Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Activity delays are a common issue in the construction industry and can increase project schedules and costs. Recent research
efforts have focused on the quantitative evaluation of delay impacts. The literature suggests that the construction industry is in need of
additional research to systematically relate the causes of delays to their impacts. To overcome this limitation, this paper analyzes delay
causes in activities that were not completed as scheduled. The paper contributes to a methodology to examine the qualitative (delay causes)
and quantitative (time performance) dimensions of the delay issue. The paper proposes two indicators, as follows: (1) reason for noncom-
pliance (RNC) as an indicator that characterizes scheduling failures, and (2) delay index (DI) as a time-performance indicator that describes
the impacts of delay on critical and noncritical activities. The paper presents two building projects as case studies, with planning and sub-
contractors as the primary RNCs that have the greatest impact on time performance. Planning was the most harmful delay cause on time
performance. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000721. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Project management; Delay time; Construction management; Scheduling; Costs.
Author keywords: Activity delays; Project planning; Reasons for noncompliance; Relationship; Time performance; Cost and schedule.
Time is a traditional index for project performance that is typically Quantification of Delay
measured by schedules. The actual time of project completion fre- The need for quantification of delays is apparent during construc-
quently exceeds the planned time, commonly known as a delay or tion for project control and postconstruction for claims analysis.
overrun. Projects consist of collections of activities and delays can For project control, the literature generally applies three approaches
be assessed at the activity or project level. At the activity level, to quantify delays, as follows: (1) critical-path method (CPM) tech-
delays can affect completion of activities, which may or may not niques, (2) scheduling resource allocation, and (3) earned-value
have an impact on succeeding activities. At the project level, analy- analysis. CPM is a standard tool for control (Galloway 2006) that
sis typically focuses on the impact of activity delays relative to is the basis for scheduling resource allocation. These two tech-
project completion (Shi et al. 2001). This section addresses several niques are combined to produce earned-value analyses (Liberatore
issues related to delays in terms of the importance of delay, inci- et al. 2001; Anbari 2003).
dence in the construction industry, and causes for delays. This re- Claims analysis uses various techniques to calculate delays.
view explores available quantification methods, suggests that a These are based largely on the use of CPM schedules in addi-
method to systematically relate the magnitude of a delay to its spe- tion to maintenance of effective documentation and availability of
cific causes during the project control phase is unavailable, and also information (Kartam 1999; Adhikaril et al. 2006; Youngjae et al.
suggests that incremental research is needed. The section concludes 2005). The typical methods cited in the literature are as follows:
with an exploration of the role of an RNC indicator. (1) as-planned versus as-built method, (2) global impact technique,
(3) as-planned technique, (4) impacted as-planned technique, (5) net-
impact technique, (6) time-impact analysis technique, (7) but-for,
Review of Delay Impacts on Construction
(8) isolated delay-type technique, (9) snapshot technique, (10) win-
At the project level, time is frequently used to control performance dows analysis, and (11) simulation (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon
and its importance can directly affect economic issues (Alwi and 2006; Braimah and Ndekugri 2008; Bubshait and Cunningham
Hampson 2003; Bramble and Callahan 1992; Lyer and Jha 2006). 1998; Kao and Yang 2008; Alkass et al. 1996). More advanced tech-
Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) developed a relevant study that sampled 248 niques such as simulation, fuzzy logic, or expert systems can also be
infrastructure projects from 20 nations around the world over a used to quantify delays in projects (Marzouk et al. 2008; Ordoñez and
period of 70 years, finding “with very high statistical significance, Robinson 2005; Peña-Mora et al. 2008).
that cost escalation was strongly dependent on the length of the In summary, the importance of delays primarily lies in its cost
implementation phase.” Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) also concluded that implications in addition to its effects on other activities and project
cost escalation is even worse in developing countries than in completion. Several methods focus on either the qualitative or
Europe and the United States. quantitative dimensions of delays with different emphasis, scope,
ically one workweek (Ballard 2000). In other words, RNCs can changes in the project design, engineering specifications, or the
characterize problems that affect the project-planning process. project contract agreement between the general contractor and
The writers argue that if an RNC prevents the completion of an the client, among others, which would indicate changes in the criti-
activity, this should imply some level of delay in the activity cal and noncritical activities noted in the original master plan.
and explain the cause of the delay. Therefore, RNCs as causes Furthermore, the dynamic nature of the planning process with
of activity delays and the delays themselves can be related to assess its different levels (long-term, medium-term, and short-term) can
causes and impacts in projects. One important point in this relation- also promote changes in the original plans (Ballard 2000). Thus,
ship is the relative contribution of each RNC to activity delays. In it could be necessary to add new activities as the planning process
other words, the extent of delays in terms of time performance can evolves. However, the methodology proposed in this paper assumes
be different from one RNC to another. This provides motivation for that the master plan is well-defined, and that critical and noncritical
an in-depth study of the RNCs that have the largest impact on time activities are already delineated by the decision makers (e.g., project
performance, first at an activity level and then at a project level. managers). Further research could consider a more dynamic plan-
Several RNCs (such as field interference, poor planning, defective ning process when selecting noncritical and critical activities.
drawings, lack of labor, lack of materials, lack of supervision, sub- The delay analysis methodology in this paper links qualitative
contractor delays, design changes and delays, and poor execution) (delay causes) and quantitative (time performance) by relating
have been proposed (Ballard 2000; Alarcón et al. 2005). This paper RNCs and their corresponding delay impacts at the activity and
proposes a more general RNC list that promotes simple, on-site project levels.
project analysis. For this reason and based on the literature review, Note that the issue of root-cause analysis and preventive actions
the writers decided to use the following general RNCs: (1) design, proposed in this paper are presented as a purely technical exercise.
(2) labor, (3) materials and equipment, (4) subcontracts, (5) weather, However, this process might even promote changes in current
(6) planning, (7) execution of work, and (8) others (Augustine and managerial and organizational practices in projects by identifying
Mangwat 2001; Assaf et al. 1995; Alarcón et al. 2005; Ballard 2000; causes, responsibilities, roles, and impacts. Thus, an ongoing im-
Ellis and Thomas 2003; Fereig 2006; Frimponga et al. 2003; Koushki provement process of the project practices that involve the planning
et al. 2005; Kumaraswamy and Chan 1998; Odeh and Battaineg process could be developed, but this investigation is outside the
2002; Toor and Ogulana 2008). Table 1 provides brief descriptions scope of this paper.
of the writers’ proposed general RNCs. To quantify delays, the paper applies a cumulative progress in-
The following sections describe the proposal of a qualitative and dex (actual and planned). The approach is similar to the earned-
quantitative delay methodology that applies the general RNCs that value technique for relating two cumulative value curves (Anbari
the writers propose. A case study illustrates the methodology and 2003). The goal is to initially measure the variation for each activity
results. between the actual and the planned values for a period of analysis,
and then consolidate them into only one value when the activities
are grouped around a cause of delay at the project level. The ap-
Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology for Delay proach uses a weekly analysis. Fig. 1 illustrates the methodology
Analysis and the steps are described next.
Start of week i 1. Selection of critical (AC) and 4. Initial data collection of the
(i=1…..n) non-critical (ANC) activities to delay cause for each
be scheduled in week i non-completed activity
6. Calculation of Project
3. Data collection for each Delay Indicators
activity scheduled at the (DIC and DINC) and the
end of week i: (Rei+1) weighted average of the
RNC’s
7. Relationship between
i) Does each critical and global RNC’s
activity reached and WA-RNC’s
the scheduled No
progress? (Rei<WSi)
Yes
production, and planning engineer) selects the activities to be per- Data Collection for Each Activity Scheduled at the End
formed in week i. The selected activities must be separated as being of the Week
critical (AC ) or noncritical (ANC ). It is also recommended that the At the end of week i, project management should measure the
activities should have simple and measurable progress. progress of the scheduled activities. In other words, it should be
checked to see if the activities were performed in accordance with
Data Collection for Each Activity Scheduled at the the requirements stated by management (e.g., physical advance,
Beginning of the Week quality, and details). Management should also gather the actual
weekly production data for each activity, as follows:
At the beginning of each week, along with the scheduling of both • Reiþ1 : Actual weekly cumulative progress by activity at the end
kinds of activities, project management should collect the following of week i (beginning of week i þ 1), i ¼ 1 : : : n, as a percentage
progress data for AC and ANC (Table 2): of the total progress (%); and
• Rei , actual weekly cumulative progress by activity at the begin- • Decision block, asks whether each activity (critical and noncri-
ning of week i, i ¼ 1 : : : n, as a percentage of the total progress tical) reached the scheduled progress; if the answer is no, the
(%); and step in the next section is followed, and if the answer is yes,
• WSi , planned weekly cumulative progress by activity for the the project is finished.
week i, i ¼ 1 : : : n, as a percentage of the total progress (%).
Data Collection of the Delay Cause for Each
Table 2. Example of Step 2 Noncompleted Activity
Activity number Criticality of the activities Rei (%) WSi (%)
When an activity has not reached the planned progress, manage-
1 ANC 5 8 ment should identify the delay cause for each activity (Table 3).
2 AC 20 30 The causes should be assigned in accordance with the general
3 AC 10 15 RNCs (Table 1). The proposed RNCs can be modified and config-
4 ANC 34 56 ured to reflect on-site conditions, project characteristics, construc-
5 AC 25 28
tion contract, management style, and relationships (e.g., general
equipment
and activity progress in terms of production, with Rei as the starting
point for that week. When there is a delay, Reiþ1 reaches a weekly
contractor/client and general contractor/subcontractor), among progress less than WSi and, using a simple linear interpolation ap-
others. To render the results as representative as possible it is im- proach, the delay in terms of time in relation to projected progress
portant to include the most relevant delay causes in the RNCs. for reaching WSi can be estimated. It is also possible to estimate the
delay in terms of production as the difference between WSi and
Rei . Thus, by using the previous notion, DI allows the calculation
Incidence of Reasons for Noncompliance of the delay extent (Table 5) using Eq. (1):
The RNCs are determined for each incomplete activity in week i WSi − Reiþ1
(if any), allocating RNCs for both critical (RNCC ) and global DI ¼ ð1Þ
WSi − Rei
(RNCGL ) activities, i.e., those RNCs considering critical and non-
critical activities. The percentage incidence of RNCC is calculated The weighted average for each RNC can then be calculated for
by considering only critical activities. Otherwise, the incidence of either critical [WA-RNCiðCÞ ] or global [WA-RNCiðGLÞ ] activities in
RNCGL is estimated using all the activities (critical plus noncritical accordance with Eqs. (2) and (3):
activities) see Table 4.
P
DIRNCiðCÞ
WA-RNCiðCÞ ¼ P ð2Þ
Calculation of Project Delay Indexes and the Weighted DIAllðCÞ
Average of the RNCs
P
The DI allows for calculation of the delay between the planned DIRNCiðCþNCÞ
progress and the actual progress for an activity. Fig. 2 illustrates WA-RNCiðGLÞ ¼ P ð3Þ
DIallðCþNCÞ
the method used to estimate the activity delay using the DI.
WSi represents the cumulative planned progress for a given week where WA-RNCiðCÞ = weighted average index for the i RNC con-
sidering only critical activities; DIRNCiðCÞ = sum of DIðCÞ for the
Table 4. Example of Step 5 corresponding RNC; DIallðCÞ = sum of all DIðCÞ ; WA-RNCiðGLÞ =
weighted average index for the i RNC considering all activities
RNCC IncidenceC (%) RNCGL IncidenceGL (%)
(critical and noncritical); DIRNCiðCþNCÞ = sum of all DIðCÞ and
Subcontracts 33.3 Subcontracts 50 DIðNCÞ for the corresponding RNC; and DIallðCþNCÞ = sum of DI
Planning 33.3 Planning 25 for all the incomplete activities.
Materials and 33.3 Materials and 25 Table 6 shows an example of calculations of WA-RNCðCÞ and
equipment equipment WA-RNCðGLÞ for a specific RNC (subcontracts), and Table 7 illus-
trates both indexes for each RNC.
Cumulative
Progress (%) Relationship between Critical and Global RNCs and
WA-RNCs
WSi
CD: Control date of the After calculating both indicators for critical and global activities
scheduling per week i
(i.e., RNCs incidence and WA-RNCs), the indexes are related to
each RNC in the corresponding week. In other words, delay causes
Rei+1 are related to their time impact. In this manner, project management
can deal with both kinds of delay causes but with a different em-
phasis and priority. First, because they can produce direct losses in
Rei
the overall project, time delay causes that affect critical activities
should be resolved as soon as possible. Delay then causes that im-
pact global activities should be managed such they do not damage
Control the overall project performance if they persist (Table 8).
Dates (Time)
CDi CDi+1
Table 7. Summary of WA-RNCðCÞ and WA-RNCðGLÞ Indexes for Each 3. The construction company responsible for managing and
RNC executing these projects has several years of experience in
Cause WA-RNCðCÞ WA-RNCðGLÞ multiunit residential buildings;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Case Study B: Relationships between Delay Causes impact on critical activities. The similarities in the results for these
and Time Impact case studies suggest that management’s attention should have been
directed towards both internal (e.g., planning) and external (e.g., sub-
Fig. 5 shows the RNC percentages (partials and accumulated) in
contractors) issues related to the supply chain of the project.
Case B. These indicate that the planning and subcontractor RNCs
Validation of this methodology was carried out by holding a
together represent nearly 80% of the most frequent delay causes
panel discussion with the project personnel (including project
(global and critical), which is similar to Case A. The writers suggest
managers, site engineers, and supervisors) and clients for both
that the same explanation for the behavior of Case A is valid in projects. In general, project personnel reported that the methodol-
Case B for the RNCs incidence patterns. ogy was interesting and robust. In terms of the primary findings,
Similarly, Fig. 6 illustrates the weighted averages indexes for the project personnel and clients were surprised with the results
each RNC (WA-RNC) in Case B and their cumulative values. In because they assumed that the primary reasons for delays were
this case, the most significant delay causes are planning and sub- external (e.g., subcontractors). After this panel, project personnel
contractors, with a delay impact close to 80% (global and critical decided to use this information to change some of their manage-
analysis). The most harmful delays are caused by planning (46%). ment practices. First, they sought to improve their internal planning
Again, given the similar patterns, the explanation for Case A is processes, and second, they involved subcontractors in the plan-
equally valid in Case B. ning process. The clients also assumed responsibility and improved
In summary, both Cases A and B have similar behaviors in their project information-delivery and corresponding communica-
that planning and subcontracts are the most significant causes of de- tion process. Having in mind this feedback, the writers argue that a
lay. However, in both cases the most frequent delay cause for the delay apportionment between the client and general contractor
global activities is subcontracts, whereas the planning RNC has more could be performed effectively if delay causes and responsibilities
are well-defined from the beginning. In fact, the RNCs that were insight into this complex problem. This paper presents a meth-
established in the proposed methodology described in this paper odology for analyzing the qualitative (delay causes) and quanti-
could form the basis for calculating a delay apportionment that tative (time performance) dimensions of the delay issue that uses
could theoretically be weighted and allocated by applying the cor- two indicators, (1) RNC as the cause of delay, and (2) DI as a
responding WA indexes. delay indicator. This methodology was tested in two case studies
In subsequent individual interviews, project personnel recog- of building projects.
nized improvements in short-term and medium-term planning as The methodology provided information for project managers
a result from these changes. They also adopted a new perspective to make better decisions about the delay causes and assisted in
for managing delays in their projects. Even though there are no hard focusing management’s actions toward mitigating delay impacts
data available on the impacts of subsequent performance based on on a weekly basis. Although it is quite common in practice to base
these changes in the management practices, the writers suggest that decisions only on the delay causes that most frequently affect
the opinions from project personnel represent evidence that sup-
project completion, linking delay causes with their impacts on time
ports the value of the delay methodology reported in this paper
performance can be overlooked. The analyses carried out in the
and tested on their projects.
case studies showed that not only the frequency of delay causes,
but also the delay impact and its relationship with its causes,
Conclusions can be properly considered in a methodological framework. In this
regard, the delay causes with the greatest impact on project time-
The writers’ paper reports on the relationship between delay performance could be identified through the weighted average of
causes and their impacts on time performance to provide some the reasons for noncomplianace.
ology demonstrated that the subcontracts RNC was the most im- 24(11), 1167–1176.
portant delay cause at the global level (frequency and impact). Fereig, S. M. (2006). “Managing construction delay in international
However, this pattern was reversed when the analysis was con- projects with special reference to the Arabian Gulf area.” Proc., 3rd
ducted at the critical activities level. As a result, the planning Project Management Institute—College of Scheduling (PMI-COS)
RNC was the most important delay cause. These results reveal that Conf., Orlando, FL.
Flyvbjerg, B., Mette, K., Holm, S., and Buhl, S. L. (2004). “What causes
even though one RNC may occur more frequently than another, it
cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects?” Transp. Rev., 24(1),
does not indicate that the more frequent RNC has the greatest im- 3–18.
pact on the project. These findings were discussed and validated Frimponga, Y., Oluwoyeb, J., and Crawford, L. (2003). “Causes of delay
with the project personnel and clients of both projects. and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a devel-
The methodology proposed in this paper can help identify re- oping countries; Ghana as a case study.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 21(5),
lationships between RNCs and their impacts on projects that will 321–326.
allow management to direct construction projects more quickly and Galloway, P. D. (2006). “Survey of the construction industry relative to the
effectively. Further research should focus on how to improve the use of CPM scheduling for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
methodology and evaluate assumptions related to estimating delays Manage., 132(7), 697–711.
for more dynamic planning processes. Kao, C. K., and Yang, J. B. (2008). “Comparison of windows-based delay
analysis methods.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(4), 408–418.
Kartam, S. (1999). “Generic methodology for analyzing delay claims.”
References J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(6), 409–419.
Koushki, P. A., Al-Rashid, K., and Kartam, N. (2005). “Delays and cost
Abdullah, A., and Koskela, L. (2008). “What can be learned from studies of increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait.”
delay on construction?.” Proc., 16th Annual Conf. of Int., Group for Constr. Manage. Econ., 23(3), 285–294.
Lean Construction, Manchester, UK. Kumaraswamy, M., and Chan, D. W. M. (1998). “Contributors to construc-
Adhikaril, I., Kim, S.-Y., and Lee, Y.-D. (2006). “Selection of appropriate tion delays.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 16(1), 17–29.
schedule delay analysis method: Analytical hierarchy process (AHP).” Liberatore, M. J., Pollack-Jhonson, B., and Smith, C. A. (2001). “Project
Proc., Technology Management for the Global Future, IEEE, management in construction: Software use and research directions.”
New York, 483–488. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(2), 101–107.
Alarcón, L. F., Diethelm, S., Rojo, O., and Calderon, R. (2005). “Assessing Lo, T. Y., Fung, I. W. H., and Tung, K. C. F. (2006). “Construction delays in
the impacts of implementing lean construction.” Proc., Int. Group Hong Kong in civil engineering projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
for Lean Construction Annual Conf., Group for Lean Construction, 132(6), 636–649.
Sydney, Australia, 387–393. Lyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2006). “Critical factors affecting schedule per-
Alarcón, L. F., Grillo, A., Freire, J., and Diethelm, S. (2001). “Learning formance: Evidence from Indian construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
from collaborative benchmarking in the construction industry.” Manage., 132(6), 636–649.
Proc., 9th Annual Conf. of Int., Group for Lean Construction, Marzouk, M., El-Dokhmasey, A., and El-Said, M. (2008). “Assessing con-
Singapore, 1–10. struction engineering-related delays: Egyptian perspective.” J. Prof.
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., and Harris, F. (1996). “Construction delay Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 134(3), 315–326.
analysis techniques.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 14(5), 375–394. Odeh, A. M., and Battaineg, H. T. (2002). “Causes of construction delay:
Alwi, S., and Hampson, K. (2003). “Identifying the important causes of Traditional contracts.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 20(1), 67–73.
delay in building construction projects.” Proc., East Asia-Pacific Conf. Ordoñez, A. V., and Robinson, A. (2005). “Fuzzy logic approach for ac-
on Structural Engineering and Construction, Bali, Indonesia. tivity delay analysis and schedule updating.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
Anbari, F. T. (2003). “Earned value project management method and 131(1), 42–51.
extensions.” Proj. Manage. J., 34(4), 12–23. Orozco, F., Serpell, A., Molenaar, K., and Forcael, E. (2011). “Modeling
Arditi, D., and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2006). “Selecting a delay analysis competitiveness factors and indexes for construction companies: Find-
method in resolving construction claims.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 24(2), ings of Chile.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
145–155. Peña-Mora, F., Han, S., Lee, S., and Park, M. (2008). “Strategic-operational
Assaf, S. A., Al-Khalil, M., and Al-Hazmi, M. (1995). “Causes of delay construction management: Hybrid system dynamics and discrete event
in large building construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 11(2), approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(9), 701–710.
45–50. Shi, J., Cheung, S. O., and Arditi, D. (2001). “Construction delay compu-
Augustine, U. E., and Mangwat, J. (2001). “Time-overrun factors in tation method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(1), 60–65.
Nigerian construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(5), Toor, S. U. R., and Ogulana, S. O. (2008). “Problems causing delays in
419–425. major construction projects in Thailand.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
Ballard, G. (2000). “The last planner system of production control.” Ph.D. 26(4), 395–408.
dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage, Thousand
of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Oaks, CA.
Braimah, N., and Ndekugri, I. (2008). “Factors influencing the selection Youngjae, K., Kyungrai, K., and Dongwoo, S. (2005). “Delay analysis
of delay analysis methodologies.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 26(8), method using delay section.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(11),
789–799. 1155–1164.