Construction Delay Analysis Using Daily

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
CONSTRUCTION DELAY ANALYSIS USING

DAILY WINDOWS TECHNIQUE
A Thesis
Submitted to the College of Engineering
of Baghdad University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Civil Engineering
By
Salsabeel Sahib Jafar
B.Sc. in Civil Engineering (2007)
Rabie Al-Thani 1431

April 2010
‫ﺑﹺﺴ‪‬ــــﻢﹺ ﺍﷲِ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺣ‪‬ﻤ‪‬ﻦﹺ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺣ‪‬ﻴﻢﹺ‬
‫" ﻭ‪‬ﻗﹸﻞ ْﺭ‪‬ﺏ‪ ‬ﺯِﺩ‪‬ﻧﹺﻲ ﻋ‪‬ﻠﹾﻤﺎً* "‬
‫ﺻ‪‬ﺪ‪‬ﻕ‪ ‬ﺍﷲُ ﺍﻟﻌ‪‬ــﻈ‪‬ﻴ ُﻢ‬
‫ﺳﻮرة ﻃﮫ ‪ -‬آﯾﺔ ]‪[١١٤‬‬

SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE
I certify that the preparation of this thesis Titled

"Construction Delay Analysis Using Daily Windows
Technique” was prepared by (Salsabeel Sahib Jafar) under my
supervision at Baghdad University, College of Engineering, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Civil Engineering.
Signature:-
Supervisor: - Asst. Prof. Dr. Sawsan R. Mohammed
Date: - / / 2010
In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis

for debate by examining committee.
Signature:-
Head of Department: - Prof. Dr. Rafa Hashim Al- Suhaili
Date: - / / 2010
EXAMINATION COMMITTEE CERTIFICATE
We certify, as an examining committee, that we have read

this thesis titled "Construction Delay Analysis Using
Daily Windows Technique" and examined the student
(Salsabeel Sahib Jafar) in its content and in what is concerned
with it, and found that it meets the standard of a thesis for the degree
of Master of Science in Civil Engineering.
Signature:- Signature:-
Name:- Dr. Ibraheem A. Al- Hadithy Name: - Asst. Prof. Dr. Sidqi E.
Rezoqi
(Member) (Member)
Date:- / /2010 Date:- / /2010
Signature:- Signature:-
Name: - Asst. Prof. Dr. Sawsan R. Name:- Prof. Dr. Angham E. Ali
Mohammed
(Supervisor) (Chairman)
Date:- / /2010 Date:- / /2010
Approval of the College of Engineering:
Signature:-
Name: - Prof. Dr. Rafa HashimAl- Suhaili
(Dean)
Date:- / /2010
“In the name of God, most merciful, most gracious”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, thanks giving to God, the most merciful, most

gracious, for granting me the power and patience to accomplish
this study.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to

my supervisor, Asst. Prof. Dr. Sawsan R. Mohammed for her
kindness, patience, continuous guidance and supervision throughout
preparing this research.
Finally, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my

family, whose love and support made this work possible.
Salsabeel Sahib Jafar

DEDICATION
To the memory of my father
To my dearest mother
&
To my brother and sister

ABSTRACT
Delays to contractors’ progress, often resulting in time and cost overruns,
and are a major source of claims and disputes in the construction industry. At the
heart of the matter in dispute is often the question of the extent of each contracting
party’s responsibility for the delayed project completion and extra cost incurred.
Various methodologies have been developed over the years as aids to answering
this question.
This research initiated to introduce and create knowledge about construction

delay analysis concepts and methods as it considered an important task in
determining the financial responsibilities of the contracting parties and reducing or
avoiding delay claims disputes. Therefore, the research introduces principles,
procedures, approaches and concepts in delay analysis. It also presents one of the
most credible techniques for analyzing construction delays, which is daily
windows delay analysis method.
The research includes two parts. The first one includes a detailed literature
search and review comprising the following: theoretical concepts that associated
with delays, the various delay analysis methods available, the most important issues
in delay analysis that affect the results of the analysis and the factors that influence
analysts’ selection from these methodologies. It also includes an illustration of the
daily windows delay analysis procedure.
The second part of the research involves with the field work. This part
includes presenting computerized schedule analysis programme that use daily
windows analysis method in analyzing delays. Two case studies have been
implemented to validate the presented delay analysis programme and demonstrate
its accuracy in analyzing delays, accelerations, baseline updates and resource-over
I
allocation. This part also includes building a decision support system for selecting
the suitable delay analysis method in order to assist analysts in justifying their
choice to their clients.
The results of the study indicate that the outcomes of delay analyses are often
not predictable, that one method may not be used universally over another in all
situations, or one method might prove to be the most desirable from the standpoint
of the contractor or the owner. The study revealed that depending on the time and
resources available, and the accessibility of project control documentation, one
method may be more practical or cost-effective.
II
LIST OF CONTENTS
Section No: Subject page

Abstract I
List of contents III
List of figures VII
List of tables XI
Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 General 1
1.2 Research Justifications 1
1.3 Research Hypothesis 2
1.4 Research Objectives 2
1.5 Research Methodology 3
1.5.1 Theoretical Study Part 3
1.5.2 Field Work Part 3
1.6 Research Structure 3
Chapter Two: Delay in Construction Projects

2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Definition of Delay 6
2.3 Delay and Disruption Contrasted 8
2.4 Types of Delays 10
2.4.1 Excusable Noncompensable Delays 11
2.4.2 Excusable Compensable Delays 11
2.4.3 Nonexcusable Noncompensable Delays 12
2.4.4 Critical and Noncritical Delays 13
2.4.5 Independent; Serial; and Concurrent Delays 13
2.5 Causes of Delay 15
III
LIST OF CONTENTS

2.5.1 Identify Factors and Groups 18
2.6 Nature of Delay Claim 20
2.7 Extension of Time 21
2.8 Damages Arising from Delay 23
2.9 Mitigation and Acceleration 25
2.9.1 Mitigation 25
2.9.2 Acceleration 26
Chapter Three: Construction Delay Analysis

3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 The Use of CPM Scheduling Methods 28
3.3 Recording Site Events for Delay Analysis 30
3.4 Issues in Delay Analysis 33
3.4.1 Concurrent Delays 33
3.4.2 Float Ownership 35
3.4.3 Resource Allocation 38
3.5 Delay Analysis Techniques 40
3.5.1 The As-Planned Versus As-Built Comparison 41
3.5.2 The Impacted As-Planned Method (What-If approach) 41
3.5.3 The Collapsed As-Built Method (but-for method) 43
3.5.4 The Contemporaneous Period Analysis Method
45
(window analysis)
3.5.4.1 Delay Analysis Using Traditional Windows
47
Approach
3.6 Previous Studies on Delay Analysis 49
3.6.1 New Improvements 49
IV
LIST OF CONTENTS

3.6.1.1 Improved But-for Analysis 49
3.6.1.2 Improved Windows Analysis 50
3.6.2 Development of New Approaches 51
3.7 Factors Influencing the Selection of Delay Analysis Techniques 52
Chapter Four: Daily Windows Delay Analysis

4.1Introduction 62
4.2 Daily Windows Analysis 62
4.2.1Delay Analysis Using Daily Windows Approach 63
4.3 Analysis of Delays, Accelerations and Baseline Updates 66
4.3.1 Case Study 67
Chapter Five: Computerized Schedule Analysis Model

5.1 Introduction 76
5.2 EasyPlan programme 76
5.3 Case Study 1: Analysis of Delays, Accelerations, Logical relations 78
and Resource over-allocation
5.3.1 Case Overview 78
5.3.2 Using the EasyPlan Programme 80
5.3.2.1 Actual Progress Events 82
5.3.2.2 Delay Analysis for the Case Study 88
5.3.2.3 Discussion of Results 89
5.4 Case Study 2: Residential Complex Project 93
Chapter Six: A Decision Support System for Selecting Delay

Analysis Method
6.1 Introduction
94
V
LIST OF CONTENTS

6.2 The Objective of Building Decision Model for Delay Analysis 94
Method Selection
6.3 Development of Delay Analysis Method Selection Model 95
6.4 Application of the Programme to a Hypothetical Case Study 98
6.4.1Application of the Proposed Programme 99
Chapter Seven: Conclusions, Recommendations and Proposals

7.1 Introduction 111
7.2 Conclusions 111
7.3 Recommendations 112
7.4 Proposals and Future Research 113
References 114
APPENDIX:
Appendix A: Case Study
Appendix B: Evaluation of the Various Selected Criteria against the
Methods
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title page

Figure 2.1 Cause-Effect Relationship of Construction Delays 7
Figure 2.2 Delay Classifications 14
Figure 3.1 Recording Site Data in a Bar Chart 31
Figure 3.2 Representing Delays on Commercial Scheduling Software 31
Figure 3.3 Recording Site Data Using an Intelligent Bar Chart 32
Figure 3.4 Different Scenarios that Define Concurrent Delays 34
Figure 3.5 Effect of Ownership of Float 37
Figure 3.6 Effect of Float, Logic, and Resource Allocation 40
Figure 3.7 Analysis Process for the But-For Technique 44
Figure 3.8 Bar Charts for a small example of Windows Analysis 47
(a) As-Planned Bar Chart
(b) As-Built Bar Chart
Figure 3.9 Windows Analysis Method with Two Windows, Ending at 48
Days (3) and (9)
(a) Window Ending at Day 3
(b) Window Ending at Day 9
Figure 3.10 Windows Analysis Method with Two Windows, Ending 48
at Days 4 and 9
(a) Window Ending at Day 4
(b) Window Ending at Day 9
Figure 4.1 Daily Windows Analysis Showing the Window of Day 3 65
Figure 4.2 Daily Windows Analysis Showing the Window of Day 4 65
Figure 4.3 Daily Windows Analysis Showing the Window of Day5 66
Figure 4.4 Planed and Actual Progress of the Project 67
(a) As-Planned Schedule
(b) As-Built Schedule
VII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title page

Figure 4.5 Analyses for contractor-caused delay on Activity A 69
(window of Day1)
Figure 4.6 Delay Analysis of Day 3 before the Baseline is Updated 70
Figure 4.7 Delay Analysis of Day 3 after the Baseline is Updated 70
Figure 4.8 Analysis for owner-caused delay on Activity B 71
(window of Day 4)
Figure 4.9 Analysis for concurrent delays on B and C 72
(window of Day 5)
Figure 4.10 Analysis for delays on C and D (window of Day 6) 72
Figure 4.11 Analysis for third party-caused delay on D 73
(window of Day 8)
Figure 4.12 Analysis for owner-caused delays on E and G 73
(window of Day10)
Figure 4.13 Analysis for owner-caused delays on E and G 74
(window of Day11)
Figure 4.14 Analysis for contractor-caused delays on G 74
(window of Day12)
Figure 4.15 Analysis for Contractor Acceleration on G 75
(window of Day15)
Figure 5.1 Flow Chart Indicating the EasyPlan’s Procedure 77
Figure 5.2 Main Screen of EasyPlan 80
Figure 5.3 Activities’ Estimates 80
Figure 5.4 As-Planned Schedule of the Project 81
Figure 5.5 Schedule Meets Deadline and Resource Limit 81
Figure 5.6 Saving the Project Baseline 82
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title page

Figure 5.7 Entering the Progress Events of Day 1 83
Figure 5.8 Actual Progress at the end of Day 4 83
Figure 5.9 Project Schedule after a Change in the Logical Relations 84
Figure 5.10 Saving the Second Baseline 84
Figure 5.11 Actual Progress at the End of Day 5 85
Figure 5.13 Changing the Method of Executing Activity G 86
Figure 5.14 Saving the Third Baseline 86
Figure 5.18 Actual progress at the end of Day 16 87
Figure 5.19 Actual progress at the end of Day 17 88
Figure 5.20 Using Delay Analysis in EasyPlan 88
Figure 5.21 Summary of Delay Analysis Results 89
Figure 5.22 Daily Windows Analysis Results of the First Baseline 89
(Days 1 to 4)
Figure 5.23 Daily Windows Analysis Results of the Second Baseline 90
(Days 5 to 8)
Figure 5.24 Daily Windows Analysis Results of the Third Baseline 91
(Days 9 to 12)
Figure 5.25 Daily Windows Analysis Results (Days 13to 17) 92
Figure 5.26 Summary of Delay Analysis Results without Considering 93
Resource Allocation
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title page

Figure 6.1 Flow Chart Indicating the Model’s Procedure 96
Figure 6.2 First Window of the Proposed Programm 99
Figure 6.3 Start Window of the Proposed Programme 100
Figure 6.4 Entering the User Value(s) 100
Figure 6.5 Window of Slide 1(Records availability) 101
Figure 6.6 Window of Slide 2 (Baseline programme availability) 102
Figure 6.7 Window of Slide 3 (Nature of baseline programme) 102
Figure 6.8 Window of Slide 4 (Updated programme availability) 103
Figure 6.9 Window of Slide 5 (Form of contract) I04
Figure 6.10 Window of Slide 6 (Dispute resolution forum) I04
Figure 6.11 Window of Slide 7 (The reason for the delay analysis) I05
Figure 6.12 Window of Slide 8 (Time of the delay) I05
Figure 6.13 Window of Slide 9 (Project characteristics criteria) I06
Figure 6.14 Selections of Slide 9 (Project characteristics criteria) I07
Figure 6.15 Window of Slide 10 (Nature of delay events) I08
Figure 6.16 Window of Slide 11 (The other party to the claim) I08
Figure 6.17 Window of Slide 12 (Cost of using the technique) I09
Figure 6.18 Window of Slide 13 (The skills of the analyst) I09
Figure 6.19 Window of Slide 14 (Final calculation sheet) I10
X
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Title page

Table 2.1 Causes of Disruption and Loss of Efficiency 10
Table 2.2 List of 50 Identified Causes of Delay in Civil Engineering 19
Projects
Table 3.1 Remedies for Concurrent Delays 35
Table 3.2 Results of Delay Analyses 38
Table 3.3 Names of Existing Delay Analysis Techniques 41
Table 3.4 Comments on the Windows Delay Analysis 46
Table 3.5 Comparison of the Results of Different Window Sizes 49
Table 3.6 Factors Influencing the Selection of Delay Analysis Methods 54
Table 3.7 Group Factors Influence the Selection of Delay Analysis 55
Methods
Table 4.1 Delay Events and Their Secondary Effects 68
Table 5.1 The Activities’ Estimates and Predecessors 78
Table 5.2 Delay Events and Their Secondary Effects 79
Table 6.1 The selection criteria with their relative importance weights 97
XI
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General:
Modern construction projects are characterized by new standards, advanced
technologies, multiparty participation and frequent owner-desired changes. Coupled
with this state are inherent uncertainties and complexities in the physical, financial
and economic environment in which most projects are performed. Such conditions
have made completing projects on schedule and on budget a difficult task to
accomplish, often leading to claims on cost compensations and time extensions.
To recover the damage caused by delays, both the delays and the parties
responsible for them should be identified. However, delay situations are complex in
nature because multiple delays can occur concurrently and because they can be
caused by more than one party, or by none of the principal parties. One delay may
contribute to the formation of other delays. The analysis of these delays involves not
only the calculation of the delay time but also the identification of the root causes
and the responsibility for delays, such an analysis therefore becomes a basis for the
financial calculations that determine penalties or other damages to be assigned to the
parties responsible for the delays.
This chapter presents the research justifications, hypothesis, objectives,
methodology and the structure of the research.
1.2 Research Justifications:

Research justifications are summarized in the following points:
1. The importance of delay as it considered a main factor in time and cost overruns,
since time is of the essence of the construction contracts.
2. Detailed schedule analysis is required to investigate the events that have actually
caused the project to experience time and cost overruns in order to determine the
right amount of compensations for the injured party.
-1-
3. The development in computer technology along with the availability of advanced

and user-friendly project planning software, made it necessary that Iraqi
construction industry adopt computerized schedule for delay analysis.
4. The importance of selecting the suitable delay analysis method, as there are
various methods with varying degree of capabilities in producing accurate
results.
1.3 Research Hypothesis:

As the result of the aforementioned justifications, research has reached to the
following hypothesis:
1. There are various methods that exist for schedule delay analysis. Different
analysis techniques provide different results for the same circumstances, as
they are differ from each other due to the type of schedule techniques required
and the baseline schedule used for their application. Therefore it is important
to use a method that considers every change in the critical path(s) provides
accurate results.
2. There is a necessity for applying computerized daily analysis of delays in Iraqi
construction projects as it consider important task in allocating responsibilities of
time-related costs, reduce or avoid delay claims disputes and ensuring successful
management.
3. There are many factors that influence analysts’ selection of the suitable delay
analysis method based on the claim situation. Therefore, the appropriate delay
analysis method must be selected based on a decision model.
1.4 Research Objectives:

The objectives of the research are summarized as follows:
1. Introducing a reliable method for analyzing delay, which is the daily windows
delay analysis as it recognized one of the most credible methods, and it is one of
the few techniques much more likely to be accepted by courts than any other
method.
-2-
2. Introduce a computerized schedule for delay analysis that incorporates the

presented method.
3. Develop decision support system for selecting the suitable delay analysis
method.
1.5 Research Methodology:

In order to achieve the research objectives, the following methodology has
been adopted:
1.5.1 Theoretical Study Part:

This part includes a detailed literature search and review of references, thesis
and papers relating to the subject of research, to provide theoretical background and
context of the research.
1.5.2 Field Work Part:

This part includes the following works:
1. Implementing a sample case to illustrate the application of daily windows
method in analyzing delays, accelerations, baseline updates, through a
systematic detailed procedure.
2. Two case studies have been implemented to validate the presented delay analysis
programme and demonstrate its accuracy in analyzing delays, accelerations,
baseline updates and resource-over allocation.
3. Building a decision support system for selecting the suitable delay analysis
method based on the data collected from the literature review in order to assist
analysts in justifying their choice to their clients.
1.6 Research Structure:

The thesis is organized in chapters, briefly described below:
Chapter One: presents a general introduction to the subject of research. It also
illustrated the research justifications, hypothesis, objectives, methodology and the
structure of the research.
-3-
Chapter Two: presents a literature review of theoretical concepts that associated

with delays and the causes of delay. It also reviewed the various delay
classifications, nature of delay claim, the causes of delay and the damages that can
arise from it.
Chapter Three: identifies and evaluates the various delay analysis methods
mentioned in the literature. The history of the development of delay analysis
techniques is reviewed, including the modified techniques and recent approaches. It
also reports on the most important issues in delay analysis that affect the results of
the analysis and the factors that influence analysts’ selection from these
methodologies.
Chapter Four: illustrates the daily windows delay analysis procedure through an
example, and then a further sample case has been implemented to illustrate the
analysis of delays, accelerations and baseline updates.
Chapter Five: presents computer software for daily windows analysis with two case
studies, hypothetical case and real project case, to validate and demonstrate the
ability of this model in analyzing schedules under multiple baseline updates and
resource allocation.
Chapter Six: describe the development of a model designed to assist practitioners
in their decision-making in selecting the suitable delay analysis method and the
application of the programme to a hypothetical case study.
Chapter Seven: presents the conclusions derived from the research and
recommendations for promoting good practice, with proposals for future research.
-4-
CHAPTER TWO: DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CHAPTER TWO
DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2.1 Introduction:
Delays are one of the biggest problems construction firms face. Delays can
lead to many negative effects such as lawsuits between owners and contractors,
increased costs, loss of productivity and revenue, and contract termination.
The construction companies in many countries around the world experience
significant delays. In the past few years, the number of claims submitted to the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) reached almost 25% of the 1.7 million
claims submitted over the past 74 years (Kassab et al. 2006). In the United Kingdom
(U.K.), a 2001 report by the National Audit Office, entitled “Modernising
Construction”, revealed that 70% of the projects undertaken by government
departments and agencies were delivered late (Hegazy and Menesi 2008). In India, a
study conducted by the Infrastructure and Project Monitoring Division of the
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in 2004 reported that out of
646 central sector projects costing about $50 trillion, approximately 40% are behind
schedule, with delays ranging from 1 to 252 months (Lyer and Jha 2006). In the
United Arab Emirates (UAE), where construction contributes 14% to the gross
domestic product (GDP), a study by Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) revealed that 50%
of construction projects encounter delays.
There are several reasons that can contribute to delaying a project. Analyzing
the various causes that contribute to the delay encountered in a construction project
is an important task to resolving delay problem. However, to recover the damage
caused by delays, both the delays and the parties responsible for them should be
identified. This chapter provides an overview of the accepted legal and theoretical
concepts that associated with delays. Issues reviewed include: various delay
classifications, nature of delay claim, the causes of delay and the damages that can
arise from it.
-5-
2.2 Definition of Delay:

Time is the essence of a construction contract. A time period is specified as
the contract duration. The legal obligations and rights associated with the concept of
delay arise from the obligation implied in every contract that one party will not
delay, hinder, or interfere with the performance of the other party (Vento and
D'Onofrio 2007). Thus, whether the owner or the contractor (or subcontractor, as the
case may be) is legally and, perhaps, financially responsible for the consequences of
delay depends upon a determination of the event(s) and party(ies) contributing to the
delay.
The term “delay” in construction contracts has no precise technical meaning.
It can be used in different sense to mean different conditions in project execution
(Pickavance 2005). Bramble and Callahan (1987) defined delay as “the time during
which some part of the construction project has been extended beyond what was
originally planned due to an unanticipated circumstance”.
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) defined construction delay as “the time overrun
either beyond the contract date or beyond the date that the parties agreed upon for
delivery of a project”.
Delay was also defined as “an acts or events that extend the time necessary to
finish activities under a contract” (Stumpf 2000).
However, the term delay which will be addressed in this research means any
occurrences or events that extend the duration or delay the start or finish of any of
the activities of a project resulting in project late completion and that will only occur
when the delay lies on the critical path of the programme.
However, in general, delay situations are complex in nature. A delay in an
activity may not result in the same amount of project delay. A delay caused by a
party may or may not affect the project completion date and may or may not cause
damage to another party. A delay such as unusually severe weather conditions can
be caused by none of the parties. Delays can occur in any and all activities, and
these delays can concurrently or simultaneously cause delays in the project
completion (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2008).
-6-
A delay may sometimes contribute to the formation of other delays. In other

words, a project delay is the accumulated effect of the delays in individual activities.
As an example, a delay in the issue of drawings to a contractor can bring about
consequences such as out-of-sequence work, work stoppages and poor morale. Shi
et al. (2001) presented schematic cause-effect relationship of project delay as shown
in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Cause-Effect Relationship of Construction Delays (Shi et al. 2001)
From causation perspective delays may be categorized under the following

types:
1. Delays caused by the contractor: these include delays caused by parties for
whom the contractor is responsible in law. Under most contracts the contractor is
neither entitled to extension of time nor recovery of loss and/or expense and may
have to pay damages/penalties.
2. Delays caused by the owner: these include delays caused by parties for whom
the owner is responsible in law. In most standard forms, the contractor is entitled
to extension of time and recovery of loss and/or expense caused by this type of
delay.
3. Delays caused by neither party: these include delays for which neither the
owner nor the contractor is responsible, e.g. exceptionally adverse weather
-7-
conditions. Most contracts allow the contractor more time to complete but with
no corresponding entitlement to recover any loss and/or expense caused and no
damages/penalties assessed.
Identifying delay impacts and allocating responsibility for delay events is
more often argumentative because it involves one party’s gain and the other party’s
loss. Delay analysis has developed as a means of providing the justification and
quantification of the time and/or cost consequences necessary for resolving the
different contentions (Braimah and Ndekugri 2009). It involves detailed
investigation of project records, programmes and their updates, often on
retrospective basis, and with the aid of a number of different approaches commonly
termed “Delay Analysis Methodologies” which will be discussed in detail in the
next Chapter.
2.3 Delay and Disruption Contrasted:

Closely associated with delays are disruptions. Therefore, one must
differentiate between a delay and a disruption. Delay and disruption are two terms
that are commonly spoken together, as in "delay and disruption", but they are two
separate things, they have their normal everyday meanings (SCL 2002).
Delay is lateness (e.g. delayed completion equals late completion). On the
other hand, the term “disruption” is used to describe any material alteration in the
performance conditions that were expected at the time of bid from those actually
encountered, resulting in increased difficulty and cost of performance (Finke 1998).
A classic result of disruption is loss in productivity as more labor and equipment
hours will be required to do the same work.
(Finke 2000) states that delay and disruption are two different types of
damages. Delay damages cannot be traced to specific activities, whereas disruption
damages can. He points out that delay damages are valid only if delays to the overall
project completion time are involved, while disruption damages can be caused by
any change in the planned condition of work that can happen regardless of the
change in the project completion time. Therefore, disruption has a direct
consequence on financial loss.
-8-
Disruption is often measured in terms of decreased productivity or loss of

efficiency. The Society of Construction Law (SCL 2002) Protocol defines disruption
as:
“Disruption is disturbance, hindrance or interruption to a Contractor’s
normal work progress, resulting in lower efficiency or lower productivity than
would otherwise be achieved. Disruption does not necessarily result in a delay to
progress or delay to completion”.
Delay claims and that of disruption are completely two different heads of
claims. Different methodologies are therefore used for analyzing claims on delays
and those based upon disruption. The delay analysis methodologies make use of
scheduling techniques such as critical path method (CPM). Their application
processes are largely analytical in nature, involving impacting a form of the
construction schedule with facts surrounding the claims, to establish the amount of
project delay caused by each of the parties involved (Braimah and Ndekugri 2007).
On the other hand, disruption analysis methodologies involve the collection of facts,
particularly on productivity, and interpreting them to demonstrate cause-and-effect
relationships between the alleged disruption events and the extra time and/or costs
suffered as a result (Keane and Caletka 2008). However, due to the close association
between events that cause project delay and disruption, the proof of a typical claim
may require a combination of the two separate methodologies in order to develop a
holistic argument for contractual entitlement to additional time and cost.
Various methodologies are available for analyzing disruption such as
(1) Total Cost claims; (2) Modified Total Cost; (3) Measured Mile Technique;
(4) Factor-Based Methods; and (5) Time and Motions Studies (Finke 1998; Keane
and Caletka 2008). However, analyzing project disruptions for proper quantification
and allocation of the lost productivity is often recognized as a difficult undertaking.
A major reason for the difficulty is the inherent complicated nature of labor
productivity, which varies due to variability of human responses to different
working conditions.
-9-
There are many causes of disruption and factors that affect productivity (loss
of efficiency) that may arise during the course of a construction project. Many of
these factors are listed in (Table 2.1) compiled by Keane and Caletka (2008):
Table 2.1 Causes of Disruption and Loss of Efficiency

(Keane and Caletka 2008)
• Late design • Changes and variations to work
• Inaccurate detailed drawings scope
• Rework/corrective work • Changes in working conditions (e.g.
• Ripple effect of multiple changes restricted working hours)
• Delayed or hindered access • Discovery of hazards
• Adverse weather (usually severe) • Premature moves between activities
• Environmental conditions • Work carried out in less than ideal
• Crew overloading/crowding conditions
• Out of sequence working • Double handling of materials
• Learning and ‘un-learning’ curves • Constructive changes
(learning curves repeated) • Contract changes
• Fatigue (overtime/shift working) • Over inspection
• Dilution of supervision • Works undertaken by others
• Stacking of trades in confined space • Fatigue
• Repeated learning cycles or curves • Joint occupancy
• Out of sequence access to work • Beneficial occupancy
faces • Morale and attitude
• Congestion at work faces (confined • Reassignment of manpower
space, confusion, safety hazards) • Crew size efficiency
• Stacking of trades (activities, • Dilution of supervision
accomplished concurrently) • Interruption of job rhythm
• Increase in labor gangs or labor • Overtime (physical fatigue and
force (above optimum levels) depressed mental attitude)
• Increase in shifts • Acceleration
• Out of sequence working or • Revisits or re-doing work (morale
changes in sequence of works (based issue)
upon industry standards and practice) • Excessive rework
2.4 Types of Delays:

Delayed completion of projects is generally caused by the actions or inactions
of the project parties including the owner, contractor, subcontractors, project
designers/ supervisors and neither of these parties (e.g. acts of God). Based on these
sources and the contractual risk allocation for delay-causing events, construction
delays can be classified in different categories.
- 10 -
Previous studies have discussed various delay classification methods for

construction projects. Generally, delays are classified according to liability of the
contractual parties, time of occurrence of the delays, or effect on the schedule of the
project. Based on the liability, delays are generically categorized as excusable
compensable, excusable noncompensable and nonexcusable noncompensable
(Kraiem and Diekmann 1987). Based on the time of occurrence, delays can be
classified as: (1) independent; (2) serial; and (3) concurrent delays (Arditi and Patel
1989). In relation to the effect on the time schedule, delays are classified as critical
and noncritical delays (Farrow 2007).
The following are a brief description of these types and its effect on the
owner and the contractor:
2.4.1 Excusable Noncompensable Delays:

Excusable noncompensable delays are delays that are out of control of all
parties, and mean that neither the owner nor the contractor is deemed responsible.
The contractor is usually entitled to extension of time and is said to be ‘excused’
liability for liquidated damages (a legal concept, which means the amount of money
to be paid for late-completion, if fixed) for the period of the extension which
otherwise would have been payable to the owner (Kao and Yang 2008). Three major
elements can represent the excusable delays (Kraiem and Diekmann 1987):
1. Unforeseen events: unforeseeable causes generally refer to future events, not
existing causes.
2. Events beyond the contractor’s control: these are causes in which work on the
project is impossible as it can only be done at an excessive and unreasonable
cost.
3. Events without fault or negligence: such events are those in which the contractor
is blameless, such as acts of God, unusually severe weather, and acts of the
public enemy.
Contracts usually contain a clause called the force majeure clause, which
enumerates the various causes of delays for which neither party is legally
- 11 -
responsible, although this depends on the contract language (Yates and Epstein
2006).
2.4.2 Excusable Compensable Delays:

Excusable compensable delays are delays that are commonly caused by the
owner or one of his representatives including the engineer, architect and
construction manager. For such delays, the contractor is entitled to time extensions
and recovery of extra cost consequential upon the delay. In this case, the owner
should compensate not only for damage costs caused by the compensable delay, but
also for the cost of any follow-up work necessitated by the delay. These delays
result from circumstances such as (Yates and Epstein 2006):
1. Failure of the owner to have the work site available to the contractor;
2. Owner initiated changes in the work;
3. Owner delays in issuing a notice to proceed;
4. Architect/Engineer supplied designs which are defective;
5. Owner not properly coordinating the work of other contractors;
6. Owner not providing owner furnished equipment in a timely manner;
7. Owner providing misleading information; and
8. Owner, or the Architect/Engineer, delaying the approval of contractor submitted
shop drawings.
Certain contracts contain a “no damage for delay” clause, which shifting the
risks of all delays or specific delays to the contractor, which may limit the
contractor’s remedy for delay to a time extension only (Vento and D'Onofrio 2007).
2.4.3 Nonexcusable Noncompensable Delays:
A nonexcusable delay involves lost time caused within the control of the
contractor, its subcontractors or suppliers. In this case, the contractor is entitled
neither to time extensions nor to additional compensation from the owner (Abd.
Majid and McCaffer 1998). If the contract includes a liquidated damage clause,
under it the owner could recover delay damages from the contractor. Some of the
more common contractor caused delays include (Yates and Epstein 2006):
1. Failing to mobilize work crews and start the work in a timely manner;
- 12 -
2. Failure to submit shop drawings and related materials to the owner for approval
in a timely manner;
3. Lack of adequate and sufficient construction equipment;
4. Poor workmanship; and
5. Failure to perform the work in a proper manner.
2.4.4 Critical and Noncritical Delays:
A “critical delay” results in an extended contract project completion date.
Such an event involves the initial delaying of a critical-path activity that has zero
day of total float, but it will also affect subsequent activities, thereby altering the
completion date of the entire project (Farrow 2007). For instance, a delay involving
the structural steel work, which is on the critical path, will likely delay other jobs
dependent on it and ultimately delay completion of the entire project.
Conversely, a “noncritical delay” is either one involving a noncritical path
activity that has positive total float or one that does not extend the contract project
completion date. Commonly, the noncritical delay is a delay for which the
contractor is not entitled to a time extension, but may actually recover financially
due to the additional costs of delay. Therefore, not all excusable or compensable
delays will attract an extension of time; this should only be the case if they have a
critical effect on the overall program (schedule), unless other changed circumstances
cause the noncritical activity to become subsequently critical ( Scott et al. 2004).
This provides the basis for the high importance attached to the use of critical path
method (CPM) of scheduling for proving or disproving time- related claims such as
extension of time and prolongation cost (Wickwire et al. 1989).
2.4.5 Independent; Serial; and Concurrent Delays:
The terms “independent delays”, “serial delays” and “concurrent delays” are
also used to describe delays based on the interrelation of the above delay types with
respect to their duration and time of occurrence. An independent delay is one that
occurs independently of any other delay and has no effect on any other activity in
the project (Arditi and Patel 1989). It is relatively easy to identify the delay, to
establish its effect on total project duration and to allocate cost burdens to the parties
involved.
- 13 -
While serial delays are delays that occur in sequence consecutively and not
overlapping with each other on a particular network path. On the other hand, Delays
are determined to be “concurrent” when two or more delays occur in the same time
period on separate critical paths with both affecting the overall completion of the
project. If either of the events had not occurred, the project would have been delayed
by the other event (Vento and D'Onofrio 2007).
Independent and serial delays are relatively easy to resolve compared to
concurrent delays. The concept of concurrent delays has thus been the subject of
much discussions and debate among researchers and practitioners. It therefore
deserves further review as it will be presented in (Chapter Three).
The results of the above delay classification are commonly used in existing
delay analysis methods, and should be identified before a delay analysis is started
(Kao and Yang 2008). Before concluding on the nature of the delay based solely on
the above definitions, one must refer to the construction documents that might give
different interpretations to some cases. For example, a contract may not allow for
any time extensions caused by weather conditions, regardless of how unusual,
unexpected, or severe. As a summary, Figure 2.2 classifies the different types of
delays based on their various attributes.
Delay
Classification
Critical Non critical
Liability Time of
occurrence
Excusable Excusable Nonexcusable Concurrency Non concurrency

noncompensable compensable noncompensable
Extension of Extension of Liquidated

time only time + damages Independent Serial
prolongation delays delays
cost
Figure 2.2 Delay Classifications (Researcher)
- 14 -
2.5 Causes of Delay:

Various factors affect completion periods of projects. It has been argued that
it is necessary to create awareness of the causes of project delays, their frequency,
and the extent to which they can adversely affect project delivery. Understanding the
underlying factors that contribute to the causes of delays would help in identifying
and overcoming the problems faced by contractors during the construction process
(Abd. Majid and McCaffer 1998).
Researchers have studied the numerous causes of delay in construction
projects:
Baldwin et al. (1971) studied the causes of delay in building projects in the
United States. They surveyed engineers, architects, and contractors, and found that
there was substantial agreement among the three groups concerning the causes of
delay. They also noticed that weather, labor supply, and subcontractors were the
major causes of delay.
Mansfield et al. (1994) identified 16 major factors that caused delays and cost
overruns in Nigeria. A questionnaire survey was carried out with contractors,
consultants and client organizations in Nigeria. They presented that the causes of
delay and cost overruns in Nigerian construction projects were attributed to finance
and payment arrangements, poor contract management, shortages in materials,
inaccurate estimation, and overall price fluctuations.
Assaf et al. (1995) identified 56 main causes of delay in Saudi large building
construction projects and their relative importance. Based on the contractors
surveyed the most important delay factors were: preparation and approval of shop
drawings, delays in contractor’s progress, payment by owners and design changes.
From the view of the architects and engineers the cash problems during
construction, the relationship between subcontractors and the slow decision making
process of the owner were the main causes of delay. However, the owners agreed
that the design errors, labor shortages and inadequate labor skills were important
delay factors.
Ogunlana et al. (1996) conducted a study on construction delays in Thailand.
They found that the problems faced by the construction industry in developing
- 15 -
economies like Thailand could be: (a) shortages or inadequacies in industry

infrastructure (mainly supply of resources); (b) caused by clients and consultants;
and (c) caused by contractor’s incompetence/inadequacies.
Chan and Kumaraswamy (1996) evaluated the relative importance of 83
delay factors in Hong Kong. They examined eight delay factor categories: project
related factors, client related factors, design team related factors, contractor related
factors, materials, labor, plant and equipments, and external factors. The six
significant factors found to be contributing to delays in building and civil
engineering works are unforeseen ground conditions, poor site supervisions, low
speed of decision making involving all project teams, client initiated variations,
necessary variations of work, and inadequate contractor experience.
Abd. Majid and McCaffer (1998) reviewed factors of nonexcusable delays
that influence contractors’ performance. Materials-, equipment-, and labor-related
delays were identified as major causes of contractors’ performance delays. (Bordoli
and Baldwin 1998) examined the causes of delays in building projects in the United
States. Weather, labor supply, and subcontractors were found to be the major causes
of delays.
Al-Momani (2000) carried out a quantitative analysis on construction delays
in Jordan. The result of his study indicated that the main causes of delay in
construction of public projects were related to poor design, changes in orders/design,
inclement weather, unforeseen site conditions, and late deliveries.
AL-Zubaydi (2000) studied the causes of delay in construction projects in
Iraq. The result of her study indicated that the main causes of delays were: economic
instability, financial uncertainty, inflation, controlling on sub-contractors works and
failure of payment. The researcher developed a knowledge-based system for
identifying and resolving the causes of time delays.
AL-Somadaee (2002) conducted a study to evaluate the construction
management performance of projects in Iraq to avoid time delays. A questionnaire
was carried out to identify the causes of delay in Iraq. The Results of the study
indicated that delay in materials delivery, poor materials quality, suppliers’ late
- 16 -
delivery of ordered materials, delay in equipment delivery and failure of equipments

were the main causes of time delays.
Koushki et al. (2005) conducted a study about delays and cost increases in the
construction of private residential projects in Kuwait. Results indicated that
changing orders, owners’ financial constraints and owners’ lack of experience in the
construction business were the three main causes of time-delays.
Lo et al. (2006) identified 30 causes of delay related to Hong Kong civil
construction projects. They found that inadequate resources, unforeseen ground
conditions, exceptionally low bids, inexperienced contractor, work in conflict with
existing utilities, poor site management and supervision, and unrealistic contract
duration were the major causes of construction delay in Hong Kong.
Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006) identified 44 causes of delay related to the
Nigerian construction industry. The Results of the study indicated that contractors’
financial difficulties, clients’ cash flow problem, architects’ incomplete drawing,
subcontractors’ slow mobilization , equipment breakdown and maintenance
problems, suppliers’ late delivery of ordered materials, incomplete structural
drawings, contractors’ planning and scheduling problems, price escalation, and
subcontractors’ financial difficulties were the top 10 factors in order of contribution
to overall delays.
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) conducted a survey on time performance of large
construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The survey had 73 different causes of delay.
He studied the importance of various causes from the viewpoint of contractors,
consultants, and owners. The most common cause of delay identified by all the
parties was ‘‘change order’’, while other causes were: delay in progress payment,
ineffective planning and scheduling, shortage of labor, and difficulties in financing
on the part of the contractor.
Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) conducted a study about construction delays in
United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Results of the study indicated that slow
preparation and approval of drawings, inadequate early planning of the project,
slowness of owner’s decision making, shortage of manpower, poor site management
and supervision, and low productivity of manpower were the main causes of delay.
- 17 -
Sambasivan and Soon (2007) conducted a questionnaire to identify the causes

and effects of delay in Malaysian construction industry. The study identified 10
most important causes were: (1) contractor’s improper planning, (2) contractor’s
poor site management, (3) inadequate contractor experience, (4) inadequate client’s
finance and payments for completed work, (5) problems with subcontractors, (6)
shortage in material, (7) labor supply, (8) equipment availability and failure, (9) lack
of communication between parties, and (10) mistakes during the construction stage.
Sweis et al. (2008) identified 40 delay factor related to the Jordanian
construction industry. The result of the study indicated that financial difficulties
faced by the contractor, too many change orders from owner, and poor planning and
scheduling of the project by the contractor were the major sources of residential
project delays in Jordan.
Abd El-Razek et al. (2008) identified 32 factors that cause delay in building
construction projects in Egypt. The overall results indicated that the most important
causes are: financing by contractor during construction, delays in contractor’s
payment by owner, design changes by owner or his agent during construction,
partial payments during construction, and nonutilization of professional
construction/contractual management.
2.5.1 Identify Factors and Groups:

The previous studies were used to build a comprehensive list of delay causes.
The researcher identified about (50 causes) and combined it in to eight major
groups: owner related delays; contractor related delays; consultant related delays;
manpower related delays; equipment related delays; materials related delays;
financing related delays; and external factors related delays as shown in Table 2.2.
- 18 -
Table 2.2 List of 50 Identified Causes of Delay in Civil Engineering Projects (Researcher)
Category of Delay Causes of Delay
1. Shortage of materials
Material 2. Slow delivery of materials
related delays 3. Materials changes in types and specifications during
construction
4. Materials price fluctuations
1. Shortage of labor
Manpower
2. Lack of skilled labor /technical personnel
related delays
3. Poor labor productivity
1. Shortage in equipments
Equipment
2. Poor equipment productivity
related delays
3. Failure of equipments
1. Delays in contractor’s progress payment by the owner
Financing
2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor
related delays
3. Partial payments by the owner during construction
1. Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s
organization
2. Insufficient coordination among the parties (contractor,
subcontractor, owner, consultant ) by the contractor
3. Failing to mobilize work crews and start the work in a
timely manner
4. Inspection and testing procedures used in the project
5. Safety rules and regulations are not followed within the
contractor’s organization
6. Ineffective quality control
Contractor 7. Improper construction methods
related delays 8. Failure to submit shop drawings and material samples to
the owner for approval in a timely manner
9. Errors committed due to lack of experience
10. Accidents during construction
11. Delay caused by the subcontractor
12. Improperly allocating labor, material, and other resources
on the project
13. Poor site management and supervision
14. Inaccurate estimation of activity duration and resources
15. Inaccurate cost estimate
16. Exceptionally low bids /”lowest bid wins” system
1. Failure to have the work site available to the contractor in
a timely manner
2. Work suspension
Owner 3. Too many variation orders
related delays 4. Slowness of the owner decision making process
5. Inference by the owner in the construction operations
6. Insufficient coordination among the parties by the Owner
7. Excessive bureaucracy in project owner operation
- 19 -
Category of Delay Causes of Delay

1. Design changes during construction
2. Waiting for approval of shop drawings and material
samples
3. Design errors / incomplete made by designer
Consultant
4. Mistakes in soil investigation
related delays
5. Inadequate consultant experience
6. Poor coordination by the consultant engineer with the
parties involved
7. Slow response to contractor inquiries
1. Severe weather conditions
2. Difficulties in obtaining work permits
3. Changes in Government regulations and laws
External factors
4. Transportation delay
related delays
5. Unforeseen ground condition
6. Work in conflict with existing utilities
7. Conflict, war, and public enemy
2.6 Nature of Delay Claim:

Delays on construction projects, and the claims which emanate from such
delays, are an integral part of the modern construction process. The term ‘claim’ is
defined in the context of construction projects as any application by the contractor
whether for an extension of time, payment, or otherwise, which arises other than
under the ordinary contract provisions for payment of the value of work (Powell-
Smith and Stephenson1989).
Claims for delay may arise when the work slows down and lags behind the
original or as-planned project schedule or when the contractor has to speed up
(accelerate) the work to get back on schedule. The contractor may seek
compensation for time-related costs caused by the extended time of performance. In
this respect, when a delay claim occurs, it is very important to assign responsibility
and magnitude to the delay (Lee et al. 2005). Owners may also assert delay claims
seeking liquidated or actual damages to compensate them for the delay.
Compensation for delay claims may not be limited by either party’s direct damages.
Parties should be cognizant of any consequential damages that may flow from the
delay, unless the parties have mutually agreed by contract to waive such claims
(Vento and D'Onofrio 2007).
- 20 -
However, many sources and causes of construction delays exist, and it is

often difficult to analyze the ultimate liability in delay claims (Kraiem and
Diekmann 1987). The resolution of such claims involves claimants/defendants
identifying and quantifying the effects of one or more occurrence that caused
(Pickavance 2005):
1. Delay to progress that caused the delay to one or more completion dates;
2. Prolongation of contractor’s and/or subcontractor’s time-related costs;
3. Delay to progress that caused loss and/or expense to be suffered by contractors or
subcontractors; and
4. Reduction in productivity (or disruption) that caused loss and/or expense to be
suffered by contractors and/or subcontractors.
Many project participants, if not all, are becoming increasingly aware of the
high costs and risks associated with delay claims and their litigation (Kartam 1999).
Notable example is the Delay and Disruption Protocol developed recently by the
UK’s Society of Construction Law (SCL), a body comprising of highly experienced
engineers, architects, quantity surveyors and lawyers. Intended as a good practice
guidance, the protocol seeks to prevent ‘wait and see’ approach by promoting the
resolution of matters of extension of time and cost compensations on an on-going
basis (SCL 2002). Delay analysis methods have been developed to provide fair
resolutions for all parties concerned and play an important role in time-based claim
resolution (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2008). The system that maintains project
records adequately and the selection of the most appropriate analysis method
facilitates the resolution process and makes claims more convincing.
2.7 Extension of Time:

The contractual approach to dealing with delay issues has been to provide in
the contract document circumstances that are likely to cause project delay and the
mechanism for resolving them. Typically, most contracts excuse contractors from
the consequences and/or allow compensation for delay arising from events or
circumstances of which the risk is borne by the owner or is shared between the
- 21 -
parties. The contractor must ask for a time extension associated with the owner’s
action or the force majeure event (severe weather, labor strikes and acts of war).
The (SCL) Protocol defines Extension of Time (EOT) as:
“Additional time granted to the contractor to provide an extended contractual time
period or date by which work is to be, or should be completed and to relieve it from
liability for damages for delay (usually liquidated damages)”
The benefit to the contractor of an EOT is only to relieve the contractor of
liability for damages for delay (usually liquidated damages) for any period prior to
the extended contract completion date. The benefit of an EOT for the employer is
that it establishes a new contract completion date, and prevents time for completion
of the works becoming “at large” (SCL 2002).
Typical notice provisions found in most construction contracts require that
notice of the occurrence of a delay be provided within a fairly short period of time
(Yates and Epstein 2006). Federal contracts require this notice within 10 days and
the Standard AIA Contract forms require it to be within 20 days (Bramble and
Callahan 1987).the contractor must furnish the owner with a written notification
outlining the delay as soon as realized or within a specified period of time. Usually,
this type of notice must be followed by detailed cost data and an analysis of
potential impacts to the schedule. Failure to provide proper notice may forfeit a
contractor’s right to recovery of damages suffered as a result of a delay (Yates and
Epstein 2006).
According to the Iraqi contract conditions, the contractor shall ask for
extension of time under (Clause No. 45):
1. The contractor shall ask for extension of time in the following cases:
A. If increase or change occurs in the quantity or quality of the works and that
effect the progress of the work in which it cannot be complete within the time
for completion.
B. If the delay is attributable to causes or procedures of the employer or of any
constituted authority or for cause belong to other contractors that the
employer use.
- 22 -
C. If there are exceptional circumstances occur after the date of contracting

beyond the control of the contractor and that was neither expected nor
avoided in which it causes delay to the completion of the works.
2. The contractor should give a request to the engineer representative within 30 days
from the occurrence of the cause for which demands for extension have arisen. The
contractor must provide precise and complete details in any request for extension
and the engineer should ascertain the request within time not exceed 60 days from
the date of receiving it. No demands shall be accepted after the release of the
acceptance certificate.
2.8 Damages Arising from Delay:

Delays are the most common and also the most costly problem on
construction projects. Delays during construction can create huge cost damages, and
these damages can result in taking legal action from parties against each other
through a construction claim. When a project suffers a delay while substantial work
is in progress, construction-job-site support costs, such as trailers, supervision costs,
maintenance, utilities, tools, and equipment, will continue to accumulate unless
these resources are moved to another job site.
From the contractor’s perspective delay on an activity can cause inefficiency
in the carrying out the works and/or prolongation of the overall project duration
(Ndekugri 2007). Inefficiency often arises from the contractor being compelled to
abandon carefully designed work plans for less efficient work methods. This impact
is therefore that the contractor incurs additional costs, thus reducing profitability.
The prolongation impact often has more disastrous consequences on profitability but
in a different manner. Resources have to be kept on the project longer than planned.
The cost of the resources during the period of prolongation is therefore extra.
Furthermore, the contractor looses the opportunity of redeploying his resources tied
up on the delayed project on alternative work from which to earn additional
contribution to its profit and head office overheads. Contractors therefore have a
very strong incentive to lay the blame for delays on employers and demand financial
compensation.
- 23 -
Once entitlement to delay or disruption damages is established, the party

seeking to recover must substantiate its costs in order to receive payment. The types
of delay damages that are awarded will vary from project to project. The categories
of damages that can be recovered by virtue of delay are (Yates and Epstein 2006):
1. Labor escalation and material escalation.
2. Increased engineering and supervision.
3. Interest.
4. Equipment costs.
5. Impact costs which includes job rhythm, morale and learning curve.
6. Field office overhead.
7. Insurance and Bonding/loss of bonding.
If the direct costs (all labor and all its overhead burdens, contractual and
temporary materials, construction equipments, and even supervisory and staff time)
are well documented then it is normally not too difficult to justify in a claim. But the
impact costs (job rhythm, morale and learning curve) are the most difficult to define
(Barrie and Paulson 1984).
Delay is equally a major financial risk to the employer. If the economic
viability of the overall commercial venture depends on the project generating an
income stream from a particular date, failure to complete the construction project by
that date could turn a profitable venture into a loss making one (Ndekugri 2007).
Even when the delay does not cause loss it reduces profitability on account of delay
in the inception of revenue generation. For this reason an employer would claim
damages for breach of contract founded on the failure to complete on time. Actual
damages suffered by an owner may include (Yates and Epstein 2006):
1. Loss of use;
2. Additional damages related to loss of use;
3. Increased interest; and
4. Additional professional fees for architects and engineers.
There is therefore an unavoidable tension between the parties’ financial
interests in relation to delay. Whoever is ultimately determined to be responsible for
the event that caused the delay must bear the financial consequences.
- 24 -
2.9 Mitigation and Acceleration:

There are subtle distinctions between acceleration and delay mitigation
(AACEI 2007). For example, acceleration cost implies additional expenditure or
money for recovery of either incurred or projected delay, or efforts to complete
early. Delay mitigation, refers to no-cost recovery efforts for incurred or projected
delay.
The typical dilemma contractors face with the prospect of having to mitigate
some delay is in deciding when it is appropriate or necessary to instigate such
mitigation action, to what extent and at what cost (Keane and Caletka 2008).
Mitigating delay often involves some form of acceleration. Both mitigation and
acceleration are discussed in more detail below.
2.9.1 Mitigation:
Delay Mitigation is a contractor’s or owner’s efforts to reduce the effect of
delays already incurred or anticipated to occur to activities or groups of activities.
Mitigation often includes revising the project's scope, budget, schedule or quality,
preferably without material impact on the project's objectives, in order to reduce
possible delay (AACEI 2007).
Delay mitigation is generally achieved through non-compensable efforts.
These efforts are usually associated with changes in preferential logic so as to
perform the work in a shorter timeframe (Vento and D'Onofrio 2007). For example,
the work activities may be re-sequenced in the schedule in a manner to reduce
overall time. In some instances, activities which are scheduled in series may be
overlapped by allowing follow-on work to proceed when a portion of the preceding
work is complete, thereby reducing the overall time.
Delay mitigation does have a small cost that is usually ignored. This cost is
associated with the contractor’s management of the schedule and the overall project
and is generally considered minimal and, therefore, not compensable (AACEI
2007).
- 25 -
2.9.2 Acceleration:
Acceleration is work by the contractor that is required to complete all or a
portion of the contracted scope earlier than scheduled, as a result, the remaining
period of performance is shortened or compressed as compared to the time planned
to perform that work (AACEI 2007).
The acceleration of the work is usually achieved through adding resources to
the project, such as labor and supervision or equipment, working overtime hours, re-
sequencing the work, or expediting material or equipment.
Documenting acceleration of work can be achieved in a number of ways. The
overall number of calendar days to complete a project may be reduced by scheduling
overtime through longer days or extended work weeks. The procurement of
equipment or material is on the critical path of a project, expediting costs may be
paid to accelerate delivery (Vento and D'Onofrio 2007).
Acceleration can be of three types: (1) Owner-directed through a verbal or a
written change order that the contractor executed at additional costs; (2) Owner
constructive, where the contractor accelerates the work so as to compensate for
excusable delays (due to owner or unforeseeable reasons); and (3) Contractor
voluntary, when the contractor escalates the rate of construction for his/her own
benefit or convenience, or in an attempt to correct a contractor-caused (non
excusable) delay in an effort to timely complete the work (Zhang and Hegazy 2005).
Directed acceleration may occur if an owner desires occupancy earlier than
required by the contract or requires an intermediate milestone to be completed
earlier than mandated by contract. Directed acceleration is always compensable to
the contractor, although the parties may disagree on quantum (AACEI 2007).
“If at any time, the engineer find that the progress of the work is too slow to
complete within the completion time or within the extended time, then the engineer
should notify the contractor in writing and the contractor should take the necessary
steps (after the approval of the engineer) to accelerate the work in which it complete
within the completion time or within the extended time” (Clause No. 47) of the Iraqi
contract conditions.
- 26 -
On the other hand, constructive acceleration occurs when an excusable delay

has occurred on a project, but a time extension has been refused by the owner. If the
owner has not extended the project completion for justifiable delays, the contractor
may need to accelerate and recover contract time to avoid liquidated or actual delay
damages. The costs associated with this acceleration may be recoverable if the
contractor demonstrates that (1) it was entitled to an extension of contract time; (2)
an extension was requested in a timely manner; (3) the owner impliedly directed
acceleration or refused to grant the extension; and (4) the contractor incurred
additional costs in its efforts to avoid liquidated or other damages (Vento and
D'Onofrio 2007).
A contractor’s cost for acceleration, whether directed or constructive, is
generally associated with its effort to engage more resources to perform the work
during a unit of time than it had planned. These increased resources fall into the
following major categories: (1) increased management resources; (2) increased
equipment usage; (3) increased material supply; and (4) increased labor (AACEI
2007).
The greatest cost associated with acceleration is usually labor (Vento and
D'Onofrio 2007). The increase in labor cost is a result of a decrease in labor
productivity. Decreased labor productivity is caused by disruption to the planned
sequence and pace of the labor. Disruption is the result of having more men working
in the planned area during a specific time, or loss of productivity associated with
individual workers working more hours than planned.
- 27 -
CHAPTER THREE: CONSTRUCTION DELAY ANALYSIS
CHAPTER THREE
CONSTRUCTION DELAY ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction:
Delays are encountered on most construction projects, whether simple or
complex. Thus, accurately analyzing and apportioning delays is essential to the
allocation of responsibility for time-related costs. In the past 3 decades, extensive
research efforts have been directed to delay analysis. The purpose is to calculate the
project delay and work backwards to try to identify how much of it is attributable to
each party (contractor, owner, or neither), so that time and/or cost compensation can
be decided. There are a number of methodologies available for analyzing delays and
these are known by different terminologies among practitioners and researchers. The
methodologies differ from each other based on the type of schedule techniques
required and the baseline schedule used. Each delay analysis method adopts a
different approach to identify delay impacts and may yield different results.
There is no delay analysis method that can be universally used over another in
all situations. Courts and administrative boards have not specified any standard
method to evaluate delay impacts. The parties may use any method in a level of
detail that they see fit to prove the entitlement to compensation. Delay analysis can
be conducted in a cursory manner or in such detail as to exceed the value of the
underlying dispute.
This chapter reports on a review of the existing delay analysis techniques in
respect of what these techniques are, their applications, strengths and weaknesses,
the most important issues in delay analysis that affect the results of the analysis and
the factors that influence analysts’ selection from these methodologies.
3.2 The Use of CPM Scheduling Methods:

The planning and use of a project schedule is one (and probably the first) key
for effective management and successful performance. As a management tool, the
schedule is used to plan and coordinate the work, monitor and control progress,
evaluate and document changes, and is often used to prove or defend claims. A
construction schedule is a tool to determine the activities necessary to complete a
- 28 -
project, the time it will take to complete the activities, and the sequence in which the
work must be performed to complete the project in a timely and cost-effective
manner. Therefore, the schedule must be accurate enough to foresee and resolve
problems but flexible enough to allow for unavoidable changes (Vento and
D'Onofrio 2007).
The critical path method (CPM) schedule technique has been widely used as a
management tool in construction projects (Wickwire et al. 1989). A CPM schedule
combines all relevant information into a single work plan, defines the sequence and
duration of operations, and depicts the interrelationships of the work activities
required to complete the project. The longest path of the resulting schedule is called
the “critical path”: it consists of activities that, if delayed, will extend the project
beyond its predetermined completion date. In addition to the critical path, there are
other various side paths called non-critical paths. If affected by improper scheduling
or performance delays, these paths could become critical and thus alter the original
critical path.
Use of Critical Path Management concepts is valuable in analyzing delays in
a claim context because the CPM can help to identify the period of the delay event
and determine the cause and effect of the delay, as well as pinpoint the responsible
parties (Householder and Rutland 1990). Use of CPM schedules to prove
construction claims became the standard. It is one of the best ways to fulfill courts
and mediators who want to hear in the simplest possible terms what really occurred
day to day on the project (Ibbs and Nguyen 2007). CPM schedule has long been
accepted by courts as an effective tool to evaluate the impact of delays (Arditi and
Pattanakitchamroon 2006).
Common delay analysis methods are based on critical path method (CPM)
techniques and are performed by contrasting the as-planned and as-built schedules.
Generally the as-planned and as-built schedules are the basic data source for delay
analysis (Kim et al. 2005; Bubshait and Cunningham 1998).
1. The as-planned schedule is a graphical representation of the contractor’s original
intentions for the completion of the project. It shows the different critical paths
as well as the planned activities and their sequence.
- 29 -
2. The as-built schedule shows the actual sequence and progress of the activities in
the project as they occurred in real life, including the slowdowns, work
stoppages, and accelerations. The as-built schedule provides evidence to
substantiate an assessment of liability for any delays.
3.3 Recording Site Events for Delay Analysis:

Daily recording of the actions performed by all parties on a construction site
is necessary for delay analysis (Hegazy et al. 2005). Site events involve a large
amount of data related to weather, staffing, resource use, work accomplished,
inspections, accidents, delivery of materials, and changes in orders.
Daily site events are recorded in a variety of media, including daily site
diaries, notes from progress meetings, daily weather records, photographs, and
weekly progress reports. Therefore, compiling these data for delay analysis purposes
is difficult. Usually, in practice, only after construction is completed, existing site
records are used to form a detailed as-built bar chart that reflects major events
during construction.
Delay analysis requires progress-related data, which include start and finish
times, work completed, resources used, idle times, and work disruption periods
(Hegazy et al. 2005). For realistic analysis of delays, the recorded site data should be
sufficient to define the progress of activities as slow, stopped, or accelerated. Slow
progress occurs when the work production is less than planned.
Although the daily site report is an important document for following the
progress of an activity, it is often given the least attention. Some researchers have
been interested in developing computerized systems for daily site reporting. Scott
(1990) developed a bar chart as a graphical form for progress reporting. In his bar
chart (Figure 3.1), the daily status of each activity is recorded as one of the
following four conditions:
• X - Activity working all day.
• H - Activity working half day.
• W - Activity not working all day due to weather.
• R - Activity not working half day due to weather.
- 30 -
Figure 3.1 Recording Site Data in a Bar Chart (Scott 1990)

Stumpf (2000) presented an approach that manipulates existing software to
facilitate the analysis. His approach simulates each delay by adding a separate
activity with duration equal to the delay period, as shown in (Figure 3.2). For
example, the activity “Excavation” in Figure 3.2 experienced an owner-caused delay
(due to unexpected rock) for 2 days. This situation is represented by the addition of
a new activity for the delay and the splitting of the original activity into two parts (a
and b). The activity then becomes three components that are manually linked by
appropriate logical relations.
Figure 3.2 Representing Delays on Commercial Scheduling Software

(Stumpf 2000)
Hegazy et al. (2005) showed that the evolution of the progress of the project
can be accurately indicated by recording the daily percentage completed (can be
calculated from the start and finish dates) for each activity and then comparing it to
the planned percentage. Accordingly, slow progress can be identified when actual
- 31 -
progress proceeds with lower productivity than planned; acceleration, when work
proceeds with higher productivity than planned; and suspension, when work is
completely stopped. The authors presented a bar chart made of spreadsheet cells,
each representing one day or one week, or any unit of time for an activity. The
activities are thus represented not in bars (as in commercial software) but as a group
of adjacent cells making up the duration of the activity. The proposed bar chart
records the daily percentage completed of each activity, the delays, the party
responsible for the delay, and any other related data.
Delays are recorded on the bar chart on the day they occur. As shown in
(Figure 3.3), if an activity is delayed for owner-related reasons, an “O” is shown for
that day. In the same manner, if the delay is contractor-related, a “C” is shown. In
the case of delays that are not attributable to the owner or contractor (e.g., weather),
an “N” is shown. If a concurrent delay occurs, a combination of these three letters is
shown (e.g., “O+N” or “O+C”). The reasons for delays are also recorded as text
comments in the delay cells.
Figure 3.3 Recording Site Data Using an Intelligent Bar Chart

(Hegazy et al. 2005)
It is essential that progress-related data be recorded daily so that the

responsibility for the delay is known, and compensation can be calculated accurately
with less disagreement among parties.
3.4 Issues in Delay Analysis:

A number of factors may influence the result of delay analysis regardless of
which delay analysis method is used. These factors are including concurrent delays,
- 32 -
float ownership, resource allocation and logic change. Current methods and their
improvements can only solve one or some of these factors. The following
subsections are discussed these issues:
3.4.1 Concurrent Delays:

Concurrent delay analysis is a very complex and difficult aspect of schedule
delay analysis. The resolution of this type of delay has been a contentious legal and
technical subject in construction and engineering contracts (SCL 2002). The reason
for this is largely due to the fact that resolving it requires the consideration of the
interaction of different factors such as the time of occurrence of the delays, their
length of duration, their critically, the legal principles of causation and float
ownership (Kim et al. 2005). The situation is made worst by the lack of uniformly
accepted definition among practitioners as to what concurrent delays means in the
first place (SCL 2002).
Kraiem and Diekmann (1987) defined concurrent delays as the situation in
which two or more delays occur at the same time either of which had it occurred
alone, would have affected the ultimate completion date. It means that the events are
considered to result in concurrent delay when it is clear that one of the events caused
a delay in the schedule, but even if that event had not occurred, the schedule would
have been delayed anyhow by the other event. There is the view also that the delays
need not occur in the same activity on the same critical path but may exist in
different activities on parallel critical path as well (Kao and Yang 2008).
Some argue whether the two delays are required to occur at the same time to
be considered as concurrent delays (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006). Some
delay events may not start and end exactly at the same time but their effects may
happen at the same time. SCL (2002) suggests using the term ‘‘concurrent effect’’
for sequential delay events to avoid confusion and treat them differently from a
concurrent delay.
To clarify the above definitions, various scenarios of concurrent delays
illustrating these definitions are shown in Figure 3.4:
- 33 -
Figure 3.4 Different Scenarios that Define Concurrent Delays

The figure shows a project of 4 activities (A, B, C and D), suffering a 4-
weeks project delay, which was caused by employer and contractor delays each
lasting 4 weeks. Scenario 1 is where both delays, starting and ending at the same,
affect a single activity on the same critical path. In scenario 2, both delays affect
different activities on different critical paths but start and end at the same time.
Scenario 3 is similar to scenario 2 except that both delay start and end at different
times.
The major challenge with concurrent delays rests with allocating the
responsibilities for the overall project delay. This challenge does not lie with
concurrent delay situations of two or more delays of the same kind (i.e. from the
same party) but those of different delay types (e.g. owner delay and contractor
delay). Different delay types can be combined to give four main categories of
concurrent delays as follows (Kraiem and Diekmann, 1987):
1. Excusable noncompensable delay and nonexcusable noncompensable delay.
2. Excusable noncompensable delay and excusable compensable delay.
3. Excusable noncompensable delay, nonexcusable noncompensable delay and
excusable compensable delay.
4. Nonexcusable noncompensable delay and excusable compensable delay.
- 34 -
The contentious point of discussion is which remedy to which party should be

assessed from any concurrent delay event (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006).
Even if one party is able to prove the causation of the project delay, the assessment
of the damage to the delay raises further questions of how extended time and
compensation would be assessed in case of the owner’s fault, and how liquidated
damages would be issued to the contractor in case of delay caused by the contractor.
Kraiem and Diekmann (1987) described two different rules the ‘easy rule’
and ‘fair rule’ as a remedy for concurrent delay (see Table 3.1):
Table 3.1 Remedies for Concurrent Delays (Kraiem and Diekmann 1987)
Concurrent delay type Remedy (for critical path)
Any delay concurrent with excusable Time extension

non compensable
Easy rule Fair rule
Excusable compensable concurrent with Time extension Apportionment

non excusable non compensable
When concurrent delays exist, the assessment of delay damages and/or time
extensions is difficult and often results in serious disagreements. Research is
necessary to develop agreeable methods that will allow the parties to reach
consensus by examining the root causes of the individual concurrent delay events.
3.4.2 Float Ownership:

The concept of float in projects is often associated with critical path type
schedules. Total float or slack is defined as the amount of time any given activity or
path of activities may be delayed before it will affect the contract completion date or
the critical path of the project (Nguyen and Ibbs 2008).
Float is a valuable resource to both owners and contractors as they tend to
rely on it for planning and control purposes. Typically, it offers flexibility to
contractors in the arrangement and performance of non-critical activities, as a means
of making good delays on the critical path. Owners on the other hand, often see it as
- 35 -
an opportunity to make changes since it can accommodate the impact of such

changes.
Due to the dynamics of schedules, however, an activity that originally has
float may later have zero or negative float as a result of delays to preceding activities
and become critical. In this scheme, a party who delays this then-critical activity can
be held responsible for the delay. When such project delays occur, float ownership
and its utilization are often the source of major disputes (Householder and Rutland
1990).
Float ownership is usually specified in the conditions of contract (Arditi and
Pattanakitchamroon 2006). Contracts typically state that float belongs to the project
or on a ‘‘first-come first-served basis’’ (Wickwire et al. 1989). It means that total
float time is considered “free” and does not belong exclusively to any specific party
in the construction process; rather, it belongs to the project and can be used by both
owners and contractors to mitigate the potentially negative impact of delays. The
party that encounters critical delays in the later stages of a project is more likely to
be held responsible for delays to the overall project completion time.
There are a number of suggestions seeking a fair resolution for the float
ownership problem. The UK Delay and Disruption Protocol’s position on float
ownership is that if the clause stating the entitlement of float is not specified in the
contract, float should belong to a project (SCL 2002). In other words, the first-come
first-served principle should govern the use of float. On the other hand, Scott et al.’s
(2004) survey of 46 UK professionals employed by owners, contractors, and claims
consultants shows that the majority of respondents believed that the contractor
should have exclusive control of float while only few owners supported the position
that float should be allocated on a first-come first-served basis. De la Garza et al.
(1991) agree with the British professionals that float is exclusively for the benefit of
the contractor and add that float should be traded as a commodity. According to the
authors, the contractor is entitled to sell the float in case the owner needs to consume
such float.
Householder and Rutland (1990) suggest that the use of float should be
reserved for the party who loses or gains as a result of fluctuation in the project cost.
- 36 -
In other words, in fixed-price contracts, wherein the contractor has ultimate risk or
benefit from project cost, the contractor should exclusively control float usage.
Conversely, wherein the owner has the ultimate risk or benefit from project cost in a
cost-plus contract, the owner should be entitled to own float to minimize cost to the
owner.
While Pasiphol and Popescu (1994) suggest a compromise position regardless
of the type of contract: allocating float in a shared way by proposing a qualitative
method to distribute total float into each activity prior to executing a project.
The varied positions concerning who owns float can influence the result of
delay analysis. The sample design/ build project presented in (Figure 3.5) is
composed of three activities, two of which involve contractor provided design and
construction, and one is owner’s approval of design. The design needs to be
approved by the owner before construction can start. The contract duration is 12
days while the contractor has planned to execute the project in only 10 days, which
yields two days of total float. Two alternative scenarios of actual activities are also
shown in (Figure 3.5). In the first scenario, the contractor’s design activity
experiences a 2-day delay, followed by an owner-caused delay of 2 days. In the
second scenario, the contractor-caused delay of 2 days occurs after the 2-day delay
caused by the owner. Contractor delay Owner delay Completion date
ACTIVITY (Party responsible) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Plan
Design (Contractor)
Approval (Owner)
Construction (Contractor)
Actual (Scenario 1)
Design (Contractor)
Approval (Owner)
Actual (Scenario 2)
Design (Contractor)
Approval (Owner)
Figure 3.5 Effect of Ownership of Float (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006)
- 37 -
The different position of float ownership would influence the results of delay
analysis significantly as presented in (Table 3.2):
Table 3.2 Results of Delay Analyses (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Extension of time Liquidated Extension of Liquidated
Float ownership granted to damages assessed time granted to damages assessed
contractor in to contractor in contractor in to contractor in
days days days days
Contractor exclusively 2 0 2 0
owns float
Owner exclusively owns 0 2 0 2
float
Project owns float (first- 2 0 0 2
come, first-served basis)
Ignore float 2 2 2 2
It is therefore imperative that float ownership be clearly defined in the

contract in order to avoid disagreements in delay-related claims. If the party that
owns float is identified in the contract, both the owner and the contractor can
anticipate the outcome of potential actions and can adjust their activities
accordingly.
3.4.3 Resource Allocation:

Resource allocation (sometimes referred to as constrained-resource
scheduling) is among the top challenges in project management. It attempts to
schedule the project activities so that a limited number of resources can be
efficiently utilized.
Traditional delay analysis techniques study the effect of an event or several
events on the critical path(s) of the project in order to evaluate and apportion the
delays. However, some events not only change the critical path(s) of the project but
also disorganize the planned resource allocation for the remaining work, which in
turn, may introduce more delays to the project because of the resource rescheduling
required. It has been proven, therefore, that the apportionment of responsibility for
the delay may be inaccurate unless the impact of the resource allocation is
considered in the analysis (Ibbs and Nguyen 2007). Unfortunately, available delay
analysis methods, including the windows analysis, do not capture the possible
- 38 -
extended impact on resource over-allocation of a delay in either a critical or a

noncritical activity (Hegazy and Menesi 2008). While a number of studies have
focused on project resource allocation, only three studies have indicated the
importance of the effect of resource allocation in delay analysis.
Ibbs and Nguyen (2007) propose steps to enhance window analysis by
incorporating resource analysis inherently in the delay calculation. Among other
things, they include the possible extended effect of delays due to changes in
resource allocation and the positive/negative effect of resource allocation on delay
responsibility. However, they did not address the other limitations of the windows
analysis. Therefore, Hegazy and Menesi (2008) introduce further modifications to
the daily windows analysis to consider the impact of resource allocation on the
apportionment of delay responsibility. Nguyen and Ibbs (2008) also study the effect
of resource allocation in delay analysis. They propose a new schedule analysis
technique called FLORA that simultaneously captures the dynamics of float, logic,
and resource allocation in its analyses.
Resource leveling is traditionally neglected in the calculation of float
(Householder and Rutland 1990). Nevertheless a noncritical activity may be
“resource critical” because it will extend project duration if it does not release
resources on time. In addition the use of soft logics (preferential construction
sequence) can sequester total float or increase delays (Nguyen and Ibbs 2008).
Schedule analysis should therefore address the dynamics of float, logic, and resource
allocation in an integrated manner.
Nguyen and Ibbs (2008) presented an example to depict the dynamics of
float, logic, and resource allocation in schedule analysis. The as-planned project
duration is 9 weeks with four activities A, B, C, and D as shown in (Figure 3.6). The
maximum allowable number of workers on this site is ten. At Week 5 the owner
issues a change order that extends Activity D 3 weeks. The project would not be
delayed since the change order only consumes float of Activity D. However the
required number of workers during weeks 6–8 would be 12, which exceed the
allowable allocation of workers. To accommodate this problem the contractor has to
reschedule Activity C by removing the finish-start (FS) logic between A and C and
- 39 -
adding FS logic between D and C. This logic change delays the project 2 weeks.
Consequently, the change order does not simply consume time float but alters the
schedule’s downstream logic and resource allocation and delays the project.
Schedule analysis should capture this dynamics properly to provide a more
reasonable result.
Figure 3.6 Effect of Float, Logic, and Resource Allocation

(Nguyen and Ibbs 2008)
3.5 Delay Analysis Techniques:

Schedule analysis is the analytical process through which a professional
employs the critical path method (CPM), together with a forensic review of project
documentation and other pertinent data, to evaluate and apportion the effects of
delays and other impacts on the project schedule (Ibbs and Nguyen 2007). A formal
schedule analysis procedure includes the following five steps: (1) data gathering; (2)
data analysis; (3) identification of the root cause; (4) classification of the type of
delay; and (5) assigning responsibility.
There are four methods often mentioned in the construction literature that are
professionally acceptable. They include (1) As-planned versus as-built schedule
analysis method, (2) Impact as-planned schedule analysis method, (3) Collapsed as-
built schedule analysis method, and (4) Window analysis method, and they are
known by different terminologies among practitioners see (Table 3.3).
- 40 -
Table 3.3 Names of Existing Delay Analysis Techniques (Researcher)

Alternative names used by different
Common name Literature review
authors
As-planned • Stumpf 2000 • Adjusted as-built ( Alkass et al.
versus as-built • Lovejoy 2004 1996)
• Pickavance • Total time (Zack 2001; Stumpf
2005 2000)
Impacted as- • Lovejoy 2004 • What if (Schumacher 1995)
planned • Pickavance • Baseline adding impacts
2005 (Bordoli and Baldwin 1998)
• As-planned-plus delay analysis
(Zack 2001)
Collapsed as- • Stumpf 2000 • But-for (Schumacher 1995; Zack
built • Lovejoy 2004 2001)
• As-built but-for (Pickavance
2005)
• As-built subtracting impacts
(Bordoli and Baldwin 1998)
• As-built less delay analysis
(Zack 2001)
Window • Bordoli and • Contemporaneous period analysis
analysis Baldwin 1998 (Schumacher 1995;Zack 2001)
• Finke 1999 • Snapshot (Alkass et al. 1995;
• Lovejoy 2004 1996)
• Pickavance • Watershed (Pickavance 2005)
2005
The following gives an overview of the difference between the various

methods including their strengths and weaknesses.
3.5.1 As-Planned Versus As-Built Comparison:

The as-planned vs. as-built method is the observation of the difference
between an as-planned schedule and an as-built schedule. The method identifies the
as-built critical activities, compares these activities with the activities on the as-
planned schedule, assesses the impact of delays on the project, identifies the
sequences which actually define the duration of the project, and determines the
causation and responsibility of delays that impact project completion (Fruchtman
2000).
The main advantages of this methodology are that: it is relatively
inexpensive, simple and easy to use or understand (Lovejoy 2004). Its limitations
- 41 -
include failure to consider changes in the critical path, lacks a systematic procedure
to evaluate the impact of delay events individually and inability to deal with
complex delay situations (Stumpf 2000; Zack 2001).
3.5.2 Impacted As-Planned Method (What-If approach):

The impacted as-planned method adopts the as-planned schedule as its
baseline. It involves incorporating delays (caused by either the contractor or the
owner) as activities into as-planned CPM schedule to demonstrate how a project
completion date is being delayed by those delays. The delays can be added
chronologically in turn or in a single shot to the baseline programme. The amount of
project delay due to each delaying event is determined as the difference between the
schedules completion dates before and after the additions (Pickavance 2005).
The impacted as-planned schedule reflects how the as-planned schedule could
have been impacted as a result of owner or contractor-caused delays being inserted
into the schedule. For example, contractors who submit claims that involve a time
extension add only owner-caused delays to the as-planned schedule in the
appropriate sequence to document the total project delay caused by the owner
(Wickwire et al. 1991).
This method has the advantage of simplicity and clarity. However, it has the
disadvantage that it cannot reflect actual project progress, or any changes that may
have occurred in project planning and execution during construction, because it uses
only the as-planned schedule as the baseline schedule for delay analysis (Kim et al.
2005). Further disadvantage is that the amount of delay attributable to one side or
the other may be difficult to determine accurately when the delays are even partially
concurrent, since the effect of concurrent delay is not considered. It also has major
drawbacks such as failure to consider any changes in the critical path and the
assumption that the planned construction sequence remains valid (Stumpf 2000;
Zack 2001; Lovejoy 2004).
- 42 -
3.5.3 Collapsed As-Built Method (but-for method):

The collapsed as-built method adopts the as-built schedule as its baseline.
This method overcomes the inadequacy of the what-if method for dealing with
changes in project planning and execution during construction. It attempts to remove
one party’s delay from the as-built schedule (to collapse the schedule) and leaves
those delays caused solely by the other party.
The collapsed as-built method is used by the contractors to demonstrate a
schedule that they could have achieved “but for” the actions of the owner. The
delays attributable to the owner are subtracted from the as-built schedule. The
compensable delay is the difference between the as-built schedule and the but-for
schedule.
The collapsed as-built method is a very practical approach since it offers a
good combination of benefits (Lovejoy, 2004). But-for schedules are frequently
used for delay analysis because of the following advantages (Fruchtman 2000; Zack
2001; Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006):
1. This method is more reliable than several other delay analysis methods.
2. It requires less time, efforts and costs than windows analysis to be performed.
3. It is accepted by courts and boards.
4. It is a method of choice when a contractor lacks an acceptable schedule during
the project, or when no as-planned schedule was required in the contract.
On the other hand, Finke (1999, 1997), Fruchtman (2000), Stumpf (2000),
Zack (2001), Gothand (2003), and Sandlin et al. (2004) criticize the premise of the
collapsed as-built analysis as it has the following drawbacks:
1. Concurrent delays cannot be recognized because the analyst considers only the
delays caused by the owner to prove the effects of owner-caused delays on the
project completion and does not include contractor- caused delays in the
analysis.
2. It does not consider the dynamic nature of the project’s critical paths. Indeed, it
assumes that the as-built schedule makes use of the contractor’s original as-
planned intentions to execute the project, using the same sequence of activities
- 43 -
and the same productivities. Consequently, the events that cause delay along the
course of the project may not be detected.
3. It is highly subjective and subject to manipulation. The analyst is required to
recreate logic relationships into an as-built schedule from project records in order
to perform the CPM analysis. Indeed, an as-built schedule no longer depends on
the logic of the original network but on actual dates of activity progress. This
process is subjective because the records, including logical sequences, lag times,
etc., can be subjectively interpreted.
4. It is restricted by its inability to identify resequencing, redistribution of resources
or acceleration (Lowsley and Linnett 2006).
In conclusion, the collapsed as-built analysis can be used when the time and
resources available for detailed analysis are limited and when both the contractor
and the owner have access to the detail of as-built records and reasonably concur in
interpreting the information used to construct the as-built network. Figure 3.7
displays the analysis process of but-for technique.
Figure 3.7 Analysis Process for the But-For Technique (Yang et al. 2006)
3.5.4 Contemporaneous Period Analysis Method (window analysis):

The windows method breaks the construction period into discrete time
increments called “window” and examines the effects of the delays attributable to
- 44 -
each of the project participants as the delays occur. It adopts the as-planned schedule
as its baseline, but the as-planned schedule is periodically updated at the end of each
planned time period. The dates defining the boundaries of these windows are often
determined by major project milestones, significant changes in the critical path,
occurrence of major delay events and dates for the issue of schedule revisions or
updates. These factors determine the number and durations of the windows for the
whole project duration. The more windows there are or the shorter their durations,
the better the accuracy of the analysis (Finke 1999; Hegazy and Zhang 2005).
The analysis starts from the as-planned schedule (without any delays). Each
window is then analyzed separately. On each window, contemporaneous site
information, such as owner delays, contractor delays, acts of God, etc. are
introduced on the schedule. As such, “as-built” events stretch from project start until
the end of the current window. The remaining part of the schedule (from window
end till end of the project), becomes the remaining part of the current baseline
schedule (without delays).
For each window, the project duration is compared to that of its previous
window (first window is compared to as-planned schedule). If the current window’s
project duration is larger, then its critical path(s) are analyzed to examine the
responsibility for the delay. This analysis is repeated successively for each of the
remaining windows to determine the effect of all other delay events on project
completion.
Baram (1994), Finke (1997), Zack (2001), and Stumpf (2000) address the
importance of the dynamic nature of project critical paths. Window analysis
performs a series of analyses throughout a project period, in contrast to the major
disadvantage of the previously mentioned methods that observe a schedule at a
single point in time. The analysis is able to trace the causes and effects of delay
events systematically. The impact of a delay event is individually evaluated in detail.
The windows analysis method is distinguished from the impact as-planned
and collapsed as-built analyses in the fact that it incorporates both party delays into
the analysis. The excusable compensable, excusable noncompensable, and
nonexcusable delays can be separately identified. In addition to this advantage,
- 45 -
Wickwire et al. (1991) describe indirect benefits generated by the use of window
analysis in that it also provides a disciplined basis for the contractual parties to keep
a project schedule up-to-date and properly adjusted. Some researchers have
developed computer implementations of the traditional windows technique using
commercial scheduling software (e.g., Alkass et al. 1995; Lucas 2002).
The majority of the viewpoints reviewed in the literature agree that windows
analysis yields the most reliable results. Despite these advantages windows analysis
requires significant time and effort. Since it requires a large amount of information
and the schedule needs to be periodically updated, this method may not be
appropriate for projects that lack strict administrative procedures and updated
schedules. Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2006) presented the views of some of the
researchers and practitioners who wrote about standard delay analysis methods from
years 1987 to 2004. The comments of these researchers and practitioners on
windows analysis are summarized in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Comments on the Windows Delay Analysis (Arditi and

Pattanakitchamroon 2006)
References Comments
Lovejoy (2004) Very good
Sagarlata and Brasco (2004) Useful for prospective analyses, but minimal utility supporting claims
Sandlin et al. (2004) Overcomes some disadvantages of others
Gothand (2003) Reliable
SCL (2002) Most reliable when available
Harris and Scott (2001) Make some use by claims consultants
Zack (2001) Accurate but expensive
Fruchtman (2000) Contemporaneous basis, but not future changes considered
Stumpf (2000) Reliable, but time consuming
Finke (1999, 1997) Most reasonable and accurate
McCullullough (1999) Dependent on baseline schedule, accurate
Zack (1999) Suitable
Bubshait and Cunningham
Acceptable, dependent on availability of data
(1998)
Levin (1998) Dependent on how the method is applied
Alkass et al. (1996) Some drawbacks/propose modified method
Schumacher (1995) Effective method
Baram (1994) Most desirable approach
Wickwire et al. (1991) Recommended
- 46 -
3.5.4.1 Delay Analysis Using Traditional Windows Approach:

The windows analysis method can be demonstrated by an example reported in
Hegazy and Zhang (2005). Figure 3.8 shows the as-planned and the as-built
schedules of a simple 4-activity case study. According to the relationships shown,
activities B and C both follow activity A and are then followed by activity D. The
as-planned duration is seven days, while the as-built duration is nine days; thus, the
project delay is two days.
ACTIVITY
DATE ACTIVITY DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A A
Owner
B B O O
C C C
D D Contractor
delay
(a) As-Planned Bar Chart (b) As-Built Bar Chart

Figure 3.8 Bar Charts for a Small Example of Windows Analysis (Hegazy and
Zhang 2005)
A- Windows Analysis Using One Window of Nine Days
Since two owner delays (O) occurred on the final critical path A-B-D, the
two days of project delay are attributed to the owner.
B- Windows Analysis Using Two Windows, Ending at Days 3 and 9
In the first window (Figure 3.9 a), the shaded part to the left of day 4
represents the actual progress of the project. Looking at the window’s critical path
A-C-D, one day of contractor delay (C) occurred, leading to a one-day project delay.
This window becomes the basis for the next window.
In the second window (Figure 3.9 b), the critical path becomes A-B-D which
exhibits two days of owner delay, causing the project duration to become nine days.
One day of the two-day owner delays at current critical path did not affect project
duration since there was a one-day project delay from the previous window.
Therefore, only one-day owner delay is decided at the second window. Thus the
- 47 -
analysis concludes that the two-day project delay should be allocated as one day of
contractor delay and one day of owner delay.
DATE DATE
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A A
B B O O
C C C C
D D
(a) Window Ending at Day 3 (b) Window Ending at Day 9

Figure 3.9 Windows Analysis Method with Two Windows, Ending at Days (3)
and (9) (Hegazy and Zhang 2005)
C- Windows Analysis Using Two Windows (Ending at Days 4 and 9):

In the first window shown in (Figure 3.10 a), the two paths A-B-D and A-C-
D are critical, with one day of owner delay on the path A-B-D and one day of
contractor delay on the path A-C-D resulting in an eight-day project duration.
Although the delays occurred at different dates, the one-day delay is equally
attributed to both.
In the second window (Figure 3.10 b), the project duration becomes nine days
and the one-day delay is attributed to the owner. Thus, the final conclusion of the
analysis is a one-day delay shared by the owner and the contractor and a one-day
owner delay.
DATE DATE
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A A
B O B O O
C C C C
D D
(a) Window Ending at Day 4 (b) Window Ending at Day 9

Figure 3.10 Windows Analysis Method with Two Windows, Ending at Days 4
and 9 (Hegazy and Zhang 2005)
- 48 -
This simple example shows that windows analysis may overlook critical path
fluctuations, and using different window sizes to analyze the same case may result
in different conclusions as shown in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Comparison of the Results of Different Window Sizes (Hegazy and
Zhang 2005)
Delay Responsibility
Window Sizes Owner Contractor
(O) (C)
One window ending at day 9 2 -
Two windows ending at day 3 and 9 1 1
Two windows ending at day 4 and 9 1.5 0.5
3.6 Previous Studies on Delay Analysis:

There has been much desire to reduce or avoid delay claims disputes and this
has created considerable research interest among researchers and practitioners. The
studies so far have followed two main categories of research. The first group focuses
on improvements in existing methodologies to address their weaknesses, while the
second, concerns in developing new methodologies for analyzing delays.
3.6.1 New Improvements:

Of the traditional techniques, the but-for and the windows analysis are
preferred for delay analysis. Courts are much more likely to accept the windows
delay analysis or but-for method than they are to accept other methods (Finke 1999;
Hegazy and Zhang 2005; Kartam 1999; Stumpf 2000). Since both techniques still
have drawbacks, researchers have attempted to improve them.
3.6.1.1 Improved But-for Analysis:

The traditional but-for method considers only one party’s point of view and
does not distinguish between critical, non-critical and concurrent delays. Mbabazi et
al. (2005) proposed three improvements to the existing but-for delay analysis
method, including new representation of disruption of an activity, new
representation of possible interactions among concurrent critical delays, and a new
delay analysis method that reconsiders and reconciles the points of views of all
parties. Through the manipulation of the features of Microsoft project software, an
activity is split into two activities at the delay date, and then a new activity is
- 49 -
inserted between the two parts to represent the delay. The inserted delay activity is
then given an identifier to indicate the responsible party.
Yang and Yin (2009) presented the isolated collapsed but-for (ICBF) method.
During analysis, the ICBF method requires as-planned and as-built schedules as well
as identified liability documents with key delay events to perform its analysis
approach. The proposed ICBF method uses the concept of the isolated delay type
(IDT) method, but starts with an as-built schedule because it reflects actual start and
finish dates and actual duration. The ICBF method adopts the concepts described as
follows. For each analysis period, if no delay occurred, project completion date is
adjusted to (collapsed as) a reasonable date. This adjusted date is the new baseline
for determining the impact of a delay only considering the liability of the owner or
contractor. Therefore, the difference between the new baseline and an impacted
project completion date caused by an analyzed delay is the delay responsibility for
the analyzed contract party. Furthermore, in clearly identifying liability associated
with analyzed activities, the ICBF calculates the delay value under an extracting
window that can consist of several activities. ICBF method has advantages
including: being a systematic and dynamic analysis method, and resolving
concurrent delays. Furthermore, the proposed ICBF method has a clear descriptive
analysis process with a definite baseline schedule development algorithm.
3.6.1.2 Improved Windows Analysis:

Hegazy and Zhang (2005) summarized the drawbacks of traditional windows
analysis. They proved that different window sizes may produce different results.
The use of large windows may overlook the fluctuations in the critical path(s) within
the window and therefore the decision related to delay responsibility will differ.
They proposed using a daily window size that would accurately consider the
changes in the critical path(s), slowdowns, accelerations, and work stoppages. They
utilized an intelligent bar chart (IBC) to represent the progress information and any
delays as a project evolves. The daily windows analysis and its proposed
improvements are discussed through a case study in Chapter 4.
Kim et al. (2005) presented a new method for analyzing and apportioning
responsibility for schedule delays. This method builds on the windows delay
- 50 -
analysis. The authors investigated three currently accepted methods, namely, the
what-if, but-for, and windows methods. The authors pointed out that the present
methods of evaluating construction delays are not adequate and have two
limitations: inadequate accounting for concurrent delay and inadequate accounting
for time-shortened activities (acceleration). They introduced two new concepts:
delay section and contractor’s float. The as-built schedule is divided into various
delay sections. The delay sections are categorised as “no delay”, “single delay”, and
“two or more delays” section. Using the delay sections, the concurrent delays can be
divided into a single delay section and two or more delays sections. This technique
uses the as-planned schedule which is updated after evaluating every delay section.
The delay sections are evaluated based on the minimum total float of the succeeding
activities.
Menesi (2007), Hegazy and Menesi (2008) introduced improvements to the
windows delay analysis. They proposed a computerized schedule analysis model
that considers multiple baseline updates and resource over-allocation. The model
uses a daily window size in order to consider all fluctuations in the critical path(s)
and uses a legible representation of progress information to accurately apportion
delays and accelerations among project parties.
3.6.2 Development of New Approaches:

Alkass et al. (1996) proposed a new method called “isolated delay type”
(IDT) which is derived from the windows analysis. First, the IDT method divides
the as-planned schedule into digestible periods. At the start of each analysis period,
the IDT method modifies activity durations and relationships before and after the
start point by inputting actual start dates, finish dates, and durations, and by
maintaining original durations and logical relationships. This modified schedule is
an adjusted as-planned schedule and the basis for delay comparisons. From one
analysis viewpoint, delays caused by another party are imposed on the adjusted as-
planned schedule. Therefore, the difference in time between project completion date
on the adjusted as-planned schedule and the date after by inserting the delays is the
duty to the opposition.
- 51 -
Shi et al. (2001) proposed a computation method that consists of a set of

equations for computing activity delays and assessing their contribution to the total
project delay. This method uses the as-planned schedule as the basis of analysis and
is not based on the criticality of activities. Therefore, the as-planned schedule does
not need to be updated. This method was developed based only on the finish-to-start
relationship and is not applicable for other relationships.
Oliveros and Fayek (2005) proposed a fuzzy logic approach for schedule
updating and delay analysis. The basis of this approach is the use of fuzzy logic for
estimating the impact of activity delays, for calculating revised activities, and for
recalculating the project schedule. However, the presented model is partially
computerized; to efficiently analyze the information that results from daily site
recordings, it needs to be fully automated.
Lee et al. (2005) suggested that lost productivity is one of the factors that
cause delays in construction projects. They proposed a method for converting lost
productivity into equivalent delay durations. Their study focuses on labour
productivity, assuming that it represents all kinds of productivity. The methodology
used introduced several concepts regarding delay and productivity, such as planned
and actual work duration, and impact factors. Based on those concepts, a delay
analysis process and equations for calculating “the loss of duration due to lost
productivity” are developed. Thereafter the responsibility for lost duration is
assigned through the use of any other appropriate method.
3.7 Factors Influencing the Selection of Delay Analysis Techniques:

The different set of procedures and assumptions required by each
methodology, have resulted in them producing different results of staggeringly
different levels of accuracy for any given claims situation (Alkass et al. 1996;
Bubshait and Cuningham 1998; Stumpf 2000). In addition, there is currently no
industry-wide agreement on which is the most appropriate methodology to use for
delay claims analysis. The factors that influence the selection of the appropriate
methodologies are therefore a matter of the greatest importance (Braimah and
Ndekugri 2007).
- 52 -
A review of delay analysis literature disclosed only few major initiatives

aimed at developing knowledge and understanding of the way analysts should select
from existing delay analysis methods for any given delay problem. Based on a case
study, Bubshait and Cuningham (1998) assessed the reliability of three of the
existing methods and came to the conclusion that none of the methods is perfect and
that the best method should be chosen based upon the time and resources available
and the accessibility of project documentation. In a survey, by Harris and Scott
(2001) on how UK professionals deal with claims, respondents were generally
unwilling to indicate their preference to four existing techniques, with the reason
that their choice would be dictated by the conditions of the claims at hand. The
study, however, did not investigate the conditions that they consider important in
this respect.
Recently, two other major initiatives in the form of good practice
documents/guide on delay and disruption analysis have been developed by
renowned experts associated with delay analysis on both sides of the Atlantic. These
are the “Delay and Disruption Protocol” and “Forensic Schedule Analysis”,
published by the UK‟s Society of Construction Law (SCL 2002) and the US‟s
Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI 2007),
respectively.The SCL’s protocol (2002) has identified a number of factors that
analysts should look out for in considering a methodology. These are: the relevant
conditions of contract; the nature of the causative events; the value of the dispute;
the time available; the records available; the programme information available and
the programmer’s skill level and familiarity with the project. Similar factors have
also been reviewed recently by Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2006).
While AACEI (2007) discusses eleven factors that should be considered by
the forensic schedule analyst which are: contractual requirements, purpose of
analysis, source data availability, size of the dispute, complexity of the dispute,
budget, time allowed, expertise of analyst, forum for resolution, legal requirements
and past history/methods and what method the other side is using. Braimah and
Ndekugri (2007) proposed an empirical study based on a survey of UK construction
and consulting organisations. Initial analysis of the results shows that the top six
- 53 -
factors influencing the selection of delay techniques are records availability,

baseline programme availability, the amount in dispute, nature of baseline
programme, updated programme availability, and the number of delaying events.
From the foregoing, the general view has been that no single methodology is
suitable for all claims situations and that the most appropriate methodology for any
situation should be selected based on a number of factors or criteria. These criteria,
as reported in (Braimah and Ndekugri 2007), are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Factors Influencing the Selection of Delay Analysis Methods

(Braimah and Ndekugri 2007)
Literature source
Bubshait
Leary Bramble Braimah
and
and Finke and SCL Pickavance and
Factor Cunning
Bramble (1997) Callahan (2002) (2005) Ndekugri
ham
(1988) (2000) (2007)
(1998)
Records availability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Baseline programme ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
availability
Nature of baseline ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
programme
Updated programme ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
availability
Time of the delay ✓
Reason for the ✓ ✓
delay analysis
The other party to ✓
the claim
The form of ✓ ✓ ✓
contract
Cost of using the ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
technique
Size of project ✓
Duration of the ✓
project
Complexity of the ✓
project
Nature of the ✓ ✓ ✓
delaying events
Skills of the ✓ ✓ ✓
analyst
The amount in ✓ ✓
dispute
Dispute resolution ✓
forum
The number of delaying ✓ ✓
events
- 54 -
The absence of acceptable guidelines or standards for assisting practitioners

in the use of these criteria in methodology selection means that analysts’ choice will
often be made based on methodologies that will suit their respective positions.
For this reason, a model for selecting the appropriate delay analysis method
has been developed in this research to aid practitioners in this decision-making task
as presented in Chapter Six. The model was based on the 17 criteria reported in
(Table 3.6) which related to (Braimah and Ndekugri 2007). The researchers used
factor analysis to reduce the factors into 6 group factors by determining the
underlying features interrelating the selection factors as shown below. Table 3.7
shows the 17 criteria according to their groups.
• Group factor 1 – project characteristics;
• Group factor 2 – requirements of the contract;
• Group factor 3 – characteristics of baseline programme;
• Group factor 4 – cost proportionality;
• Group factor 5 – timing of analysis; and
• Group factor 6 – record availability.
Table 3.7 Group Factors Influence the Selection of Delay Analysis Methods
Group Factor Selection Factor

Record availability Record availability
Baseline programme characteristics Baseline programme availability
Nature of Baseline programme
Contractual Requirements Updated programmes availability
form of contract
Dispute resolution forum
Timing of the analysis Reason for the analysis
Time of the delay
Project characteristics Project complexity
The amount in dispute
Size of the project
Duration of the project
Nature of delaying events
Number of delaying events
The other party to the claim.
Cost Proportionality Cost of using method
Skills of the analyst
- 55 -
Group factor 1: Project Characteristics:
This group factor is made up of complexity of the project, the amount in

dispute, size of the project, duration of the project, nature of delaying events,
number of delaying events and the other party to the claim. Complexity of a project
activity was viewed as the nature of the combinations of a number of operations
involved in the activity or the incidence of roles requiring different kinds of work
identified as work packages (Braimah and Ndekugri 2007).
One of the primary factors the schedule analyst must keep in mind is the size
of the dispute. In most situations, the choice of the delay analysis method is
constrained by how much a client is prepared to spend to increase the probability of
successful resolution of the dispute. This is most often determined by how much
money is at stake. For example, if the delay damages being sought by the client are
approximately US$100,000 then the schedule analyst should recommend a
relatively inexpensive analysis method which is still effective for its intended
purpose. On the other hand, if the delay damages sought are US$50,000,000 then
the range of methods to be considered is substantially expanded because of the
greater scope and costs associated with analyzing a substantially larger claim
(AACEI 2007).
It appears that projects of long duration and large contract value can justify
more costly and involved methods of analysis such as windows analysis, because
more funds and well organized documentation are likely to be available in such
projects. In small-scale short-duration projects, where administrative requirements
and management are rather simple, the contractor might prefer using simple
analysis methods, such as impact as-planned. The selection of the analysis method
appears to be dependent on the degree of detail and the accuracy that the analyst
can deliver, given the time constraints and budget limitations.
On the other hand, the identified project characteristics often impact on the
nature of the delays encountered (e.g. serial or concurrent of delays), thereby
necessitating the use of certain methods to a greater extent than others. Methods
involving the use of bar charts are unable to show critical paths, interrelationships
and interdependencies between activities and therefore are not suitable for proving
- 56 -
delays where changes in the construction logic were experienced and the effects of
the delay were not restricted to clearly definable activities (Pickavance 2005).
Although methods such as as-planned vs. as-built and collapsed as-built utilize
CPM techniques, they are unable to take into account concurrent delays and any
changes in the critical path schedule during the course of the project as it considers
delays caused by only one party (Alkass et al. 1996). These limitations make them
unsuitable for delay situations where re-sequencing and acceleration took place in
the course of the project.
In a schedule where critical paths have shifted back and forth over the course
of the project and where numerous concurrent delays exist, method such as
windows analysis (which is using a series of analyses) can demonstrate the
collective cause and effect of delays and provide an accurate result.
Group factor 2: Contractual Requirements:
Contractual requirements grouping includes updated programme, form of
contract and dispute resolution forum. These factors relate to the provisions or
requirements of the project contract and can influence the methodology that should
be used to analyze delays. For instance, contract clauses relating to programming
and progress control requirements may have a bearing on the availability of
contract programmes and its updates, which in turn facilitate the use of certain
method to a greater extent than others (Braimah and Ndekugri 2007).
Maintaining project schedules involves incorporating the actual progress for
each project period into the schedule to show how the work has proceeded, relative
to the baseline plan that was originally adopted. Updating a schedule allows
integrating changes into the schedule in a timely manner and mitigating delays in a
proper time frame before their impacts become overbearing. An updated schedule
reveals shifts in critical path and changes in activities’ floats. Without an up-to-date
schedule, it is impossible to prove the work was planned to finish accordingly. An
updated schedule can be used as a basis for negotiating a contractor’s claim for time
extension and damages.
Whether a work schedule was updated regularly throughout a project can
constrain the selection of the most appropriate delay analysis method (Arditi and
- 57 -
Pattanakitchamroon 2008). Sophisticated delay analysis methods, such as windows

analysis can be used in projects that keep up-to-date project schedules. Projects
with no updated schedules were limited to only simple methods, such as as-planned
versus as-built analysis. In some instances the analyst had to create new schedules
that incorporated changes throughout the course of the project in order to recreate
the chain of events leading to delay.
Furthermore, standard forms provisions can influence the choice of the
analysis method (SCL 2002). When a project is executed under a contract which
specifies a specific schedule delay analysis method, then the choice of methodology
is largely taken out of the hands of the schedule analyst. For example, many
contracts in the United States now require that all requests for time extension (either
during the life of the project or at the end of the job) be substantiated through the
use of windows analysis (AACEI 2007).
On the other hand, if the contract documents are silent on which schedule
delay analysis method is to be used then the analyst is free to use any of the
methods. However, even when the contract is silent on methodology, contract
language may still constrain the analyst’s choice of methods. For example, some
contracts contain language requiring that all time extension requests document that
the “contractors are only entitled to relief for events that actually cause delay to
completion” (SCL 2002). Under this category, methods that seek to produce actual
project delay such as the collapsed as-built and as-planned vs. as-built and windows
analysis may be suitable to use. It may also include that the event “…impacted the
critical path of the project schedule” (AACEI 2007). This means it precludes the
use of any method which does not identify or analyze a critical path such as a bar-
chart analysis.
The analyst needs to seek advice from the client and its legal counsel on the
most likely dispute resolution forum, if the claim is likely to settle in negotiation,
mediation, arbitration (and if so, under what rules) or litigation (and if so, in which
court). For example, if there is good reason to believe that all issues are likely to be
settled at the bargaining table, or in mediation, then the range of options for
methods is wide open as the audience is only the people on the other side. On the
- 58 -
other hand, if legal counsel believes that the issue will end up in court then the
range of options available is considerably narrowed because the court have, for
nearly two decades, insisted that delay issues presented to them must rest on CPM
scheduling (AACEI 2007).
Group factor 3: Characteristics of Baseline Programme:
This group factor is made up of availability of baseline programme and the
nature of the baseline programme. The baseline programme may not always be
available or exist in CPM format, making certain methodologies more appropriate
to use than others. In the absence of an as-planned programme or where significant
part of it lacks sufficient detail, methodologies, which rely heavily on this
programme cannot be readily used. In such a situation methods based much on as-
built programme may be more suitable. Although the as-planned programme can be
created or corrected retrospectively for the analysis, this hindsight development
could easily be challenged on grounds of bias or unreliability (Braimah and
Ndekugri 2007).
Group factor 4: Cost Proportionality:
This group factor includes cost of using the method and the skills of the
analyst. It is noteworthy that the level of skills required in the application of the
methods can influence the expense involved. For example, analyzing complex
delay claims often require the use of powerful planning software packages, which
have functionalities and specialist features to facilitate the analysis. These packages
are however, known to be relatively expensive, difficult to use, and require
considerable effort in maintenance and amendments.
A major source of the cost is the carrying out of some form of thorough CPM
analysis using the contract programme. In the absence of a reliable programme,
retrospective reconstruction of CPM as-built from project records may be required
which is a highly laborious task requiring considerable levels of skills and
experience. Although such analyses are costly, they tend to give more accurate
results.
On the other hand, the sophisticated delay analysis method (i.e., windows
analysis) may consume much time and may incur high cost compared to simpler
- 59 -
methods such as the as-planned vs. as-built, impact as-planned, and collapsed as-
built methods. It also requires specialized expertise to perform the analysis. The
selection of the analysis method depends on the degree of detail and accuracy that
the analyst compromises given the time constraints and budget limitations. Any
delay analysis method should produce the same result when evaluating a simple
non-concurrent delay event. In this sort of situation, it is not necessary for an
analyst to spend unnecessary time, money, and effort on an elaborate windows
analysis.
Therefore, in a situation where the claim values are small compared to the
cost involved in using a particular method, it may be appropriate to use a simple
and less costly methodology for the analysis (Pickavance, 2005).
Group factor 5: Timing of The Analysis:
This group factor comprises the reason for the analysis and time of the delay.
The purposes for analyzing delay claims are many including: the resolution of
matters concerning extension of time, prolongation cost, acceleration and disruption
(Wickwire et al. 1989). These require different nature of proof because of their
different requirements. For instance, the effect of disruption is often delay to
progress or productivity loss and would only cause delay in completion if the
impacted activities lie on the contractor’s critical path. As a result methods utilizing
CPM should be considered when claiming for extensions of time for employer-
caused disruptions. Concerning claims for reimbursement of loss or expense, the
claimant should be able to prove the actual cost suffered, which warrants an
approach based on what actually occurred on the project (Braimah and Ndekugri
2007).
When a contractor seeks compensation for constructive acceleration, the
contractor is not only required to prove that the excusable delay exists, but also that
the contractor actually improved its performance relative to the plan and incurred
additional cost. The delay analysis method selected has to recognize schedule
acceleration. A contractor would benefit from using windows analysis to examine
the impact of acceleration claims because this method allows the analyst to assess
the relationship between delays and corresponding accelerations. The delay analysis
- 60 -
method that uses only the as-planned or only the as-built schedule such as impact
as-planned and collapsed as-built methods may not represent acceleration properly.
The time of the delay refers to the time of its occurrence relative to the stage
of the project. In this respect, delay analysis is carried out either prospectively or
retrospectively of the delay occurrence (SCL 2002). The former refers to analyzing
delays at its inception for the determination of their theoretical or likely impact on
the programme. This is best undertaken using methodologies that largely do not
require actual project data for their implementation such as the impacted as-planned
and windows analysis methods. Retrospective analysis on the other hand refers to
delays assessment after their occurrence or after the project is completed and
methodologies such as collapsed as-built, as-planned vs. as-built and windows
analysis methods would be suitable as they are able to show what actually occurred.
The loading of reason for the analysis and time of the delay together under
one group suggests that they are related. For instance, while extensions of time can
be assessed prospectively it may not be appropriate to assess prolongation cost in
this manner because many of the standard forms of contract require recoverable
prolongation costs to be ascertained and not just estimated. Indeed, the SCL
Protocol (SCL 2002) emphasized that: “……compensation for prolongation should
not be paid for anything other than work actually done, time actually taken up or
loss and/or expense actually suffered…”.
Group factor 6: Record Availability:
The sources of information that are useful in delay analysis includes contract
documents, letters, minutes of meetings, notes, material receipts, supervision and
inspection reports, resource data and costs, daily reports, extra work order,
photographs, project schedules, and cost reports of a project (Pickavance 2005).
The extent of availability and reliability of these records may influence the
methodology to be used, with less project information necessitating the use of the
less sophisticated methods and vice versa (Lovejoy 2004). The more reliable
methodology such as window analysis require the availability of more project
information to operate and thus would produce less accurate results when important
information is lacking.
- 61 -
CHAPTER FOUR: DAILY WINDOWS DELAY ANALYSIS
CHAPTER FOUR
DAILY WINDOWS DELAY ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction:
Many delay analysis methods are available in the construction industry; none
of these methods provides a structured calculation procedure for apportioning delays
and accelerations among the parties responsible and also considers the effect of
resource allocation. In reality, it is unlikely that the work will be undertaken strictly
in accordance with this schedule, and at various points throughout the project the
contractor is likely to revise the as-planned schedule to ensure that the updated
schedule reflects the contractual date for completion. Effective delay analysis must
include provision for these updates.
In this chapter, the daily windows delay analysis is illustrated through an
example, and then a further case study has been implemented to illustrate the
analysis of delays, accelerations and baseline updates.
4.2 Daily Windows Analysis:

The windows delay analysis is recognized as the most credible method, and
it is one of the few techniques much more likely to be accepted by professionals and
in courts than any other method (Hegazy and Menesi 2008). In spite of its
advantages, this method still has limitations which are summarized as follows:
1. Window size can have a significant impact on the results of the analysis,
especially when concurrent delays are involved.
2. Windows analysis has no mechanism for considering owner directed versus
contractor acceleration that may take place within an analysis window.
3. Windows analysis procedures do not include a systematic approach for
calculating the responsibility for delays when multiple baseline updates have
been used at different construction stages.
4. Windows analysis does not consider the impact of resource over-allocation
resulting from delays caused by various parties.
- 62 -
Hegazy and Zhang (2005) introduced changes to the traditional windows

analysis method in order to resolve some of the above limitations. They proposed a
daily windows approach for apportioning concurrent delays and accelerations. The
approach uses a window size of one day to account for all fluctuations that occur in
the project’s critical path(s). It also differentiates between owner-directed and
contractor-voluntary accelerations and deals with acceleration as a negative delay
attributable to the party that creates it. However, this approach still does not
consider other factors such as the effect of resource over-allocation and multiple
baseline updates.
Since the windows approach uses the as-planned schedule as its baseline, it
may produce inaccurate results when approved schedule updates are not taken into
consideration when the baseline is modified. According to Stumpf (2000), the courts
will not uphold a windows analysis that is based only on questionable schedule
updates. Stumpf gave an example of a case in which there was a change in the logic.
The scheduling analysis expert used windows analysis to evaluate the delay, but the
change in logic was not considered. As a consequence, the Board of Contract
Appeals said that the scheduling expert failed to use a current critical path method
(CPM) schedule to evaluate the delay on the project.
To overcome this problem Menesi (2007), Hegazy and Menesi (2008)
introduce improvements to the daily windows analysis in order to ensure that delay
analysis considers multiple baseline updates and accurately apportions delays and
accelerations among project parties.
Their models’ also identify any changes in the resource allocation for the
remaining work due to any delays or slowdowns and takes the impact of these
changes on the project duration into consideration in the analysis as some delays
may result in unrealistic resource allocation in the succeeding work, which in turn,
may further delay the project.
4.2.1 Delay Analysis Using Daily Windows Approach:

The simple example from chapter three (Figure 3.8) which reported in
Hegazy and Zhang (2005) can be used as a comparison between daily analysis and
- 63 -
the traditional windows approach. The relationships show that activities B and C
both follow activity A and are then followed by activity D. The as-planned duration
is 7 days, while the as-built duration is 9 days, thus exercising a two-day project
delay. It is important to apportion the two-day delay accurately among the parties
responsible.
The daily windows analysis uses a window size of one day. In this process,
all delays and work stops caused by the different parties are first removed from the
as-built schedule so that the process will begin with the as-planned schedule. Then,
the events of each day are entered. It is assumed in this example that the work stop
caused by each party (c or o) is for a full-day and progress is stopped in this case.
The case of partial progress and partial interruption of work by the parties is not
considered (Hegazy and Zhang 2005).
The notations used in the daily site events shown on the as-built bar chart are
as follows (Menesi 2007):
1. Small letters (o), (c), (n), or combinations of them (e.g., o+c) on an activity bar
chart represent work stops for a given day on a specific activity, as caused by the
party indicated (o = owner, c = contractor, n = neither (e.g., severe weather
conditions)).
2. A percentage (e.g., 30%) on an activity bar chart represents the amount of work
done by the contractor on a given day for this specific activity. The absence of a
percentage on the activity as-built bar indicates that the planned and as-built
percentages are the same.
In addition, capital letters (O, C, and N) indicate the delay analysis results
apportioned to the indicated party. Following the daily windows process in this
example yields nine windows which are analyzed as follows:
Days 1 and 2: The project did not experience any delays, so the project duration
remains seven days.
Day 3 (Figure 4.1): The critical path A-C-D exhibits a one-day contractor delay (c),
which extended the project duration to eight days. Therefore, this window is one day
longer than the previous window, indicating a project delay of one day. An
examination of the critical path A-C-D reveals that this one-day project delay was
- 64 -
caused by the contractor’s (c) event. Accordingly, a contractor delay (C) is

accumulated.
ACTIVITY
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
-Critical path: A-C-D
- Project delay as
B compared to the previous
window= 1 day
- Responsibility=1
C Contractor
C
Actual progress Actual for Expected

before this window this window remaining
Figure 4.1 Daily Windows Analysis Showing the Window of Day 3 (Hegazy and
Zhang 2005)
Day 4 (Figure 4.2): The window of the fourth day shows a one-day owner delay on
the path A-B-D, but the project duration remains eight days, as in the previous
window.
ACTIVITY
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
-Critical path: A-C-D & A-B-
B O
D
- Project delay as compared to
the previous window= 0 day
C C - Responsibility= none
D
Completed
Expected
Figure 4.2 Daily Windows Analysis Showing the Window of Day 4 (Hegazy and
Zhang 2005)
Day 5 (Figure 4.3): The project experiences a one-day delay due to the owner’s
delay on the critical path A-B-D, leading to the project duration becoming nine days.
Days 6 to 9: No additional delays occurred, so the project duration remains at nine
days.
Therefore, the conclusions of the daily windows analysis are as follows:
• One-day contractor delay (1 C)
• One-day owner delay (1 O)
- 65 -
DATE
ACTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
-Critical path: A-B-D
- Project delay as compared
B O O to the previous window= 1
day
C - Responsibility= 1 Owner
C
D
Completed Expecte
Figure 4.3 Daily Windows Analysis Showing the Window of Day5 (Hegazy and
Zhang 2005)
As demonstrated by this simple example, the daily windows analysis

considers every change in the critical path(s) and thus can arrive at accurate and
repeatable results. Some of these changes would be overlooked if traditional
windows analysis was used to analyze the same case.
4.3 Analysis of Delays, Accelerations and Baseline Updates:

The original as-planned schedule represents one of the many possibilities of
the way the work may progress. It is a representation of the contractor’s best guess
for the execution of the work based on his or her experience and the available
information. The as-planned schedule can be changed for many reasons: work
delays, additional work requested by the owner, changes in the logical relationships
between the activities, or changes in the duration of the activities. Delay analysis
that does not consider such changes in the schedule may yield inaccurate results.
When the as-planned schedule is updated with progress, the remaining work
is generally rescheduled based on the logical sequence previously set for the as-
planned schedule (Menesi 2007). Midway through the project, the parties may agree
on a schedule update, which then becomes a new baseline for measuring progress. In
this case, the earlier portion of the project is measured against the first baseline,
while the portion that occurs after the update is measured against the new baseline.
Therefore, a systematic procedure for delay analysis is needed in order to account
for varying baselines, particularly when baseline updates involve changes to the
duration of an activity and to logical relationships.
- 66 -
4.3.1 Case Study:

This case study has been implemented to illustrate the analysis of delays,
accelerations and baseline updates by using daily windows analysis method. The
small project has eight activities and is planned to finish in 12 days. Figure 4.4
illustrates the as-planned schedule and the as-built schedule. The as-built project
duration is 15 days (Figure 4.4b), with 3 days of net delay from the 12-day as-
planned duration.
DATE
Activity Predecessor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
50% 50%
A -
33% 33% 33%
B A
50% 50%
E B
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
33% 33% 33%
F E
33% 33% 33%
D A
50% 50%
H F
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
(a) As-planed Schedule

DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A -
40% 30% 30%
B A o 33%
c 33% 33%
E B
50% O O 50%
C A 25% o o 25% 25% 25%
F B,C 33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% c N N 33%
H F
50% 50%
G C,D
O O 25% 25% 50%
(b) As-Built Schedule

Figure 4.4 Planed and Actual Progress of the Project (Researcher)
The project experienced delays and accelerations during the course of the
work. These delays and accelerations should be analyzed and apportioned among
the parties in order to allocate any time-related costs. Table 4.1 summarizes delay
events during the course of work.
- 67 -
Table 4.1 Delay Events and Their Secondary Effects (Researcher)

Day Description
For the first day, the progress of Activity A was slower than planned because of the
1
late arrival of resources, and accordingly, it was expected that the project would
finish in 13 days.
To bring the schedule back as planned, the contractor changes some logical
3
relationships between activities in order to accelerate the project and finish it within
the original 12 days. The contractor decided to reschedule Activity F by removing the
finish-start logic between E and F and adding finish-start logic between (B and F)
and (C and F).
4 The owner fails to allow Activity B to proceed on time. Activity B now takes 4 days.
5 The contractor fails to mobilize resources to start Activity B until Day 6.
The owner does not respond to the request for information on Activity C timely. This
5 and6
inaction delays activity C (2 days).
6 The contractor stops the work on Activity D without any reasonable excuse.
7 and8 Activity D continues being stopped due to inclement weather.
10 and11 The owner makes a change order which extend Activities E and G 2 more days.
12 The contractor was unable to perform Activities E, F, and H concurrently on Day 12.
As a result, the contractor has to temporarily stop Activity G on Day 12 and restarts it
as soon as Activities E and F finish.
15 The contractor decided to accelerate Activity G 1 day, as a result the project finished
in 15 days.
Applying the daily windows analysis for this case study, a total of 15
windows are analyzed. For each window, the left side is the actual progress until the
window date, while the right side is the anticipated remaining project duration,
calculated based on the planned schedule. As shown in Figure 4.5, there are two bars
for each activity: the top bar represents the baseline, while the shaded bottom bar
illustrates the actual progress.
- 68 -
Day 1: 1-Day Contractor-Caused Delay on Activity A

As shown in the window of the first day (Figure 4.5), the contractor finished
only 40% of activity A instead of the planned 50%. As such without accelerating
this activity, the remaining 60% of the activity cannot be finished in one day, and
activity A will not be completed within the planned two days. Rather, the remaining
duration of activity A is calculated as
Remaining Duration = (100 – Percent Complete) / Planned activity
production per day ….…………………………………… (4.1)
(100−40) /50=1.2 ≈ 2 day
Top bar: Baseline Bottom bar: Actual progress

DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
50% 50%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F E
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
Project extended to 13 days
Figure 4.5 Analyses for contractor-caused delay on Activity A (window of

Day 1) (Researcher)
Therefore, the new planned duration of activity A becomes three days (one
completed and two remaining), not the original planned duration of two days. Since
this activity is critical at this window, the project duration will change from 12 days
to 13 days. Accordingly, the analysis of day 1 shows that the contractor is
responsible for one day of project delay (1 C).
Day 3: Change in the logical relations

On Days 2 and 3, the project progressed according to the baseline and did not
experience any delays or accelerations (Figure 4.6). Therefore, the project durations
- 69 -
remained 13 days. However, as shown in Figure 4.7, the contractor changed the
logic between Activities by removing the finish-start logic between E and F and
adding finish-start logic between (B and F) and (C and F), as a corrective action in
order to accelerate the project by one day and finish the work within the planned
duration. Consequently, one-day acceleration is accumulated. The baseline is
updated on day 3, and the new baseline duration is again12 days.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
50% 50%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F E
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
Complete Remaining
Figure 4.6 Delay Analysis of Day 3 before the Baseline is Updated

(Researcher)
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
The project duration becomes 12 days again because of the changed logical relation
Figure 4.7 Delay Analysis of Day 3 after the Baseline is Updated

(Researcher)
- 70 -
Day 4: 1-Day Owner-Caused Delay on Activity B

The window of the fourth day (Figure 4.8) shows that the owner delayed 1
day on Activity B. This delay does not delay the project since Activity B is a
noncritical activity. Instead it consumes the whole 1-day total float of this activity
and causes Activity B to become critical. The owner has no responsibility at the
moment since this delay event does not cause any project delay.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
O 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
Owner delay for activity B on day 4
Figure 4.8 Analysis for owner-caused delay on Activity B (window of Day 4)

(Researcher)
Day 5: 1-Day Concurrent Delays, Contractor, and Owner Caused, on Activities

B and C
In the window of the fifth day (Figure 4.9), the project experienced a
concurrent (O+C) delay, causing the project completion time to be 13 days rather
than 12 days. The contractor causes a delay to Activity B while the owner delays
Activity C. both Activities B and C are critical before and after the concurrent
delays on Day 5 occur. Each single delay event would have caused project delay if
the other had not occurred. As such, both contractor and owner are responsible for
this 1-day project delay. Therefore, 1-day project delay in the current analysis is
divided into a 0.5 day of contractor delay and 0.5 day of owner delay.
- 71 -
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
O c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25% 50%
C A
25% o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% 33%
33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
Contractor delay for activity B on day 5

Figure 4.9 Analysis for concurrent delays on B and C (window of Day 5)
(Researcher)
Day 6: 1-Day Delay Owner, and Contractor Caused, on Activities C and D
The window of Day 6 (Figure 4.10) shows that the owner continued delaying
Activity C, while the contractor delayed Activity D on the same day. Consequently,
the project is delayed 1 day. The delay on Activity D however does not cause the
project delay. This contractor-caused delay only consumes total float of Activity D.
As a result, the owner-caused delay on Activity C solely extended the project 1 day.
That is, the 1-day project delay is an excusable and compensable delay.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
o c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25% 50%
C A
25% o o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33% 33%
D A
33% c
33% 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
Figure 4.10 Analysis for delays on C and D (window of Day 6) (Researcher)

Days 7 and 8: 2-Day Third Party-Caused Delay on Activity D
Unexpected inclement weather delays Activity D at Days 7 and 8. The
project completion date is not affected by this delay (Figure 4.11). That is, the delay
only consumes the total float of Activity D.
- 72 -
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
o c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25% 50%
C A
25% o o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33%
33% 33%
D A
33% 33% c N N 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
25% 25% 25% 25%
Figure 4.11 Analysis for third party-caused delay on D (window of Day 8)

(Researcher)
Days 10 and 11: 2-Day Owner-Caused Delays on Activities E and G
The owner issues a change order that extends Activities E and G 2 more
days. In the window of day 10 (Figure 4.12) the owner delayed Activities E and G 1
day, but that did not affect the project completion date since both activities are
noncritical activities. Instead it consumed the whole 1-day total float of Activity G
and causes it becomes critical.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
o c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% O 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% o o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% c N 33%
33% N
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25%
25% 25% 25%
G C,D
O
25% 25% 25% 25%
Figure 4.12 Analysis for owner-caused delays on E and G (window of Day10)

(Researcher)
- 73 -
In the window of day 11(Figure 4.13) the owner again delayed Activities E
and G 1 day and as a result extended the project duration from 14 to 15 days as
Activity G is a critical activity.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
o c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% O O 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% o o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% c N N 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
O O 25% 25% 25% 25%
Figure 4.13 Analysis for owner-caused delays on E and G (window of Day11)

(Researcher)
Days 12: 1-Day Contractor-Caused Delay on Activity G
The contractor temporarily stopped Activity G for 1 day and restarted it at
Day 13 when E and F are completed, due to its inability to proceed with the three
Activities G, E, and F in parallel as presented in (Figure 4.14). As a result the
project is delayed to16 days.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
o c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% O O 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% o o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% c N N 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
O O 25% 25% 25% 25%
Figure 4.14 Analysis for contractor-caused delays on G (window of Day12) (Researcher)
- 74 -
Days 15: The Contractor accelerated G by 1-Day

On days 13 and 14 the project progressed according to the baseline. The
window of day 15 (Figure 4.15) shows an acceleration of one day in Activity G,
reducing the project duration to 15 days. Accordingly, a one-day acceleration is
accumulated.
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
40% 30% 30%
A -
40% 30% 30%
33% 33% 33%
B A
o c 33% 33% 33%
50% 50%
E B
50% O O 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
C A
25% o o 25% 25% 25%
33% 33% 33%
F B,C
33% 33% 33%
33% 33% 33%
D A
33% 33% c N N 33%
50% 50%
H F
50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
G C,D
O O 25% 25% 50%
Figure 4.15 Analysis for Contractor Acceleration on G (window of Day15) (Researcher)

The summary of the analysis indicates that (owner delays=2.5 days),
(contractor delays=2.5 days) and (contractor acceleration=2 days). Therefore, the
contractor compensated for 2 days because of his 2 days of acceleration.
As demonstrated by this simple case study, the contractor may take corrective
actions to accelerate the project. The contractor may make changes in the logical
relationships between the activities and/or changes in the durations of the activities,
which might not be considered when the traditional windows analysis is used. Daily
windows analysis considers every change in the relationships and durations of the
activities because of its legible representation and its ability to analyze the schedule
using multiple baselines, and thus can arrive at more accurate results. With the
difficulty in determining a proper window size, particularly for projects with tens or
hundreds of activities that have complicated delay situations, daily windows analysis
becomes easier to use. Also, from the legal point of view, the daily windows
approach is legally sound, as it does not change the essence of the analysis
mechanism.
- 75 -
CHAPTER FIVE: COMPUTERIZED SCHEDULE ANALYSIS MODEL
CHAPTER FIVE
COMPUTERIZED SCHEDULE ANALYSIS MODEL
5.1 Introduction:
This chapter presents computer software for daily windows analysis which
considers multiple baseline updates and resource allocation in order to accurately
apportion delays and accelerations among project parties. The concepts and the
analysis procedure are first presented in a clear and comprehensible manner through
the first case study, while the second case study was applied to validate the
presented delay analysis programme and demonstrate its accuracy and usefulness to
real life projects.
5.2 EasyPlan programme:

EasyPlan (Hegazy 2007) is a computer programme which integrates estimating,
scheduling, resource management, and project control. The EasyPlan program has been
developed using the VBA language of Microsoft Excel software. Some of EasyPlan’s
features that facilitate delay analysis are (Menesi 2007):
1. It allows the user to specify up to 3 estimates (duration and cost) for each activity.
2. It allows the user to enter up to three key resources and to specify the daily limit of
these resources.
3. It notifies the user if the resource limits are exceeded.
4. It allows the user to change the method of executing any activity.
5. It permits more than one baseline to be saved.
6. It allows the user to enter the daily progress of an activity as a percentage, or as a
delay by a certain party.
7. It represents the project progress using two bars for each activity: the top represents
the baseline, and the bottom represents the progress. Thus, it shows whether the
actual progress is faster or slower than that planned.
8. It calculates and shows the actual project duration while the daily progress is being
entered, taking into consideration all the delays, accelerations, and slowdowns.
9. It allows the user to specify the project deadline and notifies the user if the project
duration exceeds the deadline.
- 76 -
The application of this schedule analysis programme is described in the

following case study. Figure 5.1 is proposed as the flow chart describing the
procedure of EasyPlan programme.
Activate
EasyPlan
Enter General Information

of the project
Specify Activities’ Specify the Activities

Optional Estimates
Specify Work Sequence

and Schedule Details
Optimize the Schedule
Save the Baseline
Enter all progress events

including Delays made
by all Parties
Produce Delay Analysis

Report which compares
Progress against Baseline to
Allocate Delay Responsibility
End
Figure 5.1 Flow Chart Indicating the EasyPlan’s Procedure (Researcher)
- 77 -
5.3 Case Study 1: Analysis of Delays, Accelerations, Logical relations and

Resource over-allocation
5.3.1 Case Overview:
A hypothetical eight-activity project is considered as a case study to
demonstrate the daily windows analysis presented in Chapter Four. The activities,
their optional estimates, their predecessors (logical relationships), and the amount of
resources required for each activity are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 The Activities’ Estimates and Predecessors (Researcher)

Estimate 1 Estimate 2
No. Activity Predecessor Cost Duration Resources Cost Duration Resources
1 A - 6000 2 3
2 B 1 6000 3 1 5000 4 1
3 C 1 6000 3 1 5000 4 1
4 D 1 6000 3 2 5000 4 2
5 E - 6000 5 2 5000 6 2
6 F 2,3,5 6000 4 3 5000 5 3
7 G 2,3,5 6000 7 3 5000 8 3
8 H 4,6,7 6000 3 3
As shown in Table 5.1, some of the activities (e.g., Activity C) have more
than one estimate, and thus, have two options: a cheap construction method that is
slow, or a fast but expensive method. It is also noted the resources that each activity
uses and that the contractor has a limit of six resources per day. The contractor
submitted an initial (as-planned) schedule that satisfied its own resource constraints
and met a 15-day deadline, which was accordingly approved by the owner. Actual
progress, however, resulted in some schedule changes. Table 5.2 summarizes delay
events during the course of work.
- 78 -
Table 5.2 Delay Events and Their Secondary Effects (Researcher)

Day Description
The contractor delayed Activity A (3 days) on Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4, and
accordingly, it was expected that the project would finish in 18 days. To
recover the three-day delay, the contractor found that the best available
2,3 and4
option was to run some activities in parallel so that the project duration
would be 15 days again.
On the sixth day, the owner delayed the start of Activity D, and therefore a
6 resource over-allocation was expected for the next few days.
The contractor delayed the start of Activity G to his inability to proceed
with three Activities D, F and G in parallel because of the resource limit.
9
Therefore, the contractor voluntarily accelerated the project by using of a
more expensive method for Activity G which shortened its duration from 7
days to 6 days.
Both the owner and the contractor caused delay to the project. The owner
11 delayed Activity G while the contractor delayed Activity F.
12 The contractor caused delay to both Activities F and G.
Activity F was delayed because of the slow progress of the contractor while
14 Activity G was stopped due to inclement weather.
The project was accelerated by one-day because of the owner acceleration
16 for Activity G and the contractor acceleration for Activity H.
An analysis is required to determine if the contractor is entitled for

compensation by the owner, and to investigate whether the owner’s delay on day 6
warrants a request for compensation to cover the added expenses of accelerating
Activity G. Although this project is simple, the changes due to delays, accelerations,
logical relations and resource over-allocation make its delay analysis complicated.
- 79 -
5.3.2 Using the EasyPlan Programme:

Following the case study information, first, the general data for the project
were entered; including the start date, working days, the key resource (L1) and its
daily limit (6), project deadline duration (15 days), and other contract provisions,
such as a $5,000 (U.S. dollars) daily penalty and a $50/day (U.S. dollars) indirect
cost (Figure 5.2). Next, the activities and their optional estimates were specified in
an activities sheet, as shown in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.2 Main Screen of EasyPlan
Slow and cheap option Fast and expensive option
Figure 5.3 Activities’ Estimates

Then, the predecessors of each activity were entered, as shown in Figure 5.4.
Since the contractor planned to use the first estimate for each activity (the cheap and
- 80 -
slow option), the “method used” column, indicates an index of “1.” Accordingly, the
project duration became 15 days.
Start delays for resolving

resource over-allocation
Logical relation cheaper option

is used
Figure 5.4 As-Planned Schedule of the Project
This 15-day schedule meets the deadline and also the six L1 resource limit at
a total cost of $ 48,750, as shown in Figure 5.5. Therefore, the schedule was saved
as a “baseline” for the project (Figure 5.6), and accordingly was approved by the
owner to be used for progress evaluation during construction. It should be noted that
the legible bar chart schedule presentation of Figure 5.4 shows activity percentages
for each activity day. This representation will help during construction to clearly
show the speed of the planned versus the actual progress of the activities.
Figure 5.5 Schedule Meets Deadline and Resource Limit
- 81 -
First baseline
was saved on
September 1
2009
Figure 5.6 Saving the Project Baseline

5.3.2.1 Actual Progress Events:
When the project moved to the construction stage, all progress events,
including delays, along with all parties responsible were entered on a daily basis. In
the progress sheet of Figure 5.7, each activity has two bars: the top bar (light color)
represents the baseline indicated as daily percentages (e.g. duration of two days
means a progress of 50% for each day). The bottom activity bar (dark color), on the
other hand, allows the user to record the actual events that were experienced during
the execution of the activity. Initially, the actual bars were set to be the same as the
baseline bars. Actual daily events are entered in one of two ways. They can be
entered directly on the actual activity bar (bottom) or the user can click on the “daily
progress” button. A form is then presented for entering the events that took place on
that day. This daily progress is shown on the lift in Figure 5.7.
The daily events for an activity can be entered as either a progress or a delay.
For Day 1 (Figure 5.7), the project progressed according to the planned. A progress
of 50% percent complete was assigned to Activity A and 20% percent complete was
assigned to Activity E.
The contractor delayed Activity A on Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4, which
extended the project duration from 15 to 18 days as shown in Figure 5.8, while
Activity E progressed according to its planned duration.
- 82 -
Enter daily progress
Figure 5.7 Entering the Progress Events of Day 1

In response to the actual events that took place after Day 4, the contractor
decided to run Activity H in parallel with Activity G and immediately after Activity
F as a corrective action in order to accelerate the project by three days and finish the
work by the planned date (Figure 5.9). Fortunately for the contractor, this change
does not cause any resource over-allocation.
When the as-planned schedule is updated during the execution of a project
due to changes either in logical relationships between the activities or in the
activities’ durations, a new baseline that includes all the changes should be used to
analyze the events that take place after the updates. Since the owner and the
contractor agreed to use a new baseline after this logical relationship change, a new
baseline was then saved in EasyPlan. The progress sheet (Figure 5.10) shows the
new baseline.
Completed Project is extended to 18 days
Figure 5.8 Actual Progress at the end of Day 4
- 83 -
H dependency on G removed The project duration become

15 days again because of the
changed in logical relations
Figure 5.9 Project Schedule after a Change in the Logical Relations
The second Baseline is saved on September 4, 2009
Figure 5.10 Saving the Second Baseline

On Day 5, both Activities A and E progressed according to the new baseline
(Figure 5.11). On Day 6, the owner delayed Activity D by one day. Although the
delay did not affect the overall project duration, it caused a resource over-allocation
at Day 9, as shown in Figure 5.11. This over- allocation implied that the owner’s
delay on Day 6 would later force the contractor to change the schedule or even delay
some activities to avoid exceeding the resource limit.
On days 7 and 8, the project progressed according to the baseline and did not
experience any delays or accelerations (Figure 5.12).
On Day 9, because of the resource limit, the contractor did not start Activity
G due to its inability to proceed with the three Activities D, F, and G in parallel.
Thus, Activity E and the project duration would be extended to Day 16, as shown in
Figure 5.12.
- 84 -
Resource over- allocation

at day 9
Figure 5.11 Actual Progress at the End of Day 5
The project duration

becomes 16 days
To compensate for this 1-day delay, the contractor decided to accelerate
Activity G, and accordingly accelerate the overall project by one day, by changing
the method of executing Activity G. The faster and more expensive second method
reduced the duration of Activity G to six days instead of seven. Consequently, the
project duration became 15 days again (Figure 5.13). This change also mandated
another adjustment and the approval of a new baseline after Day 9. Figure 5.14
shows the saving of a third baseline after the construction method of Activity G was
changed.
On Day 10 the project progressed according to the baseline and did not
experience any delays or accelerations (Figure 5.15). Day 11 experienced a
concurrent delay, the owner delayed Activity G while the contractor delayed
- 85 -
Activity F. Therefore the project duration was extended 1 day from 15 to 16 days as
shown in Figure 5.15.
Choosing a faster method for constructing activity G The project duration becomes 15 days
Figure 5.13 Changing the Method of Executing Activity G
The third baseline is saved on

September 9, 2009
Figure 5.14 Saving the Third Baseline
The project duration becomes 16 days

The contractor caused delay to both Activities F and G on Day 12 and
extended the project duration to 17 days as both activities were critical (Figure
5.16).
- 86 -

On Day 13 the project progressed without delays (Figure 5.17). Another
concurrent delay was experienced on Day 14, Activity F was delayed because of the
slow progress of the contractor while Activity F was stopped due to inclement
weather as shown in (Figure 5.17). Consequently, the project duration became 18
days.

Both Activities F and G completed at Day 15. On Day 16, both the contractor
and the owner caused acceleration of one day leading the project duration became
17 days (Figure 5.18). The project finished on Day 17 with 2 days of net delay as
shown in (Figure 5.19). Contractor acceleration for Activity H
The project accelerated by one day
Figure 5.18 Actual progress at the end of Day 16

- 87 -
Figure 5.19 Actual progress at the end of Day 17
5.3.2.2 Delay Analysis for the Case Study:

Once all the events, including the progress, delays, updates, and accelerations
were entered, the EasyPlan prototype was used for automated delay analysis. When
the user selects “Windows analysis,” as illustrated in Figure 5.20, in which a small
window is presented to ask the user if he wants to consider resource allocation. As
resource allocation was cosidered in this case study, “Yes” bottom was selected.
Figure 5.20 Using Delay Analysis in EasyPlan
Then another small window containing a summary of the delay analysis

results is presented (Figure 5.21). The results summary indicates that the owner (O)
was responsible for half day of excusable compensable delay, which was
compensated by his half day of acceleration while the contractor (C) was
responsible for five days of non-excusable delays, but he was compensated for four
and a half day of them because of his acceleration. On the other hand, The project
- 88 -
duration, however, became 17 days due to an excusable (N) delay of one and a half
day.
Figure 5.21 Summary of Delay Analysis Results
5.3.2.3 Discussion of Results:

Detailed results of the delay analysis are presented in an automated report
(Figure 5.22), providing a detailed day-by-day analysis. The report shows the result
of Day 2 as one contractor delay, increased to two contractor delays at the end of
Day 3 and increased to three contractor delays at the end of Day 4.
Cumulative Expected
Results Duration
No Change 15
1 Contractor Delay 16
2 Contractor Delays 17
3 Contractor Delays 18
Figure 5.22 Daily Windows Analysis Results of the First Baseline

(Days 1 to 4)
- 89 -
At the beginning of Day 5, a new baseline was entered because of the

contractor’s corrective action. Since the new baseline duration was 15 and the
previous baseline duration was 18, a 3-day contractor acceleration was
accumulated, as shown in Figure 5.23. At Day 6, the owner caused a delay to
Activity D which is critical. Therefore, no (O) was shown in the cumulative results
of Day 5. However, the owner’s event on this day would lead to future resource
over-allocation as indicated in the extra day of expected project delay (16 days
instead of 15 days), as shown in the third column in Figure 5.23. Accordingly, one
(N) delay was accumulated in this case since it was not caused purely by the
contractor (i.e., the owner was the reason). The report thus gives a traceable account
of the basis for the results of the analysis. It should be noted that while the
programme suggests that an (N) is considered as a result of the owner’s impact on
resource over-allocation (i.e., the contractor is entitled to a time extension but no
cost compensation), it is possible to use any other agreed upon option (e.g.,
considering a compensable owner delay).
Cumulative Expected
Results Duration
New Baseline with 3

contractor accelerations 15
Effect of Resource
16
over-allocation
No Change 16
No Change 16
Figure 5.23 Daily Windows Analysis Results of the Second Baseline

(Days 5 to 8)
- 90 -
The result of the report for day 9 validates the correct performance of the
proposed model (Figure 5.24). On this day, although the contractor delayed the start
of activity G, which was a critical activity, no additional contractor delay was
accumulated on this day because one day of delay was already accumulated at day
6 after the resource allocation was considered in the analysis. A third baseline is
entered at the beginning of Day 10 due to a change in the construction method of
Activity G. Since the new baseline duration is 15 days and the previous duration
was 16 days, a one-day contractor acceleration is accumulated (Figure 5.24). The
result of Day 11 shows 1-day of project delay which is divided into a 0.5 day of
contractor delay and 0.5 day of owner delay increased to 2-day of project delay at
the end of Day 12 because of contractor’s delay as shown in (Figure 5.24).
Cumulative Expected
Results Duration
No Change 16
New Baseline with 4 15

contractor accelerations
3.5 contractor delays 16

+ 0.5 owner delay
4.5 Contractor Delays 17
Figure 5.24 Daily Windows Analysis Results of the Third Baseline

(Days 9 to 12)
The result of Day 14 (Figure 5.25) shows 1-day of project delay which is
divided into a 0.5 day of contractor delay and 0.5 day of an excusable (N) delay. On
- 91 -
the other hand, the result of Day 16 shows 1-day of project acceleration. Since the
two activities are on concurrent critical paths, the one-day acceleration was equally
divided between the owner and the contractor (each 0.5 day) as shown in Figure
5.25.
Cumulative Expected
Results Duration
No Change 17
5 contractor delays 18
+ 1.5 Third party delays
No Change 18
4.5 contractor acceleration+ 17

0.5 owner acceleration
No Change 17
Figure 5.25 Daily Windows Analysis Results (Days 13to 17)
It should be noted that while this programme suggests that an excusable (N)
delay is considered as a result of the owner’s impact on resource over-allocation
(i.e., the contractor is entitled to a time extension but no cost compensation), it is
possible to use any other agreed upon option (e.g., considering a compensable
owner delay). In the event that the contractor’s own performance is the cause of its
resource over-allocation, the presented schedule analysis approach has the
advantage of clearly recognizing the situation and its implications on the remaining
schedule and eligibility for delay claims.
- 92 -
As shown in this case study, the programme is practical and sensitive to the
various types of site events and the parties who caused them. For example, the
results would be different if the resource allocation was not cosidered. The owner
caused delay to Activity D on Day 6, which led to resource over-allocation on Day
9 would be considered as a contrator (C) delay not an excuseble (N) delay as shown
in (Figure 5.26).
Figure 5.26 Summary of Delay Analysis Results without Considering Resource

Allocation
This validates the programme’s ability to distinguish the parties causing the
delay, acceleration, logical relation and resource over-allocation. As such, it is
suitable for decisions related to cost and time compensation.
5.4 Case Study 2: Residential Complex Project

This case study demonstrates the application of daily windows delay analysis
method to a real life project. The project was abstracted from one of the public
companies of the Ministry of Construction and Housing. It comprises several
residential four-storey buildings, in which each building has eight apartments. The
project was planned to start in 11 October 2008 and finish in 11 October 2009.
However, the case study presented demonstrates the delay analysis for one
building within period of time of four months. The As-Planned Schedule of the
Project with the analysis of the delays was discussed and presented in Appendix A.
- 93 -
CHAPTER SIX: A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR SELECTING
DELAY ANALYSIS METHOD
CHAPTER SIX
A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR SELECTING DELAY
ANALYSIS METHOD
6.1 Introduction:
Parties to construction contract claims often resort to a wide range of delay
analysis methods to investigate events that led to project delay for the purpose of
determining the financial responsibilities of the contracting parties arising from the
delay. The existing methodologies have varying degrees of capabilities in producing
accurate results, thus making the question of appropriateness of delay analysis
method in any given circumstances an often highly contested issue.
Claim parties and their delay analysts therefore usually adopt their own
method for proving or disproving the claims based on their own accumulated
experience, expertise and intuition. The only solution offered for this problem has
been the recommendation that the best methodology for any situation should be
selected based on a number of criteria (Bubshait and Cunningham 1998; SCL 2002).
Therefore, a computer programme for the selection of an appropriate Delay
Analysis Method has been developed in order to assist analysts in justifying their
choice to their clients. This chapter reports on the need for a decision model for the
selection of delay analysis method, development of the model and the application of
the programme to a hypothetical case study.
6.2 The Objective of Building Decision Model for Delay Analysis Method
Selection:
Like in any other field; owners, contractors and other memberships of
construction projects must make numerous decisions right from the inception of a
project, majority of which will influence the project’s profitability. One of such
decision is the task of identifying appropriate Delay Analysis Method prior to using
it to prepare or assess delay claims either in the course of the project or after. This
- 94 -
has become a major problem for analysts since the criteria by which the selection of
the right method is to be based are many and conflicts with each other.
For example, most analysts will agree that methods that are simple and
inexpensive to operate will always be preferred over complex and expensive
methods if delay claims are simple. In this case, it will be easy to predict that a
method which is less costly, simple and easy to apply such as As-planned vs. As-
Built will always be preferred Window Analysis which is relatively costly to use.
However, it will be a different matter if the nature of the claims situation were very
complex with significant money involved, which is typical of modern construction
and engineering projects claims. In this case, a method which is more
comprehensive and capable of dealing with the claims complexity such as the
Window Analysis will be more appropriate to use.
Moreover, real life delay claims situations are affected by many more factors
than those considered above. This decision to select the best method thus cannot be
resolved using simple decision rules, but it requires the use of a decision model
which will enable analysts to consider all the selection factors of the various
methods.
6.3 Development of Delay Analysis Method Selection Model:

Dixon (1966) described “decision-making” as the process of making a
“correct” decision by choosing the one alternative from among those that are
available which best balances or optimizes the total value, considering all the
various factors. This require the decision maker weighing value judgments that
involve economic factors, technical practicabilities, scientific necessities, human and
social considerations, etc. (Dixon, 1966).
According to Kepner and Tregoe (1975), there are seven factors that are
essential in decision making. These factors, in their order of consideration, are:
establish the overall objectives which are essential or desirable; classify the
objectives according to importance; establish alternatives choices; evaluate the
outcome for each alternative; choose the best alternative as the preliminary decision;
re-evaluate the decision and assess the adverse possibilities of that choice and
- 95 -
finally, set up contingency plans to control the effects of the final decisions. Base on
this framework, Figure 6.1 is proposed as the flow chart describing the procedure
involved in developing the model, which illustrated in the following steps:
Literature
Review
Identification of Delay Identification of Selection

Analysis Methods Criteria
Establish the Attributes Establish Individual

of the Methods Criteria Weights
Assign a Rating for each

Criterion based on their
Attributes
Compute the Score for each

Method by Multiplying the
Rating for each Criterion by
their Weighting
Rank all the Methods

based on their Scores
Select Method with

Highest Rank as the best
for the Delay Analysis
Figure 6.1 Flow Chart Indicating the Model’s Procedure (Researcher)
- 96 -
Step1: Developing a list of delay analysis methods and the selection criteria
This was achieved through literature review (Chapter 3). The competing
methods are As-planned vs. as-built, Impacted as-planned, Collapsed as-built and
the Window analysis, while the 17 criteria with their relative importance weights
were obtained from Braimah and Ndekugri s’(2007) survey of claims practitioners
from construction organizations in UK as presented in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 the selection criteria with their relative importance weights
Selection Criteria Weight
Record availability 1.0
Baseline programme availability 0.86
Nature of Baseline programme 0.73
Updated programmes availability 0.72
form of contract 0.61
Dispute resolution forum 0.56
Reason for the analysis 0.63
Time of the delay 0.64
Project complexity 0.67
The amount in dispute 0.75
Size of the project 0.52
Duration of the project 0.47
Nature of delaying events 0.66
Number of delaying events 0.68
The other party to the claim. 0.46
Cost of using method 0.59
Skills of the analyst 0.67
Step2: Rating the four methods against the selection criteria

Each of the methods has attributes which have to be compared with these
criteria in turn. The different attributes of the various methods as reported in the
literature (SCL 2002; AACEI 2007; Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006;
Pickavance 2005; Braimah and Ndekugri 2007) have been indicated and presented
in Appendix B, Tables (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-8). A number of questions
are then asked with regards to the extent to which a given method is suitable for use
based on these attribute and the criterion in question.
- 97 -
Step3: Computing the score for each method

This was achieved by multiplying the ratings from all the criteria by their
respective weightings which presented in Table 6.1, to obtain the scores of the
various methods. The total score for each method is then computed by summing up
all the scores from the various criteria.
Step4: Selecting the method with the highest score
Rank the various method based on their total scores. The method with the
highest score and ranks highest should thus be selected as the best method to use.
6.4 Application of the Programme to a Hypothetical Case Study:

To illustrate the application of the programme in practice, it was applied to a
hypothetical but realistic case study of a construction delay claim. The example is
defined as follows:
1. The project assumed is a (10000 million) I.D contract for the construction of a
new water treatment plant in Baghdad. The project was a complex process
facility, with over 4000 activities.
2. The agreed contract duration for the project was 2 years but this was overrun by
14 weeks due to a number of delay events caused by the owner and the
contractor. There were 30 of such events most of which were related to
variations ordered by owner, design errors, unforeseen adverse ground conditions
and contractor’s labor and plant problems.
3. The delays were clearly definable and limited to specific definitive activities,
some owner-caused delays occurred concurrently with other contractor-caused
delays. The delays also led to many changes in the original planned construction
sequence, acceleration and loss of productivity effects.
4. The form of contract used specified that the contractor to be entitled to extension
of time to delay events that are at the owner’s risk and actually cause project
delay.
5. A baseline programme in CPM network format was prepared and submitted to
the owner by the contractor. This programme was, however, not updated on
regular basis in the course of the project as the contract did not require so.
- 98 -
Further, the baseline programme was found to be inadequate on two aspects: it

did not include all the project activities and also some relevant activities were not
defined at appropriate level of detail.
6. An as-built programme showing how all the project activities were actually
constructed was developed by the contractor at the end of the project.
The contractor issued claims for extension of time and loss and expense.
However, the contractor disagreed with the owner’s contract administrator of which
delay analysis method to be used. Therefore, the contractor’s delay analyst ought to
prove to the adjudicator that his method (Window analysis) is the most appropriate
for this case, which can be asserted using the proposed Delay Analysis Method
selection programme.
6.4.1 Application of the Proposed Programme:

VISUAL BASIC programme was used to build and design the proposed
model. Having outlined the claims situation, the next step is to use the proposed
programme to select the best method among the following: As-planned vs. As-built,
Impacted As-planned, Collapsed As-built and Window Analysis.
When the user operates the programme (Figure 6.2) is the first window
appears which includes the name of the programme and the user name box.
Figure 6.2 First Window of the Proposed Programme

After the user enter his name and clicks on “ok”, Figure 6.3 will be shown.
The top row of this window displays the slides’ number (from1to 14) of the
programme, which will appear in all programme’s windows. It also displays the 17
criteria with their weights and the shown question.
- 99 -
Figure 6.3 Start Window of the Proposed Programme

If the user clicks on “Yes” window of slide 1 will appear (Figure 6.5). But if
he clicks on “No”, the programme will ask the user to enter his own value(s) as
shown in Figure 6.4. When the user completes entering the value(s), he should
clicks on “Done” in which slide 1 will appear.
Figure 6.4 Entering the User Value(s)
Slide 1: Records availability

Slide 1 (Figure 6.5) displays the question of the first criteria (records
availability) and the information required for the use of the various delay analysis
- 100 -
methods. On the right side of the window, there is a calculation table consists of 4
columns which represent the score of the four methods As-planned vs. As-built,
Impacted As-planned, Collapsed As-built and Window Analysis successively.
For the case study delay claim situation, all the information required are
available except the dates of programme updates. The ratings of the four methods
will be calculated based on Table B-1 in Appendix B, which shows all the important
information required for the implementation of the various methods.
For example, all the information required for applying Impacted As-planned
are available as a result its rate= (7/7) =1, and its Score3= (1×1) =1, while Window
Analysis does not satisfy one of its requirements, therefore its rate= (10/11) =0.909,
and its Score4= (0.909×1) =0.909 as shown in row 1 (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5 Window of Slide 1(Records availability)

Slide 2: Baseline programme availability
Slide 2 (Figure 6.6) displays the question of the second criteria (Baseline
programme availability). Some methods require baseline programme for their
implementation while others do not as presented in Table B-2. In the case study
example there is a baseline programme, therefore the rate of the methods that
requires the use of a baseline programme is “1” and Score= (1×0.86) =0.86 as
shown in row 2.
- 101 -
Figure 6.6 Window of Slide 2 (Baseline programme availability)
Slide 3: Nature of baseline programme

Slide 3 (Figure 6.7) displays the question of the third criteria (Nature of
baseline programme) and the baseline programming requirements for the use of the
various methods which presented in Table B-3. The baseline programme of this
case study was satisfied in 3 of the 5 relevant requirements. Therefore, the rate of
the rate of the four methods is = (3/5) =0.6, while the Score= (0.6×0.7) =0.43 as
shown in row 3.
Figure 6.7 Window of Slide 3 (Nature of baseline programme)

- 102 -
Slide 4: Updated programme availability

Window of slide 4 (Figure 6.8) displays the important programmes updates
required for the use of some delay analysis methods. For this case study, one of
these requirements was lacking, i.e. the absence of regular programme updates. The
rating will be calculated based on the requirements of the four methods as presented
in Table B-4. For example, Window Analysis does not satisfy one of its
requirements as a result its rate= (1/2) =0.5, and its Score4= (0.5×0.72) =0.36. The
results of four methods are shown in row 4.
Figure 6.8 Window of Slide 4 (Updated programme availability)
Slide 5: Form of contract

The terms of the contract require that the delay analysis be based upon the
actual effect of the delays on project completion. Therefore the method suitable for
use should be one of retrospective analysis, example of which include the As
planned vs. As-built, Collapsed As-built and Window analysis method. Thus the
rating of these methods on this criterion will be “1”, while the Score= (1×0.61)
=0.61 as shown in row 5 (Figure 6.9).
Slide 6: Dispute resolution forum
It is assumed in this example that the four methods are acceptable for use in
adjudication. Therefore the rate of the four methods is “1” while the Score=
(1×0.56) =0.56 as shown in row 6 (Figure 6.10).
- 103 -
Figure 6.9 Window of Slide 5 (Form of contract)
Figure 6.10 Window of Slide 6 (Dispute resolution forum)

Slide 7: The reason for the delay analysis
The disputes in this case concerned claims on time extensions, acceleration,
disruption and prolongation cost. Using Table B-5 as a guide, a method is rated as
the percentage of claims issues that it is capable of proving. For example a rate of
1.0 should be accorded if it is capable of proving all these issues as with the
Window analysis method. The results of the methods are shown in row 7 (Figure
6.11).
- 104 -
Figure 6.11 Window of Slide 7 (The reason for the delay analysis)
Slide 8: Time of the delay

The time of the delay relative to the current stage of the project requires that
a retrospective analysis of delay be performed but not prospective analysis.
Therefore the method suitable for use should be one of retrospective analysis,
example of which include the As planned vs. As-built, Collapsed As-built and
Window analysis method. Thus the rating of these methods on this criterion will be
“1”, while the Score= (1×0.64) =0.64 as shown in row 8 (Figure 6.12).
Figure 6.12 Window of Slide 8 (Time of the delay)
- 105 -
Slide 9: Project characteristics criteria

The window of Slide 9 (Figure 6.13) includes five criteria: size of project,
amount in dispute, duration of the project, number of delaying events and
complexity of the project. Table B-6 compares the suitability of the various delay
analysis methods against these project characteristics criteria.
Each of the five criteria has four selections; the user can choose only one of
them. Table B-7 illustrates the ratings of the four methods based on the user
selection of the characteristic of each criterion. For example row 3 of Table B-7
represents the ratings of the four methods if the user clicks on selection No.3 for
any of the five criteria.
(CLEAR ALL) option shown in (Figure 6.13) can be used if the user wants
to change any of his selections.
Figure 6.13 Window of Slide 9 (Project characteristics criteria)
Size and Duration of the project

Based on the classification set out in Figure 6.13, the example project is
considered very large in size and very long in duration. Therefore selection No.4
will be chosen and the results of the four methods for these two criteria are shown
in row 9 for size of project criteria and row 11 for duration of the project criteria as
shown in Figure 6.14.
- 106 -
The amount in dispute

It is assumed in this case study that the amount in dispute is considered very
significant. As a result selection No.4 will be chosen and the results of the four
methods for this criterion are shown in row 10 of Figure 6.14.
Number of delaying events
The number of delaying events in this case study is 30, therefore selection
No.3 will be chosen and the results of the four methods for this criterion are shown
in row 12 of Figure 6.14.
Complexity of the project
On project complexity of this case study, the dependencies between the
activities are very complex, for this selection No.4 will be chosen and the results of
the four methods for this criterion are shown in row 13 of Figure 6.14.
Figure 6.14 Selections of Slide 9 (Project characteristics criteria)
Slide 10: Nature of delay events

The capabilities of the various delay analysis methods in dealing with typical
characteristics of delays are shown in Table B-8. The nature of delay events of this
case study is satisfied all these issues such as concurrent delays and delays that
caused acceleration effects and loss of productivity. Using Table B-8 as a guide, the
percentage of delay characteristics that a given method is able to handle is calculate
to represent the score for that method. For example, Collapsed As-built method is
- 107 -
able to deal with 2 of the case study issues therefore its rate = (2/6) = 0.33, and its
Score3= (0.33×0.66) =0.22, while Window Analysis is able to handle with all these
issues, therefore its rate= (6/6) = 1, and its Score4= (1×0.66) =0.66 as shown in row
14 (Figure 6.15).
Figure 6.15 Window of Slide 10 (Nature of delay events)

Slide 11: The other party to the claim
It is assumed in this case study that there was no prior unsuccessful
settlement of the claims in which the four methods were used. It was therefore very
suitable to use any of the methods and thus its rate is 1 and the Score= (1×0.46)
=0.46 as shown in row 15 (Figure 6.16).
Figure 6.16 Window of Slide 11 (The other party to the claim)

- 108 -
Slide 12: Cost of using the technique

The cost of resolving the claims was not budgeted for in the contract, the
most suitable method to use will be the one which is least expensive. As a result
selection No.1 and the ratings will be calculated as in Table B-7. The results of the
four methods for this criterion are shown in row 16 of Figure 6.17.
Figure 6.17 Window of Slide 12 (Cost of using the technique)

Slide 13: The skills of the analyst
It is assumed for this case study that the analyst was very knowledgeable and
skilled in the use of Window analysis method, therefore its rate is 1, while the other
methods rate is 0 as shown in row 17 of Figure 6.18.
Figure 6.18 Window of Slide 13 (The skills of the analyst)

- 109 -
Slide 14: Final calculation sheet

In order to obtain the results of the four methods the user has to click on
“CALCULATE” option as shown in Figure 6.19, which displays the final results of
the four methods As-planned vs. As-built, Impacted As-planned, Collapsed As-built
and Window Analysis. The method with the highest total score is the Window
Analysis method and so it is the most appropriate method to use for the delay claim
situation.
Figure 6.19 Window of Slide 14 (Final calculation sheet)
Finally, this programme provides analysts with a comprehensive framework

for selecting the right delay analysis method for any claims situation. By this, they
can justify their choice of a method to their client in a rational and balance manner.
- 110 -
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PROPOSALS
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PROPOSALS
7.1 Introduction:
This chapter reports on the major findings and conclusions from the previous
chapters, which formed the basis of the recommendations. The final part of this
chapter presents a number of recommendations for further research.
7.2 Conclusions:
The main research findings and conclusions are summarized as follows:
1. The result of delay analysis is affected by various factors: float, float ownership,
logic change, concurrent delays and resource allocation. The use of methods that
are capable of resolving these issues is thus an important consideration in delay
analysis to ensure more reliable outcomes.
2. There is increasing recognition and acceptance of the use of CPM-based
methods for delay analysis.
3. The reliability of delay analysis depends on the programming and record
keeping practice. An analyst should meticulously review the data obtained from
the project records because none of the methods yields reliable results if the
information used is invalid.
4. There are a number of methodologies available for analyzing delays and these
are differ from each other based on the type of schedule techniques required, the
baseline schedule used and the mode of application in their use. Therefore, a fair
and effective evaluation of delay impact is possible if the most appropriate delay
analysis method is selected that provides a reliable solution with the information
available and within the time and cost allocated for this purpose.
5. None of the existing delay analysis methods is perfect as each has its own
strengths and weaknesses. Windows analysis method is clearly accepted by the
literature as the most reliable delay analysis method among the four standard
methods discussed in this research. However, the transient nature of
- 111 -
construction projects not often allowing scheduling data being well documented
as well as time and budget limitations lead a number of researchers to suggest
that the choice of a simpler method may be sensible.
6. Daily windows delay analysis method is considered an accurate method and
suitable to use as it takes into consideration the effects of baseline updates,
resource allocation and the effects of actions taken by the contractor to
accelerate the project and minimize potential delays as it usually ignored in
delay analysis.
7. It is necessary for analyst to be very familiar with the capabilities of the
software used in project scheduling and progress control in order to be able to
generate legitimate schedules for the analysis.
8. There is no single delay analysis method that is universally acceptable for all
claims situations. The most appropriate method for any given situation depends
on a number of criteria. It was for this reason that, this research developed a
model for selecting appropriate delay analysis method to aid practitioners in this
decision-making task.
7.3 Recommendations:
In light of the aforementioned conclusions, the researcher suggested the
following recommendations:
1. Publishing the education of delay analysis process between the engineering staff
in Iraq by training them on the main principles and techniques of analyzing
delays.
2. As most construction projects in Iraq suffering from delays. The researcher
recommends the construction management in Iraq to benefit from all delay
analysis methods described through this research, since the researcher has
introduced the best methods of delay analysis such as the daily windows
analysis, which are capable of producing more accurate results. This will
facilitate understanding and agreement among claims parties on the resolution
thereby minimizing the potential for disputes.
- 112 -
3. Owners could make a contractual requirement for contractors to provide a fully

resource loaded baseline programme in CPM format, except for projects which
are less complex. This could be produced using planning software and submitted
to the owner or its representative for review and acceptance.
4. Contractors should be required to keep adequate documentation including
records on daily site progress and records of crew productivity for major
activities.
5. The management could benefit from the computer abilities and the presented
delay analysis software in analyzing construction delays to investigate the events
that have actually caused the project to experience time and cost overruns in
order to determine the right amount of compensations for each party.
6. The programme developed in this research for selecting delay analysis method
could be used to select the appropriate method. It also could be used as an
educational system to assist researchers in understanding the criteria that
influencing the selection of the methods and understanding the main
requirements for implementing each method.
7.4 Proposals and Future Research:

The following are proposed for further research:
1- A research may be made by applying the delay analysis method adopted in this
research to real life delay claim situation to validate its accuracy.
2- There is other commercial software systems for delay analysis, therefore a study
may be made to compare the accuracy of these systems to the presented
programme in analyzing delays and discover their functionalities for delay
analysis.
3- The proposed programme was presented to identify schedule delays and
accelerations and to apportion them among the parties responsible. It could be
possible to link the proposed model to commercial estimating software in order
to determine the relevant cost of these delays and accelerations.
- 113 -
REFERENCES
1. AACEI (2007). “Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule

Analysis.” AACE International, Morgantown, West Virginia, U.S.A.
2. Abd El-Razek, M. E., Bassioni, H. A., and Mobarak, A. M. (2008). "Causes of
Delay in Building Construction Projects in Egypt." Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 134 (11), 831-841.
3. Abd. Majid, M. Z., and McCaffer, R. (1998). "Factors of Non- Excusable
Delays That Influence Contractors' Performance" Journal of Management in
Engineering, ASCE, 14 (3), 42-49.
4. Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., and Harris, F. (1995). “Computer Aided
Construction Delay Analysis and Claims Preparation.” Construction Management
and Economics, 13, 335-352.
5. Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., and Harris, F. (1996). Construction delay analysis
techniques. Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 14, 375-394.
6. Al-Momani, A. H. (2000). “Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis.”
International Journal of Project Management, 18 (1), 51-59.
7. ‫( "إﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻣﻌﺎﯾﯿﺮ ﻟﺘﻘﻮﯾﻢ أداء إدارات ﺗﻨﻔﯿﺬ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﯾﻊ اﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﯿﺔﻟﺘﻼﻓﻲ‬2002) ‫ ﺟﻤﻌﺔ ﻋﻮاد ﺣﻤﺪ‬,‫اﻟﺼﻤﯿﺪﻋﻲ‬
.‫اﻻﺧﻔﺎﻗﺎت اﻟﺰﻣﻨﯿﺔ" أﻃﺮوﺣﺔ ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ اﻟﻰ ﻗﺴﻢ ھﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻟﺒﻨﺎء واﻹﻧﺸﺎءات ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿﺔ‬
8. Al Zubaydi, S. (2000). “ Developing a knowlagement based expert system for
building a management system for decision making of delays in construction
project” M.Sc. Thesis, College of Engineering, Al-Mustanserriah University.
9. Aibinu, A. A. and Odeyinka, H. A. (2006)."Construction delays and their
causative factors in Nigeria." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 132(7):667–677.
10. Assaf, S. A., Al-khalil, M., and Al-Hazmi, M. (1995). “Causes of Delay in
Large Building Construction Projects.” Journal of Management in Engineering,
ASCE, 11(2), 45-50.
- 114 -
11. Assaf, S. A., and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). “Causes of Delay in Large Construction
Projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 24, 349-357.
12. Arditi, D. and Patel, B. K. (1989) “Impact analysis of owner-directed
acceleration.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.
115, No. 1, pp. 114-157.
13. Arditi, D., and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2006). “Selecting a delay analysis
method in resolving construction claims.” International Journal of Project
Management, 24(2), 145–155.
14. Arditi, D. and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2008)."Analysis Methods in Time-
Based Claims." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
134 (4), 242-252.
15. Baldwin, J. R., Mathei, J. M., Rothbart, H., and Harris, R. B. (1971). “Causes
of Delay in the Construction Industry.” Journal of Construction Division, ASCE,
97 (2), 177-187.
16. Baram, G. E. (1994). “Delay analysis – issue not for granted.” AACE
International Transactions, DCL. 5.1-DCL.5.9.
17. Barrie, D. S., and Paulson, B. C. (1984) “Professional Construction
Management” 2nd Ed, McGraw-Hill Book CO., England.
18. Bordoli, D. W. and Baldwin, A. A. (1998). “A methodology for assessing
construction project delays.” Journal of Construction Management and
Economics, 16, 327-337.
19. Bubshait, A., and Cunningham, M. (1998) “Comparison of Delay Analysis
Methodologies.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
124(4), 315-322.
20. Braimah, N., and Ndekugri, I. (2007). “Factors influencing the selection of
delay analysis methodologies.” International Journal of Project Management
(Paper in Press).
- 115 -
21. Braimah, N., and Ndekugri, I. (2009). "Consultants’ perceptions on
construction delay analysis methodologies." Copyright by the American Society of
Civil Engineers.
22. Bramble, B. B., and Callahan, M. T. (1987). “Construction delay claims”
Wiley, New York.
23. Bramble, B. B. and Callahan, M. T. (2000). “Construction Delay Claims.” 3rd
Ed., Aspen law & Business, Gaithersburg, MD.
24. Chan, D. W. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1996). “Reasons for Delay in
Civil Engineering Projects-The case of Hong Kong.” Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers Transactions, 2(3), 1-8.
25. “Conditions of Contract for Civil Engineering Works” Republic of Iraq,
Ministry of Planning, Legal Department, 1999.
26. De la Garza, J. M., Vorster, M. C., and Parvin, C. M. (1991). “Total float
traded as commodity.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, 117(4), 716–727.
27. Dixon, J. R. (1966) “Design Engineering-Inventiveness Analysis and Decision
Making”, McGraw-Hill, NY.
28. Faridi, A. S., and El-Sayegh, S. M. (2006). “Significant Factors Causing Delay
in the UAE Construction Industry.” Construction Management and Economics, 24,
1167-1176.
29. Farrow, T. (2007)." Developments in the Analysis of Extensions of Time."
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 133
(3), 218-228.
30. Finke, M. (1997). “Contemporaneous Analysis of Excusable Delays.” Cost
Engineering Journal, AACE International, 39(12), 26-31.
31. Finke, M. R. (1998). “A Better Way to Estimate and Mitigate Disruption.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 6,
Nov. /Dec.
- 116 -
32. Finke, M. R. (1999). “Window analysis of compensable delays.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(2), 96-100.
33. Finke, M. R. (2000). “Schedule density as a tool for pricing compensable float
consumption” Cost Engineering, 42 (6), June, 34-37.
34. Fruchtman, E. (2000). “Delay Analysis – eliminating the smoke and mirrors.”
AACE International Transactions, CDR.6.1- CDR.6.4.
35. Gothand, K. D. (2003). “Schedule Delay Analysis: Modified Windows
Approach.” Journal of Cost Engineering, 45(9), 18-23.
36. Harris, R. A., and Scott, S. (2001). “UK Practice in Dealing with Claims for
Delay.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(5-6): 317-
324.
37. Hegazy, T., and Menesi, W. (2008). "Delay Analysis under Multiple Baseline
Updates." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 134 (8),
575-582.
38. Hegazy, T., and Zhang, K. (2005). “Daily Windows Delay Analysis.” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(5), 505-512.
39. Hegazy, T., Elbeltagi, E., and Zhang, K. (2005). “Keeping Better Site Records
Using Intelligent Bar Charts.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 131(5), 513-521.
40. Hegazy, T. (2007). “EasyPlan Project Management System.” Available
from:http://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek/EasyPlan.html.
41. Householder, J. L., and Rutland, H. E. (1990). “Who owns float?” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 116(1), 130–133.
42. Ibbs, W., and Nguyen, L. D. (2007). “Schedule Analysis under the Effect of
Resource Allocation.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, 133 (2), 131-138.
43. Kao, C., and Yang, J. (2008)." Comparison of windows-based delay analysis
methods." International Journal of Project Management (Paper in Press).
- 117 -
44. Kartam, S. (1999). “Generic Methodology for Analyzing Delay Claims.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125 (6), 409-419.
45. Kassab, M., Hipel, K., and Hegazy, T. (2006). “Conflict Resolution in
Construction Disputes Using the Graph Model.” Journal of Construction
46. Keane, P. J., and Caletka, A. F. (2008). "Delay Analysis in Construction
Contracts"1 st Ed, Wiley- Blackwell Publishing.
47. Kepner, C. H. and Tregoe, B. B. (1975) “The Rational Manager”, McGraw
Hill. NY.
48. Kim, Y., Kim, K., and Shin, D. (2005). “Delay Analysis Method Using Delay
Section.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(11),
1155-1164.
49. Koushki, P. A., AL-Rashid, K., and Kartam, N. (2005). "Delays and cost
increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait."
Construction Management and Economics, 23, 285–294.
50. Kraiem, Z. M. and Diekmann (1987). “Concurrent delays in construction
projects”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 113,
No. 4, pp. 591-602.
51. Leary, C. P. and Bramble, B. B. (1988). “Project delay: Schedule analysis
models and techniques.” Project Management Institute Seminar/Symposium, San
Francisco, California, Sept. 17-21, 63-69.
52. Lee, Hyun S., Ryu, Han G., Yu, Jung H., and Kim, Jae J. (2005). “Method for
Calculating Schedule Delay Considering Productivity.” Journal of Construction
53. Levin, P. (1998). “Construction Contract Claims, Changes and Dispute
Resolution.” 2nd Ed. New York (NY): ASCE Press.
- 118 -
54. Lo, T. Y., Fung, I. W. H., and Tung, K. C. F. (2006). “Construction Delays in
Hong Kong Civil Engineering Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 132(6), 636-649.
55. Lovejoy, V. A. (2004). “Claims Schedule Development and Analysis:
Collapsed As-built Schedule for Beginners.” Cost Engineering Journal, AACE
International, 46(1), 27-30.
56. Lowsley, S., and Linnett, C. (2006). “About Time: Delay Analysis in
Construction.” RICS Business Services Limited.
57. Lucas, D. (2002). “Schedule Analyzer Pro-an Aid in the Analysis of Delay
Time Impact Analysis.” Cost Engineering Journal, AACE International, 44(8), 30-
36.
58. Lyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2006). “Critical Factors Affecting Schedule
Performance: Evidence from Indian Construction Projects.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 132(8), 871-881
59. Mansfield, N. R., Ugwu, O. O., and Doran, T. (1994). “Causes of Delay and
Cost Overruns in Nigerian Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project
Management, 12 (4), 254-260.
60. Mbabazi, A., Hegazy, T. and Saccomanno, F. (2005). “Modified But-For
Method for Delay Analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 131(10), 1142-1144.
61. McCullough, R. B. (1999). “CPM Schedules in Construction Claims from
Contractors Perspective.” 1999 AACE Transactions, AACE, CDR.2.1- CDR.2.4.
62. Menesi, W. (2007). “Construction Delay Analysis under Multiple Baseline
Updates.” Master’s Thesis, Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.
63. Ndekugri, I. (2007). "A Legal Analysis of Some Schedule-Related Disputes in
Construction Contracts." The construction and building research conference of the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Georgia Tech, Atlanta USA.
- 119 -
64. Nguyen, L. D. and Ibbs, W. (2008). “FLORA: New Forensic Schedule
Analysis Technique.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, 134(7), 483-491.
65. Ogunlana, S. O., Promkuntong, K., and Jearkjirm, V. (1996). “Construction
Delays in a Fast-Growing Economy: Comparing Thailand with Other Economies.”
International Journal of Project Management, 14 (1), 37-45.
66. Oliveros, A. and Fayek. A. R. (2005). “Fuzzy Logic Approach for Activity
Delay Analysis and Schedule Updating.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE 131(1), 42-51.
67. Vento, J. S. and D'Onofrio, M. F. (2007). "Dealing with Mid-Course
Adjustments in Project Planning and Scheduling and Resultant Claims." American
Bar Association.
68. Pasiphol, S. and Popescu, C. (1994). “Qualitative criteria combination for total
float distribution.” AACE International Transactions, DCL.3.1-DCL.3.6.
69. Pickavance, K. (2005). “Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts” 3rd
Ed., LLP Reference Publishing, London.
70. Powell-Smith, V. and Stephenson, D. (1989) “Civil Engineering Claims”. BSP
Professional Books, London.
71. Sagarlata, M. A., and Brasco, C. J. (2004). “Successful Claims Resolution
Through An Understanding of the Law Governing Allocation of Risk for Delay
and Disruption.” CM ejournal, CMAA, Available from
http://cmaanet.org/ejournal.php.
72. Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y. W. (2007)."Causes and effects of delays in
Malaysian construction industry." International Journal of Project Management,
517–526.
73. Sandlin, L. S., Sapple, J. R. and Gautreaux, R. M. (2004). “Phased Root Cause
Analysis - A Distinctive View on Construction Claims.” Journal of Cost
Engineering, 37(2), 11-13.
- 120 -
74. Schumacher, L. (1995). “Quantifying and apportioning delay on construction
projects.” Journal of Cost Engineering, 37(2), 11-13.
75. SCL (2002) “Society of Construction Law. Delay and Disruption Protocol”.
Print most (Southern) Ltd, England (http://www.eotprotocol.com).
76. Scott, S. (1990). “Keeping Better Site Records.” International Journal of
Project Management, 8(4), 243-249.
77. Scott, S., Harris, R. A. and Greenwood, D. (2004) “Assessing the New United
Kingdom Protocol for dealing with Delay and Disruption”. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 130(1), 50-59.
78. Shi, J., Cheung, S., and Arditi, D. (2001). “Construction Delay Computation
Method.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 127(1),
60-65.
79. Stumpf, George R. (2000). “Schedule Delay Analysis.” Cost Engineering
Journal, AACE International, 42(7), 32-43.
80. Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008)." Delays in
construction projects: The case of Jordan." International Journal of Project
Management, 665–674.
81. Wickwire, J. M., Driscoll, T. J. and Hurlbut, S. B. (1991). “Construction
Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims.” John Wiley & Sons, New York.
82. Wickwire, J. M., Hurlbut, S. B. and Lerman, L. J. (1989). “Use of Critical Path
Method Techniques in Contract Claims: Issues and Development” Public Contract
Law Journal, 18, 338-391.
83. Yang, J., Kao, C. and Lee, L. (2006)." System Requirement Analysis of a
Construction Delay Analysis System." Institute of Construction Management,
Chung Hua University.
84. Yang, J. and Yin, P. (2009). “Isolated Collapsed But- For Delay Analysis
Methodology.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE
135(7), 570-578.
- 121 -
85. Yates, J. K. and Epstein, A. (2006)." Avoiding and Minimizing Construction
Delay Claim Disputes in Relational Contracting" Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 132 (2), 168-179.
86. Zack, J. G., Jr. (1999). “Pacing Delays - the Practical Effect.” AACE
Transactions, AACE, CDR.1.1-CDR.1.6.
87. Zack, J. G. (2001). “But-for schedules –Analysis and Defense.” Journal of Cost
Engineering, 43(8), 3-17.
88. Zhang, K. and Hegazy, T. (2005). "Apportioning Concurrent Delays and
Accelerations Using Daily Windows." Construction Research Congress, ASCE.
- 122 -
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDY
A.1 General:
In this Appendix, daily windows delay analysis is implemented using
EasyPlan programme to a case study which is largely based on an actual
assignment. The case study demonstrates the delay analysis for one building of a
residential complex project in Al- Nasereia city which abstracted from one of the
governmental companies for the Ministry of Construction and Housing in which the
following was obtained.
A.2 Delay Analysis for the Case Study:

The project was planned to start in 11 October 2008 and finish in 11 October
2009. Figure A-1 shows the As-Planned schedule of one residential four-storey
building. A period of four months (from 1 May 2009 to 1 September 2009) was
presented to demonstrate the delay analysis of the project within this period of time.
The project experienced many delays during the course of the work most of
them were related to the contractor. These delays should be analyzed and
apportioned among the parties in order to allocate any time-related costs as follows:
Period No.1: 1 May 2009 to 1 June 2009

Figure A-2 shows the progress sheet of May in which all delays, along with
parties responsible were entered on a daily basis. Activity No.2 was delayed by 14
days because of the poor productivity of labor; the start of Activity No.7 was
delayed for 19 days by the contractor; the contractor also delayed Activity No.14
for 6 days due to shortage of material; Activity No.18 was delayed for 11 days
because of the low production rates and Activity No.20 has experienced both delays
for 8 days and acceleration of 5 days due to the contractor as shown in Figure A-2.
Both Activities No.1 and No.20 were finished in this month.
A-1
Figure A-1: As-Planned Schedule of the Project

A-2
Figure A-2: Actual Progress 0f May
A-3
The EasyPlan prototype was used for automated delay analysis. Figure A-3
shows a summary of the delay analysis results. The results summary indicates that
the project was delayed by 5 days during this month and that the contractor (C) was
responsible for nine days of non-excusable delays because of the delay of Activity
No. 14 as it is a critical activity, but he was compensated for four days of them
because of his acceleration.
Figure A-3: Summary of Delay Analysis Results of May
Period No.2: 1 June 2009 to 1 July 2009

Figure A-4 shows the progress sheet of June, in which Activity No.1 was
delayed for 13 days because of errors committed during construction, Activities
No.2, No.3, No.5 and No.6 were all delayed because of poor productivity rates,
Both Activities No.13 and No.17 were delayed for 5 days because of the owner’s
variation orders.
Using EasyPlan delay analysis, Figure A-5 shows summary results of June
which indicates that the project was delayed by 10 days during this month and that
the contractor (C) was responsible for seven days of non-excusable delays, but he
was compensated for two days of them because of his acceleration while the owner
(O) was responsible for 5 days of excusable compensable delay, because of the
delay of Activity No. 13.
A-4
Figure A-4: Actual Progress 0f June

A-5
Figure A-5: Summary of Delay Analysis Results of June
Period No.3: 1 July 2009 to 1 August 2009
Figure A-6 shows the progress sheet of July, in which Activity No.1
experienced acceleration of 16 days, while Activities No.2, No.5 and No.6 were
continuous suffring delays because of poor productivity rates. Both Activities No.13
and No.17 were also delayed for 3 days because of the owner’s variation orders.
Activity No.13 was stopped for 12 days by the contractor due to slow delivery of
materials.
Using EasyPlan delay analysis, Figure A-7 shows summary results of July
which indicates that the project was delayed by 16 days during this month and that the
contractor (C) was responsible for 14 days of non-excusable delays, but he was
compensated for one days while the owner (O) was responsible for three days of
excusable compensable delay because of his delay for Activity No.13.
A-6
Figure A-6: Actual Progress 0f July

A-7
Figure A-7: Summary of Delay Analysis Results of July
Period No.4: 1 August 2009 to 1 September 2009
Figure A-8 shows the progress sheet of August, in which Activity No.1 was
accelerated by 3 days and finished in 14 August. Activity No.2 was also accelerated
by 2 days and finished in 29 August. In the other hand, both Activities No.3 and No.5
were suffred delays because of poor productivity rates. Activity No.13 was delayed
for 5 days by the contractor while Activity No.16 was delayed for 8 days also by the
contractor. Activity No.17 was delayed by 2 days and finished in 31 August.
Using EasyPlan delay analysis, Figure A-9 shows summary results of August
which indicates that the project was delayed by 6 days during this month and that the
contractor (C) was responsible for 10 days of non-excusable delays, but he was
compensated for four days.
A-8
Figure A-8: Actual Progress 0f August

A-9
Figure A-9: Summary of Delay Analysis Results of August
As shown in this case study, the project was delayed by 37 days during the four
months and most of these delays were because of the contractor’s slow progress.
It was also indicated, that the daily percentage representation of the planned and
actual progress facilitates the recording and viewing of all site events as well as the
calculation of the project status and responsibility for delays.
A-10
APPENDIX B: EVALUATION OF THE VARIOUS SELECTED
CRITERIA AGAINST THE METHODS
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION OF THE VARIOUS SELECTED CRITERIA
AGAINST THE METHODS
B.1 General:
To rate the four methods against the selection criteria as presented in
(Chapter Six), the attributes of each of the methods have to be compared with the
criteria in turn. The different attributes of the various methods as reported in the
literature (SCL 2002; AACEI 2007; Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon 2006;
Pickavance 2005; Braimah and Ndekugri 2007) have been indicated and
presented in Tables (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-8) in this Appendix, and set
out under the various criteria below.
Records availability
Table B-1: Important project information required for the application of
Delay Analysis Methods
Impacted
As Planned Collapsed Window
Record As
vrs As Built As Built analysis
Planned
Outline of delay events ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Start dates of delay events ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Finish dates of delay events ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Activities affected by delays ✓ ✓
Duration of delay events ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Original Planned completion
✓ ✓ ✓
date (or as extended)
Actual completion date ✓ ✓ ✓
As-Planned critical path(s) ✓ ✓ ✓
As-built critical path ✓ ✓
Updates critical or near critical
✓
path(s)
Update or Schedule revision
✓
dates
Activity list with logic and lag ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
B-1
Baseline programme availability
Table B-2: Main programming requirements of delay analysis methods
As Planned Impacted As Collapsed As Window

vrs As Built Planned Built analysis
Baseline
programme ✓ ✓ ✓
available
Nature of baseline programme
Table B-3: Main programming requirements of delay analysis methods

As Planned Impacted As Collapsed Window
vrs As Built Planned As Built analysis
Available in CPM ✓ ✓ ✓
Includes all relevant
✓ ✓ ✓
activities
Reasonable activity
✓ ✓ ✓
durations
Reasonable activity
✓ ✓ ✓
relationships
Activities defined in
✓ ✓ ✓
appropriate detail
Updated programme availability
Table B-4: Relevant programmes updates for delay analysis methods

application
As Planned Impacted
Collapsed Window
vrs As As
As Built analysis
Built Planned
Intermediate regular
programme updates ✓
available
Final updated programme
available (as-built ✓ ✓ ✓
programme)
B-2
The reason for the delay analysis
Table B-5: Capabilities of delay analysis methods in proving common delay

claims issues
Impacted
As Planned Collapsed
Claims issue As Window analysis
vrs As Built As Built
Planned
Extension of time ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Prolongation cost ✓ ✓ ✓
Acceleration
✓
effects
Disruption
✓
effects
Project characteristics criteria
Table B-6: Suitability of delay analysis methods against project

characteristics criteria (Researcher)
As Planned Impacted As Collapsed Window
vrs As Built Planned As Built analysis
Size of project
(501m - 4000m) (4001m -
(in terms of < 500m I.D >8000m I.D
I.D 8000m) I.D
contract sum)
Amount in 101m -
< 50m 50m - 100m >200m
dispute 200m
Duration of < 9-18

<3 months <3- 9 months >18 months
project months
Number of
<10 10-20 21-50 >50
delay events
Complexity of
project (in
term of low Moderate High Very High
activity
relationships)
B-3
Table B-7: Ratings of the four methods based on the user selection of
characteristics of each criterion (Researcher)
Impacted
As
Planned
1 Selection No. 1 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
2 Selection No. 2 0.75 1 0.5 0.25
3 Selection No. 3 0.25 0.5 1 0.75
4 Selection No. 4 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Nature of delaying events
Table B-8: Capabilities of delay analysis methods in dealing with

important characteristics of delays
Impacted
Characteristics of the delay As
Planned
Delays occurred concurrently
✓
with others
Delays caused much changes
✓
in construction logic
Cause of delay is clearly
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
definable
Delay caused productivity
✓
losses
Delay caused acceleration ✓
Delays limited to specific

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
definitive activities
B-4
‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮات ﻟﺘﻘﺪم ﻋﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﺎوﻟﯿﻦ ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺎدةً زﯾﺎدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ واﻟﻜﻠﻔﺔ وﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺳﺒﺐ رﺋﯿﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻧﺸﻮء‬
‫اﻟﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت و اﻟﻨﺰاﻋﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎع اﻟﺘﺸﯿﯿﺪ‪ .‬و ﻓﻲ ﺻﻤﯿﻢ ھﺬا اﻟﻨﺰاع ﯾﺘﺒﻠﻮر اﻟﺴﺆال ﻋﻦ ﻣﺪى ﻣﺴﺆوﻟﯿﺔ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻃﺮف ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺗﺄﺧﺮ اﻛﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع واﻟﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻻﺿﺎﻓﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻋﻨﮫ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﺪت ﻃﺮق ﺗﻄﻮرت‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪى اﻟﺴﻨﯿﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ اﻷﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬا اﻟﺴﺆال‪.‬‬
‫ان ھﺪف ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ھﻮ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ وﺧﻠﻖ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص ﻣﻔﺎھﯿﻢ و ﻃﺮق ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺗﺄﺧﺮ اﻟﺘﻨﻔﯿﺬ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻋﺘﺒﺎره ﻣﮭﻤﺔ اﺳﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺆوﻟﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻟﻸﻃﺮاف اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪة و ﺗﻘﻠﯿﻞ أو ﺗﺠﻨﺐ اﻟﻨﺰاﻋﺎت اﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﯾﻘﺪّم ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدىء و اﻷﺟﺮاءات و اﻟﻄﺮق و اﻟﻤﻔﺎھﯿﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪة ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ‪ .‬و ﯾﻘﺪّم اﯾﻀﺎ واﺣﺪة ﻣﻦ اﻛﺜﺮ اﻟﺘﻘﻨﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺛﻮﻗﺔِ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ وھﻲ ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﻨﻮاﻓﺬ اﻟﯿﻮﻣﯿﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﯾﺘﻀﻤﻦ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺟﺰﺋﯿﻦ‪ .‬اﻷول ﯾﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﻔﺼﯿﻠﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﻮث ﺗﺸﻤﻞ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﻔﺎھﯿﻢ اﻟﻨﺢﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮات واﻟﻄﺮق اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﺮة ﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ واﻟﻘﻀﺎﯾﺎ اﻷﻛﺜﺮ أھﻤﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ و اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺧﺘﯿﺎر اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻠﯿﻦ ﻟﮭﺬه اﻟﻄﺮق‪ .‬وﯾﺸﺘﻤﻞ أﯾﻀﺎً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﻷﻟﯿﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل‬
‫ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﻨﻮاﻓﺬ اﻟﯿﻮﻣﯿﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﯾﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﯿﺪاﻧﻲ و ﯾﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺣﺎﺳﻮﺑﻲ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺠﺪاول‬
‫واﻟﺬي ﯾﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﺗﻘﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﻮاﻓﺬ اﻟﯿﻮﻣﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻖ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﯿﻦ دراﺳﯿﺘﯿﻦ ﻣﻦ اﺟﻞ ﺗﻮﺛﯿﻖ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﻘﺪم و اﺳﺘﻌﺮاض دﻗﺘﮫ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮات و اﻟﺘﻌﺠﯿﻞ و ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺚ اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ و ﺗﺮاﻛﻢ اﻟﻤﻮارد‬
‫اﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﺪد‪ .‬ﯾﺘﻀﻤﻦ ھﺬا اﻟﺠﺰء ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻧﻈﺎم دﻋﻢ ﻗﺮار ﻻﺧﺘﯿﺎر ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺗُﺴﺎﻋﺪَ اﻟﻤُﺤﻠّﻠﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗَﺒﺮﯾﺮ إﺧﺘﯿﺎرھﻢ إﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻼﺋﮭﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﯿﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻰ أن ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻼت اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮﻓﻲ اﻏﻠﺐ اﻻﺣﯿﺎن ﻟﯿﺴﺖ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ذﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻧﮫ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺎم ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ واﺣﺪة ﺗﻔﻀﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ آﺧﺮى ﻓﻲ ﻛُﻞّ اﻟﺤﺎﻻتِ‪ ،‬أَو ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻗَﺪْ ﺗُﺜﺒﺖُ ﻟِﻜﻲ ﺗَﻜُﻮنَ اﻷﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫رﻏﺒﺔ ﻣِﻦْ وﺟﮭﺔِ ﻧﻈﺮ اﻟﻤﻘﺎولِ أَو ﺻﺎﺣﺐ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ .‬ﻛَﺸﻔﺖْ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔَ اﯾﻀﺎ ﺑﺄﻧّﮫ اﻟﻮﻗﺖِ واﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﺮة‬
‫واﻣﻜﺎﻧﯿﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﻰ وﺛﺎﺋﻖ ﻣﺮاﻗﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺮوعِ ھﻲ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺪد اي ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﻗَﺪ ﺗَﻜُﻮن اﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺔَ أَو‬
‫اﻷﻛﺜﺮَ رﺑﺤﺎً‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﮭﻮرﯾﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاق‬
‫وزارة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ و اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺪاد‬
‫ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺗﺄﺧﺮ اﻟﺘﻨﻔﯿﺬ ﺑﺄﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﺗﻘﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﻮاﻓﺬ‬

‫اﻟﯿﻮﻣﯿﺔ‬
‫رﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ اﻟﻰ ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺪاد‬
‫وھﻲ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت ﻧﯿﻞ درﺟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻮم ﻓﻲ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺪﻧﯿﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺳﻠﺴﺒﯿﻞ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺟﻌﻔﺮ‬
‫)ﺑﻜﻠﻮرﯾﻮس ﻋﻠﻮم ﻓﻲ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺪﻧﯿﺔ ‪(٢٠٠٧‬‬
‫‪ ١٤٣١‬ھـ‬ ‫رﺑﯿﻊ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫‪ ٢٠١٠‬ﻣـ‬ ‫ﻧﯿﺴﺎن‬

Construction Delay Analysis Using Daily

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Delay Analysis Using Daily

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

CONSTRUCTION DELAY ANALYSIS USING

Rabie Al-Thani 1431

‫" ﻭ‪‬ﻗﹸﻞ ْﺭ‪‬ﺏ‪ ‬ﺯِﺩ‪‬ﻧﹺﻲ ﻋ‪‬ﻠﹾﻤﺎً* "‬

‫ﺻ‪‬ﺪ‪‬ﻕ‪ ‬ﺍﷲُ ﺍﻟﻌ‪‬ــﻈ‪‬ﻴ ُﻢ‬

‫ﺳﻮرة ﻃﮫ ‪ -‬آﯾﺔ ]‪[١١٤‬‬

I certify that the preparation of this thesis Titled

Supervisor: - Asst. Prof. Dr. Sawsan R. Mohammed

In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis

Head of Department: - Prof. Dr. Rafa Hashim Al- Suhaili

We certify, as an examining committee, that we have read

Date:- / /2010 Date:- / /2010

Date:- / /2010 Date:- / /2010

Approval of the College of Engineering:

Name: - Prof. Dr. Rafa HashimAl- Suhaili

First, thanks giving to God, the most merciful, most

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to

Finally, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my

Salsabeel Sahib Jafar

To the memory of my father

To my brother and sister

This research initiated to introduce and create knowledge about construction

Section No: Subject page

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter Two: Delay in Construction Projects

Section No: Subject page

Chapter Three: Construction Delay Analysis

Section No: Subject page

Chapter Four: Daily Windows Delay Analysis

Chapter Five: Computerized Schedule Analysis Model

Chapter Six: A Decision Support System for Selecting Delay

Section No: Subject page

Chapter Seven: Conclusions, Recommendations and Proposals

Figure Title page

Figure Title page

Figure Title page

Figure Title page

TABLE Title page

1.2 Research Justifications:

3. The development in computer technology along with the availability of advanced

1.3 Research Hypothesis:

1.4 Research Objectives:

2. Introduce a computerized schedule for delay analysis that incorporates the

1.5 Research Methodology:

1.5.1 Theoretical Study Part:

1.5.2 Field Work Part:

1.6 Research Structure:

Chapter Two: presents a literature review of theoretical concepts that associated

2.2 Definition of Delay:

A delay may sometimes contribute to the formation of other delays. In other

Figure 2.1 Cause-Effect Relationship of Construction Delays (Shi et al. 2001)

From causation perspective delays may be categorized under the following

2.3 Delay and Disruption Contrasted:

Disruption is often measured in terms of decreased productivity or loss of

Table 2.1 Causes of Disruption and Loss of Efficiency

2.4 Types of Delays:

Previous studies have discussed various delay classification methods for

2.4.1 Excusable Noncompensable Delays:

2.4.2 Excusable Compensable Delays:

Critical Non critical

Excusable Excusable Nonexcusable Concurrency Non concurrency

Extension of Extension of Liquidated