2000 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
CDR.09
The Window Methods of
Analyzing Delay Claims
George E. Baram, PE CCE
elay and schedule analyses are addressed heav-
D ily in many publications, literature, and books,
with many different techniques, methods, and
procedures, all for the purpose of finding the
delay and its effect on a project.
Generally, one can categorize all of these methods or
techniques into two major categories: a forward approach
and a backward approach. The forward approach starts
from the beginning of the project (say the first available or
approved schedule) and continues forward toward the end
of the project using the available data and schedules.
Examples of these methods are the impacted as-planned,
the entitlement schedule, the as-planned versus as-built
comparison, and the different Window methods, which will
be described in this article.
In the other category, the backward approach, the ana-
lyst starts from the end of the project and moves backward
toward the beginning of the project using mainly the as-
built information. This as-built information can take the
shape of an as-built schedule, which is supposed to reflect
the actual sequence and duration of the tasks described.
Examples are the collapsed method (collapsed as-built) and
the but-for method.
There are many pros and cons associated with each of
these approaches, and many claim analysts and practition-
ers agree very little on which method is superior to the oth-
ers, needless to say also as to its application.
In fact, one cannot generalize on the superiority of any
of the previously mentioned methods. Every one of these
has its own merit and justification. However, the credibility
and acceptability in adopting a technique lies in applying it
to the case at hand in an objective and factual manner.
The focus of this article is on the window based meth-
ods of delay analysis, their similarities and differences, as
well as their applications.
Why Window Methods?
The evolution and acceptance of the CPM technique
in handling construction projects is presently at its highest
level. Owners are requesting the use of the CPM in their
CDR.09.1
contracts, and contractors are appreciating more and more
the value and benefits of using these methods on their proj-
ects.
Although the natural objective use of the CPM as a tool
is to run and control ongoing projects, it can be used in ret-
rospect on completed projects with proper historical (as-
built) data and properly reported progress.
The key issues that made the CPM a credible approach
to be used on ongoing projects are the same ones that justi-
fy using it on completed projects.
• The forward future approach in the look-ahead
planned period.
• The ability to project and modify the planned period.
• The ability to perform the above two items in and for
different periods—as often as needed (monthly, weekly,
bimonthly).
• The ability to modify and adjust the network (both
minor and major adjustments) to reflect actual changes
in sequence of erection, resources, changes, and extras.
• The ability to create an integrated cost/resource/sched-
ule model that can be used to track progress and per-
formance.
In summary, the CPM schedule is dynamic in nature
because it changes continually. As will be described later,
the window methods of delay analysis are best suited to sat-
isfy the above crucial issues.
The Window Methods—General
Simply put, the objective of any window method of
delay analysis is:
a. to reconstruct the progress on a project in predeter-
mined time frames (window periods) in accordance
with the planned schedule;
b. to measure it against an established threshold; and
c. to assess or evaluate the differences.
The two major entities (legal entities) used in perform-
 2000 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
ing a window-based delay analysis are the as-planned sched-
ule and the as-built schedule. However, there are different
ways of presenting these elements in addition to arguing
their acceptance.
The other entry required in performing any of the win-
dow techniques is the progress achieved during the course
of the project, within periodical time frames. This includes
actual start and completion dates of performed tasks, the
percentage of completion, and any incidents or delays that
interrupted or hindered the performance (strikes, extra
work, stop work, etc.).
In the following section, a brief review on the entries
commonly required to perform a window based delay analy-
sis will be introduced, along with the pros and cons of using
them properly.
Window Methods—Common Input and Steps to Follow
• Evaluating and preparing the as-planned schedule;
• development of the as-built schedule;
• identifying and quantifying known delays; and
• identification of significant milestone dates (window
periods).
Evaluating and Preparing the As-Planned Schedule
The planned schedule used for a specific window peri-
od is most credible if it reflects the planned sequence and
duration for the period itself. This window baseline, some-
times called the then current schedule, may be available in
a CPM electronic form as an update at certain point.
Otherwise, it has to be reconstructed from contemporane-
ous relevant schedule documents [1, 2, 4, 7].
Selecting and agreeing on the as-planned schedule as a
basis of the delay analysis is a major first step in conducting
a window-based delay analysis. There are certain considera-
tions the analyst has to take into account in accepting and
preparing the as-planned schedule. This topic has been cov-
ered extensively in many related publications, including two
of the author’s [1, 2, 6], however, the following is a summa-
ry of the important items that the analyst should consider
during this process:
• it must be agreed upon by both parties;
• it must be substantiated;
• it must be complete;
• it must reflect the intended plan of executing the job by
the contractor;
• it must be supported by source documents;
• it must be error free in terms of logical connections
and/or duration of activities; and
• it must reflect the contractual agreement (milestones).
Many of the above cited points are self-explanatory,
with the exception of the last two items, where the analyst
may require certain skills in dealing with them, for example,
a clear error or mistake in the logical sequence or duration
has to be corrected and reported in the analysis.
CDR.09.2
Some circumstances may require more or less criteria
than the above to be satisfied, but in general these are the
prerequisites for a valid as-planned schedule in a delay
analysis.
As-planned schedules used throughout the progress of a
project are usually produced in the form of schedule
updates at the end of every month. Each schedule update
represents the status of the job at the cut-off date (data date),
in terms of historical data (actual dates and percentages
completed), and the projected period as anticipated by the
contractor in terms of new estimated duration and logical
connections.
As-planned schedules should be checked and verified
to satisfy the above mentioned criteria. The next step is to
evaluate the validity of the resulting critical path in the final
prepared CPM schedule. This requires some experience on
the part of the analyst in the type of project, and probably
consultation with the client (contractor or owner), keeping
in mind that the validity and reasonability of this critical
path has to be defended.
A Word About the Use of Constraints
A very common issue in today’s construction schedul-
ing is the use of constraints, sometimes called plugs, in
scheduling certain activities. This problem became very
common due to the availability of sophisticated comput-
erised scheduling software. Such tools allow the user to
schedule as a bar-chart-schedule, by forcing some activities
to start and complete on a certain date(s). This is in contrast
to real or natural CPM scheduling, where the logical con-
nections along with the duration of the activities decide
when each activity should start and be completed.
Some of the constraints are valid, such as dates of mate-
rial or equipment delivery, winter constraints, etc. Other
types of constraints may distort the networking nature of the
CPM if applied improperly, such as late constraints or
mandatory start or finish, or even total float or free float con-
straints. These constraints usually yield unclear, illogical
positions of some activities with a totally misleading artifi-
cially forced critical path and erroneous float calculation. It
is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the effect of arti-
ficial constraints and their alternatives [2]. These are usual-
ly documented in the manual of the utilized scheduling
software.
However, contractual constraints should be used in
preparing the as-planned schedule or updates. These are
mainly interim or agreed upon milestones, procurement,
weather, or resource related constraints.
Constructing the As-Built Schedule
Whether it is compiled from many available contem-
poraneous documents, or from schedule updates, the as-
built time line should reflect the actual sequence of work
that took place on the project. There are many challenges
and difficulties in producing a credible as-built schedule
that can be used for the window based delay analysis.
Similar to the as-planned schedule and due to the limited
 2000 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
scope of this article, the following recommendations are to
be considered when preparing the as-built schedule [1, 4,
5]:
• it must be substantiated;
• it must be complete;
• it must reflect the facts;
• it must be supported and backed up by the proper doc-
uments; and
• it must match (to a reasonable degree) the as-planned
schedule.
Care and objectivity are needed in linking the as-built
to the as-planned schedule (scope of work, resources used,
and extras).
The as-built schedule can be constructed from the fol-
lowing sources:
• daily foremen/superintendents’ diaries;
• daily timesheets;
• minutes of project meetings;
• schedules, updates, and progress reports;
• cost reports; and
• other (correspondence, letters, and memos).
Based on the schedule update breakdown and descrip-
tion of every activity, the actual start and completion of
every activity should be extracted from the previously men-
tioned sources, along with any interruption and/or stoppage
of work in the activity, to then be plotted on a daily or week-
ly time scale.
The final output of integrating all of the above sources
is a detailed as-built schedule broken down by activity level
details matching the as-planned (or updates), that can then
be used to perform the mechanics of the window analysis,
as well as to assess any delays incurred within certain win-
dow periods.
Identify and Quantify Known (Agreed Upon) Delays
Depending on the case and the availability of informa-
tion, delays may already be known to the players (owner,
contractor, etc.) and agreed upon in terms of their accept-
ance and duration. Examples are strikes, stop work orders,
delays in delivery of major equipment, etc. In other cases,
delays may be embedded in activity duration in the form of
stretched and long duration where the cause of the delay
and the delay period itself may be unknown. This could be
a delay resulting from slow performance, loss of productive
work, or a sequential delay to a previous known/unknown
delay, etc.
The objective of any delay analysis, whether it is win-
dow or non-window based, is to find the delay, quantify it,
determine its effect on other work, and apportion or allocate
responsibility to the party causing the delay.
Knowing the delay up front may save a lot of effort and
may justify using different methods that fit the case.
CDR.09.3
Identification of Significant Milestone Dates (Window
Periods)
The selection of dates to represent the cut-off times that
divide the project into segments is very crucial to success-
fully establishing the delay in the project and later on eval-
uating its causes and effects. The selection should be made
with the intent to isolate the major known problems. These
would typically include the following.
• Before and after the issuance of a major change or
group of changes that may have an effect on the com-
pletion of the project (giving rise to extra work, suspen-
sion of work, etc.).
• The time of major known delay or delays (start and end
of the delay).
• Issuance of a major schedule revision (major changes
in duration and/or logic, addition and/or deletion of
activities, etc.).
• Before and/or after a force majeure event (strike, flood,
earthquake, etc.).
• Before the onset and at the end of severe climate con-
ditions (severe winter, rainy season, etc.).
• Before and/or after the issuance of an acceleration
order (giving rise to an increase in workforce, overtime,
double shift, etc.).
The above are some examples generally applied in the
selection of a window period. The circumstances and events
that actually take place during the job progress and their rel-
evance to the delay will dictate a better, more useful period
selection.
THE WINDOW METHODS
The Window Snapshot Analysis Method
The snapshot analysis technique consists of two major
steps: the first is to determine the amount of delay that
occurred on a project, and when the delay occurred; the
second is to determine the cause or causes of the delay.
The analysis uses the available schedules (mainly from
the contractor), called original or as-planned schedules, the
actual or as-built schedule as it is compiled from different
sources (as explained earlier) and any revised schedules that
may have been issued and/or used during the execution of
the project.
In order to analyze the delays (or acceleration) on a
project, the project duration is divided into a number of
time periods (windows). For each time period, the amount
of delay that occurred is determined and the causes of the
delay are then assessed.
The breakdown of the project duration into time peri-
ods is achieved through the selection of a series of dates.
Each date represents the end of one period and the begin-
ning of the subsequent period. The dates are selected to
coincide with major project milestones, including the
implementation of significant changes in planning, in order
to isolate major known delays or group of delays.
 2000 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Generally, the planned completion date, according to
the schedule in force at the beginning of a period, is com-
pared with the projected completion date at the end of that
period, giving rise to the delays (if any) in the interim. The
difference between these dates is the delay to the project
that occurred during the period. Once the length of the
delay that occurred during the period is known, its causes
are assessed.
If the updated schedule is no longer considered valid
because of changes in planning, then the schedule is
accordingly revised and this revised schedule is used for the
subsequent period. The difference between the completion
dates projected by the updated schedule and the correspon-
ding revised schedule is an indication of the amount of
acceleration (or relaxation) achieved by the changes in
planning.
This procedure should be repeated for the number of
snapshot dates (or periods) selected, and for every period the
resulting delay, acceleration or on-time progress is evaluat-
ed in a second phase, assessing the result of the analysis.
Steps to Follow
• Based on the schedule updates and the frequency of
their availability, determine the time frame periods
(usually 1 to 2 months).
• Start with the schedule update available at the begin-
ning of the examined project time frame and consider
it as the first as-planned schedule for the first period
(provided that prerequisites for a valid as-planned
schedule are satisfied as per the earlier section on eval-
uating and preparing the as-planned schedule).
• Copy the schedule update available at the beginning of
the period.
• Status the copy created above at the end of the period
from the information available in the next schedule
update.
• Run the new schedule at the end of the period—the
result is a snapshot schedule.
• Compare the resulting snapshot schedule at the end of
the period with the planned schedule (update) at the
beginning of the same period.
• Examine and assess the resulting delays (as described in
the following section).
Assessing the Delays Resulting From the Snapshot
Analysis
Assessing delays for the window periods is not a matter
of mechanics or science that can be automated. It relates to
the facts and circumstances surrounding the progress of the
project and it differs from one project to another. In gener-
al, it requires the analyst to familiarize himself/herself with
the job, understand it, and address the incidents and/or
problems that occurred within the examined period in a
comprehensive fashion.
As a general guideline, the analyst should examine all
delays resulting from the snapshot period and explain each
one in terms of cause and effect. In other words, an exami-
CDR.09.4
nation of the snapshot’s window period should be made to
determine the slippage, delays, or extended duration
incurred within this window and to assess its effect or possi-
ble effect on the overall project.
The next step is to back-up the findings by using:
• provided as-built information;
• correspondence;
• drawings log and turnaround time;
• costing records;
• Workhours (worker data); and
• others.
This can be achieved through a detailed narrative
explanation of every delay detected or examined within the
window period, supported (if needed) by a detailed state-
ment of facts to substantiate the conclusions.
The Window Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
This method is based on the analysis of delaying events
at the time they occur. Hence, there are two crucial differ-
ences between this technique and the above mentioned
snapshot technique.
The first difference is that in the case of TIA, the iden-
tification and quantification of the delay-causing events
should be made before performing the analysis. The delay
analysis will be restricted to determining the effect of these
events.
The other important difference is in the selection of the
window periods. In the snapshot method, the windows are
determined by the availability of a schedule update at the
end of each period, while in this approach it is the delaying
event itself that dictates the beginning or the end of a peri-
od.
The TIA approach calls for inserting a delaying event or
events (if within a reasonably short time frame) into a status
schedule, that reflects the status of the project at the specif-
ic time of these events. A concern arises here, since the sta-
tus schedule is usually not contemporaneously available
(unless a delaying event coincides with a schedule update).
However, the status schedule is probably constructable from
contemporaneous documents.
Steps to follow
• Assemble a list of delay-causing events in chronological
order—identify the type of delay for each (excusable,
compensable, etc.).
• Select the as-planned schedule that corresponds to the
first delay-causing event.
• Update or status the above as-planned schedule at the
time of the first delay-causing event starts—this is the
status schedule.
• Insert the first delay-causing event into the status sched-
ule and run the schedule—this is the impacted status
schedule.
• The difference between the resulting completion dates
of the impacted status schedule and the status schedule
 2000 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
(if any) is the result of the inserted event.
• Repeat the process for the other events.
• Sum up the results.
The success of this method is dependent on employing
it contemporaneously and at the time the delay event
occurred. In other words, it is much easier to establish the
status of the job from available documents on an ongoing
project than on a completed project. However, this method
is widely used as an after-the-fact approach and is being
accepted as the preferred approach in many jurisdictions
and on many cases [7].
The resulting effect of any inserted delay-causing event
will be compared to the status schedule for the final assess-
ment within a specific period. The approach for the assess-
ment the delay(s) is similar to what was described in the
snapshot section.
TIA is a very credible and manageable technique if
applied to small projects with a limited number of delay
events. However, it may become very difficult, if not impos-
sible, when applied on large networks with many delaying
events (excusable or non-excusable).
The Window Impacted Then Planned Schedule
This method is a modification or revision to the popu-
lar and traditional method called impacted as-planned
schedule or sometimes schedule entitlement method.
In this approach, only a window impacted planned
period is examined as opposed to the traditional approach
that adopts the construction project as one large window
covering the whole period. This modified version segments
the total period into smaller ones, allowing for the use of
intermediate schedule updates which reflect the real plan
and status and the dynamic nature of the schedule.
In summary, it uses the as-planned schedule update for
a given period and effects it with the available delay-causing
events for the same period.
In a sense, it is very similar to the time impact analysis
method, except that we do not have to produce a status
schedule at the time the delay-causing event took place. On
the other hand, the drawback is the limitation imposed by
the frequency of schedule updates, that may or may not
coincide with a delay event. The examined window closes at
the beginning of the next window with the availability of a
new schedule update.
This approach is best used for inserting a group of
delay-causing events (if related and within a reasonable time
frame coinciding with the examined window) into one
schedule and assessing its effect, as a group of say, excusa-
ble/compensable delays, on the completion of the schedule.
Its application and procedure (steps to follow) is very
similar to the TIA method.
The Window Direct Critical and Near Critical Path
Comparison
An interesting approach used and published recently
under the window method of delay analysis umbrella [5] is
CDR.09.5
the pure comparison of two schedule updates within a given
time frame. One represents the planned schedule for select-
ed activities at the beginning of the period and the other
represents the as-built schedule for the same selected activ-
ities, within the same period.
The selected activities are usually the critical and near
critical activities extracted from the planned schedule. The
corresponding as-built is usually generated from the avail-
able contemporaneous documents including schedule
updates.
Although it appears to be a very simple and straightfor-
ward approach using the CPM critical path using the
updated schedules (hence the dynamic nature is consid-
ered). It has some hidden assumptions and drawbacks that
may require the analyst to revise and sometimes reverse
his/her course.
For example, by relying heavily on the planned critical
path and adopting it throughout the window period, one is
assuming that the critical path is fixed for the whole period.
This may be true if critical paths are the same at both the
beginning and the end of the examined period, a rare case.
This method treats delay analysis more as a science
than as an art. The acceptance and credibility of this
approach lies in the critical path being approved as the
actual, real or followed, critical path [8].
Its best application may be in cases where little or no
shift in the critical path took place or in cases where sched-
ule updates are available within very short periods, as week-
ly or biweekly look-ahead schedules.
The Window As-Built But-For Analysis
One of the easy to explain and understand methods of
analysing delay is the but-for technique [2, 4, 8]. Although
there are many arguments for and against using this tech-
nique, it is still a broadly used and very much alive method.
In summary, the purpose of this technique is to find out
the effect of one party’s portion of the total delay to the
schedule, leaving the rest of the delay to the other party. In
other words, but-for the owner-caused delay, the contractor
would have completed the project on time (or on a specific
date).
If this technique is applied to the total period of the
project, with all the delays of one or the other party taken
into account, why not apply it in a periodical fashion. One
would isolate a window period and construct the as-built for
that period, then collapse the delay(s) (say owner-caused
delays) that took place within the same period. The differ-
ence between the completion date resulting from this col-
lapsed schedule and the completion date of the schedule in
effect for that period is the contractor’s responsibility.
Easier said than done. In fact there are many technical
difficulties and assumptions made in this approach. This is
true whether it is used for the total project or for a specific
window period.
First of all, the establishment of the as-built schedule,
in matching details to the planned schedule for the same
period, is not an easy task. Then, there is the challenge of
collapsing the schedule based on the actual critical path for
the period. Here the analyst is dealing with the historical
 2000 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
period (as-built), and to collapse a historical period one has
to reverse it into a projected period with the historical data
fully projected in it as if it were planned data. This has to
be done in order to calculate a more reasonable critical path
that reflects the actual data. This requires a lot of subjective
input in terms of logical connections, revisions, and scope
changes that took place within the window [8].
Combining TIA and the Snapshot Techniques
This method is more like a global apportionment
approach within a window period than a pure delay analysis
technique.
In summary, this approach uses a combination of the
window snapshot analysis at the end of the examined period
and the time impact analysis at the beginning of the period
[3]. These are two of the most credible and acceptable
techniques.
The Steps
a. The snapshot at the end of the examined window peri-
od reflects the total progress achieved at the end of the
period, with all delays, interruptions, and changes that
actually took place during the period. Hence, the total
delay resulting from the snapshot is the responsibility of
all parties who performed work within the period,
including owner-caused delays.
b. Delays, say owner-caused delays, are compiled from dif-
ferent source documents including schedules, minutes
of meetings, daily logs, etc. Then, each and every one
of these delays is allotted to an activity on the schedule
(in some cases it can be added as a new activity or part
of an inserted fragnet).
c. The next step is to affect the baseline schedule at the
beginning of the period with the owner-caused delays.
This can be achieved through proper integration of the
owner’s identified delays to the schedule.
d. The results of this window time impact will give the
total duration of all the owner-caused delays within the
examined window.
e. The difference in completion dates between d and a
above is the contractor’s portion of the total delay with-
in the window.
t has often been said that the credibility in using a
I delay analysis technique is in applying it. Although
the focus in this article was on the window based
techniques, there are some other methods and proce-
dures that can be credibly used.
Choosing one method over another depends on many
factors, including:
a. the availability of the information (detailed and com-
plete as opposed to summary and incomplete informa-
tion);
b. the size and complexity of the project and the related
network, and the time limitations in performing the
analysis (hence the cost involved);
CDR.09.6
c. the skills of the team or the analysts in applying the
technique; and
d. last but not least, the presentation itself, whether it is
prepared as a first phase settlement negotiation or as a
final report to a panel of experts, judge, jury, DRB,
mediation or others.
In any of the methods explained in this article, a rea-
sonable and fair analysis should be based on the available
facts, objectivity, fair and documented assumptions (if any),
complete and impartial analysis, and consideration for actu-
al progress and sequence of work.
The window based techniques, if applied properly, sat-
isfy the above expectations.
REFERENCES
1. Baram, G.E. Construction Claims—Documenting and
Presenting the Facts. 1992 AACE International
Transactions, Morgantown, WV: AACE International,
1992.
2. Baram, G.E. Construction Delays—Issues Not to Be
Taken For Granted. 1994 AACE International
Transactions, Morgantown, WV: AACE International,
1994.
3. Baram, G.E. Concurrent Delays—What Are They and
How To Deal With Them? 2000 AACE International
Transactions, Morgantown, WV: AACE International,
2000.
4. Bramble, B.B, and M.T. Callahan, editors.
Construction Delay Claims. John Wiley & Sons,
1987.
5. Pickavance K. Delay and Disruption in Construction
Contracts LLP, 1997.
6. Popescu, C. Selecting As Planned Base in Project
Disputes. 1991 AACE International Transactions,
Morgantown, WV: AACE International, 1991.
7. Wickwire, J.M., T.J. Driscoll, and S.B. Hurlburt, edi-
tors. Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability,
And Claims. John Wiley & Sons—Construction Law
Library, 1991.
8. Zack, J.G. Jr. But-For Schedules—Analysis and Defense
1999 AACE International Transactions, Morgantown,
WV: AACE International, 1999.
George E. Baram, P.Eng. CCE
Revay and Associates Limited
4333 St. Catherine St. West, Suite 500
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3Z 1P9
E-mail: gebaram@total.net