Deal With Them?, AACE
International Transactions,
CDR.07, AACE International,
Morgantown, WV, 2000.
5. Baram, George E., The Window
Methods of Analyzing Delay
Claims, AACE International
Transactions, AACE International,
Morgantown, WV, 2000.
6. Bramble, Barry B. and Michael T.
Callahan, Construction Delay
Claims, Aspen Law & Business,
New York 2000.
7. Bubshait, Abdulaziz A. and
Michael J. Cunningham,
Comparison of Delay Analysis
Methodologies, Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 124, No. 4,
(July/August 1998): pp. 315-322.
8. Bubshait, Abdulaziz A., Michael J.,
Cunningham, Management of
Concurrent Delay in Construction,
Cost Engineering, Vol. 46, No. 06,
(2004). AACE International,
Morgantown, WV.
9. Finke, M., Window Analyses of
Compensable Delays. Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 125, 2,
(1999): 96-100.
10. Galloway, Patricia. Kris R. Nielsen.
Window Analyses: An Innovative
Concept to Schedule Delay
Analyses. Proceedings of the
Project Management Institute
16th Annual Seminar
Symposium. Publ by Project
Management Inst, Drexel Hill, PA,
USA. p 72-81
11. Kraiem, Z. M., and J.E. Diekmann.
Concurrent Delays in Construction
Projects. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management-
ASCE. v 113 n 4 (Dec 1987): p
591-602.
12. Leon, G., (1987) Theories of Department of the University of
Concurrent Delays, Publ by AACE, Buffalo. He is now a PhD. candidate
Morgantown, WV, USA p H. with the State University of New York.
Transactions of the American He is an AACE International member.
Association of Cost Engineers He can be contacted by sending e-mail
31st. 6. 1-H. 6. 5, (June/July 1987). to: kgahtani@yahoo.com.
13. Livengood, John C. Daily Delay
Measure: A New Technique to
Technical Articles - Each month, Cost
Precisely Identify Delay. AACE Engineering journal publishes one or more peer-
International. Transactions reviewed technical articles. Unless noted otherwise,
(2003). these articles go through a blind peer review
evaluation prior to publication. Experts in the
14. Schumacher, Lee, Quantifying and subject area judge the technical accuracy of the
Apportioning Delay on articles, advise the authors on the strengths and
Construction Projects, Cost weaknesses of their submissions, and what changes
can be made to improve the article before
Engineering, Vol 37, No. 2,
publication.
(February 1995).
15. Schumacher, Lee. Defusing Delay
Claims. Civil Engineering (New
York). v 67 n 3 (Mar 1997): p 60-
62.
16. Seals, Robert, Continuous Delay
Measurement and the Role of Daily
Delay Values, 2004 AACE
International Transactions,
Morgantown, WV, 2004
17. Shi, J. J., S.O. Cheung, and D.
Arditi, Construction Delay
Computation Method, Journal of
Construction Engineering &
Management-ASCE. v 127 n 1
(Jan 2001): p 60-65.
18. Trauner, Theodore J.,
Construction Delays:
Documenting Causes, Winning
Claims, Recovering Costs, R.S.
Means Company, Inc., Kingston,
MA, 1990.
19. Wickwire, Jon M.; Thomas J.
Driscoll; and Stephen B. Hurlbut,
Construction Scheduling:
Preparation, Liability, and
Claims, John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
New York 1991.
20. Zack, J. G. Pacing Delays - The
Practical Effect, Cost Engineering,
v 42 n 7 (Jul 2000): p 23-28.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Satish B. Mohan is with the
University of Buffalo, Department of
Civil Engineering and Environmental
Engineering, at Buffalo, New York. He
can be contacted by sending e-mail to:
smohan@eng.buffalo.edu.
Khalid Al-Gahtani, at the time of
the authorship of this paper was a
Ph.D. student in the Civil Engineering
Cost Engineering Vol. 48/No. 9 SEPTEMBER 2006 21