Analysis paralysis, Const. L.J.

2007, 23(6), 468-471

For educational use only

Analysis paralysis
David Bordoli*, Driver Consulting

Table of Contents

2006 UK Economic KPI--predictability of time (based on projects completed in 2005)

2006 most frequently used software (UK construction contractors)

2006 most useful analysis technique (UK construction contractors and consultants)

2006 source of knowledge (UK construction contractors and consultants)

Journal Article

Construction Law Journal

Const. L.J. 2007, 23(6), 468-471

Subject
Construction law

Other related subjects

Information technology

Keywords
Construction projects; Delay; Project management; Software

*Const. L.J. 468 If Constructing Excellence's KPI figures1 are anything to go by, the UK construction industry is failing to
improve its ability to predict construction cost and time. Delays and cost overruns now seem to be a fact of life and recent
emphasis has been on how to analyse delays and determine responsibility.

2006 UK Economic KPI--predictability of time (based on projects completed in 2005)

The Society of Construction Law's Delay and Disruption Protocol, published in 2002,2 has been responsible for raising the
profile of planning and programming and provided the catalyst for debate about the merits or otherwise of different techniques
for analysing project delays.

A survey of the UK construction industry,3 originally carried out in 1994 during the development of the technique known as
Time Impact Analysis, has just been repeated4 and it shows, that across the whole of the industry, 86 per cent of respondents
use project management software to analyse project delays. Contractors alone, as expected, are more prolific users with 90
per cent saying

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. 1

Analysis paralysis, Const. L.J. 2007, 23(6), 468-471

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE.

*Const. L.J. 469 they use the software. Both figures are slightly up from the previous survey, 79 per cent and 86 per cent,
respectively.

The greatest change is the software used by the industry today. In 1994 the survey identified 19 different project management
software packages in use; the top three most used by contractors were Powerproject (54 per cent), Pertmaster (38 per cent) and
Hornet (21 per cent). Most used more than one type of software.5 In 2006, only six have survived. Powerproject has maintained
and increased its premier position with 71 per cent usage but is now followed by Microsoft Project and Primavera (both at
21 per cent).

2006 most frequently used software (UK construction contractors)

The 1994 survey sought to find out which methods of analysis of delays practitioners in the construction industry used and
which they thought were the most useful. While terminology has changed a little, the overwhelming favourite was the "as-built
bar chart", used by 94 per cent of respondents and the preferred technique of more than half (55 per cent). The second most
useful technique was the "impacted as-planned".

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE.

*Const. L.J. 470 The Protocol details four methods of analysis: "as-planned v as-built", "collapsed as-built", "impacted as
planned", and "time impact analysis" and recommends the latter whenever the circumstances so permit.

The class of 2006 has changed little in its favoured technique, 97 per cent use "as-planned v as-built" and it is the preferred
technique of 54 per cent of users. The newcomer, "time impact analysis", is now the second favourite with 29 per cent of the vote.

2006 most useful analysis technique (UK construction contractors and consultants)
It could be that most delay claims are not suited to the Protocol's favoured technique or that the industry hasn't caught up with the
latest thinking of the experts. This seems to be borne out by the survey, which found that, despite all the publicity the Protocol
received, less than half of contractors were aware of it--but of those that were, virtually all agreed with its aims.6

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE.

*Const. L.J. 471 Maybe practitioners are, in fact, more canny and take notice of what goes on in the courts where, in high-
profile cases such as Skanska v Egger, 7 confusion seems to have been caused by complicated and voluminous analyses.

Better education of practitioners may also raise the awareness of techniques. Worryingly, the most common source of knowledge
is experience and self-teaching, whereas formal undergraduate or post-graduate education is the least likely source.

2006 source of knowledge (UK construction contractors and consultants)

When the Protocol was published some voiced concern that it would solely become a standard by which expert reports were to
be judged. This does not seem to have been the case, as those that know about the Protocol say it is cited in less than half of
disputes they have been involved with. It was not intended that it should be a contract document and only 13 per cent say they
have been involved in projects where the contract conditions have been amended to include or comply with its terms.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE.

Having said that, one of the Protocol's aims was that, in time, most contracts would adopt its guidance. This does not seem to
be happening in the UK to any great extent although the SCL has recently reported that the Romanian equivalent of the UK's
Highways Agency is to direct its consultants and contractors that they must implement the procedures of the Protocol on all
existing and new projects.8

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. 2

Analysis paralysis, Const. L.J. 2007, 23(6), 468-471

<FNTI> A version of this article first appeared in Construction Manager (www.constructionmanager. co.uk) and is reproduced
with the kind permission of the publishers thereof. Davis Bordoli, "Analysis Paralysis" (2007) Construction Manager (February)
p23, CPMI. </FNTI>
David Bordoli, Driver Consulting

Footnotes

1 The Constructing Excellence KPI, "Predictability Construction Time', assess the timeliness of service delivery by the contractor/consultant (where
applicable) within the terms of the contract. Jobs completed within the required completion times are expressed as a percentage of the total job
completions. The graph is extracted from the UK Construction Industry Key Performance Indicators 2006 Wall Chart, published by Constructing
Excellence, June 2006.
2 The Society of Construction Law's Delay and Disruption Protocol can be downloaded or purchased at www.eotprotocol.com.
3 David W. Bordoli and Andrew N. Baldwin, "Construction Project Delay Analysis: and the Use of Computers" (1994) Construction Computing
(Autumn) 26.
4 The findings are based on the responses to a postal survey of the UK's top 150 house builders and contractors, the UK's top 200 construction
consultants, 176 chartered building companies and 165 delegates at the 2006 Asta National User Forum (those delegates were not asked questions
about software use). The survey is part of an international research project, "Developing Protocols for Virtual Prototyping", headed by Professor
Andrew Baldwin of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with assistance in the UK from Professor Simon Austin of Loughborough University and
David Bordoli of Driver Consult.
5 The question asked was "what project management software do you use to analyse delays (tick as many as applies)", hence the percentages total
more than 100%. The graph shows the results to the question "what project management software do you use most frequently to analyse delays (tick
one)". This pairing of questions was used in most cases to allow measurement of the scope and the particular.
6 The object of the Protocol is to provide useful guidance on some of the common issues that arise on construction contracts, where one party wishes
to recover from the other an extension of time and/or compensation for the additional time spent and the resources used to complete the project. The
purpose of the Protocol is to provide a means by which the parties can resolve these matters and avoid unnecessary disputes.
7 Skanska Construction UK Ltd v Egger (Barony) Ltd [2004] EWHC 1748 (TCC). The judgment in this case is available at www.bailii.org/ew/cases/
EWHC/TCC/2004/1748.html, reference to the size of the expert's report can be found at [415].
8 This was reported in the Society of Construction Law's November 2006 Newsletter, available at www.scl.org.uk/news/nls/nl 0611.php.

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. 3