Causes of delays in construction industry and comparative ...

Causes of delays in constructionindustry and comparative

delay analysis techniques withSCL protocolParvaneh Shahsavand

School of Architecture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran andYoung Researcher Club, Azad University, Varamin, Iran

Akbar MarefatSchool of Architecture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, and

Majid ParchamijalalDepartment of Project and Construction Management, University of Tehran,

Tehran, Iran

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to reveal the main causes of delays in the projects are from the client(relative importance index (RII)¼ 0.716), labor and equipment (RII¼ 0.701) and contractor (RII¼ 0.698). Hencedetermining the contractual responsibility of delay is the most likely source of dispute in construction projectsand many techniques have been used in the courts to demonstrate the criticalities of a delay event on theproject schedule. Therefore, authors try to investigate all process-based techniques of delay claimsand evaluated and conformed them with principles by Society of Construction Law (SCL) protocol andAssociation for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) in order to choose the besttechniques based on the specific circumstances of each project.Design/methodology/approach – This section is divided into two distinct parts: refers to the methodsused to assess the perceptions of clients, consultants, and contractors on the relative importance of causes ofdelay in construction industry; and refers to advantages and disadvantages of various techniques used toanalyze delays and their conform with SCL protocol. A questionnaire was developed to assess the perceptionsof clients, consultants, and contractors on the relative importance of causes of delay in Iranian constructionindustry. The respondents were asked to indicate their response category on 78 well-recognized constructiondelay factors identified by authors.Findings – In total, 78 causes of delay were identified through research. The identified causes are combinedinto seven groups. The field survey included 58 contractors, 55 consultants, and 62 client. Data collected wereanalyzed by RII and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The authors identified main causes ofdelay and ten most important causes, according to Table AII, from the perspective of three major groups ofparticipants (clients, consultants and contractors). The ranking of categories of causes of delay, according toTable I, were: client-related causes (RII¼ 0.716); labor and equipment category causes (RII¼ 0.701);contractor-related causes (RII¼ 0.698); material-related causes (RII¼ 0.690); design-related causes(RII¼ 0.666); external causes (RII¼ 0.662); and consultant-related causes (RII¼ 0.662). But according to thediscussions and given that determining the contractual responsibility of delay is the most likely source ofdispute in construction industry and many techniques have been used in the courts to demonstrate thecriticalities of a delay event on the project schedule.Originality/value – All process-based techniques of delay analysis have been present in this paper andcategorized in 11 groups. In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of them by clients,contractor and consultant, a thorough review conducted to reveal the nature of techniques. In the next step,given that selecting the most appropriate technique based on constraints and specific conditions of each

Engineering, Construction andArchitectural Management

Vol. 25 No. 4, 2018pp. 497-533

Emerald Publishing Limited0969-9988

DOI 10.1108/ECAM-10-2016-0220

Received 7 October 2016Revised 13 February 2017

14 February 201714 July 2017

Accepted 11 August 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

© Parvaneh Shahsavand, Akbar Marefat and Majid Parchamijalal. Published by Emerald PublishingLimited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyonemayreproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial &non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full termsof this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

497

Causes ofdelays in

constructionindustry

http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

project is one of the most important steps to carry out a successful delay analysis. The authors conformed, allprocess-based techniques of delay analysis, by SCL protocol and AACEI principles. Finally, the result of thismatch was brought in order to choose the best technique based on the specific circumstances of each project.Keywords Scheduling, Project management, MethodologyPaper type Technical paper

IntroductionIn construction, delay could be defined as the time overrun either beyond completion datespecified in a contract or beyond the date that the parties agreed upon for delivery of aproject. To the owner, delay means loss of revenue through lack of production facilities andrentable space or a dependence on present facilities. In some cases, to the contractor, delaymeans higher overhead costs because of longer work period, higher material costs throughinflation, and due to labor cost increases.

Therefore, completing projects on time is an indicator of efficiency, but the constructionprocess is subject to many variables and unpredictable factors, which result from manysources and it is necessary that a detailed assessment be conducted and calculates the lossresulted from delays on both parties in the projects with time required for the extension ofprojects time if the project is delayed.

A lot of research efforts have been made to study delay causes in different countries.For example, Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Vilventhan and Kalidindi (2016) showed thatowner interference, inadequate contractor experience, financing and payments, laborproductivity, slow decision making, improper planning, and sub-contractors are among tentop most important factors causing delay in Jordan; Maura et al. (2007) discovered thatdesign errors, client liability, project specification and direct change order by the client arethe major factors that cause the time and cost overrun in Portuguese; Abdul-Rahman et al.(2006) conducted a study on delay mitigation in the Malaysian construction industry; theyproved that a financial problem is confirmed by the survey as the main causes of delay.

Hence, one of the most important problems in the construction industry is delay and it isessential to define the actual causes of delay in any construction project. So choosing anappropriate delay analysis method is an important part of construction industry.The famous process-based methods include the global impact, net impact, adjusted as-builtCPM, as-planned expanded, but-for, snapshot, time impact, windows and isolated delay typetechniques (Yang et al., 2006; Yang and Kao, 2007). These techniques are applied to preparethe logical basis to persuade their claims concerning the extension of time and financialburden but each delay analysis method adopts a different approach to identify delayimpacts and may yield different results.

But in Iran, there is not a comprehensive and practical package for delays analysistechniques to determine which one is appropriate in accordance with the feature of theproject. So the authors examine all delay analysis techniques that are frequently used in theconstruction project in Iran in order to determine which delay analysis techniques isappropriate for each construction project.

In this paper the main causes of delays in Iranian construction projects have been determinedand the aim of this study is to operate a method based on which one could select the delayanalysis techniques appropriate to the nature of the projects that what is needed to implementthis method is to analyze the Society of Construction Law (SCL) protocols and analytical delaytechniques and then to implement standards of protocol with delay analysis techniques.

Literature reviewMany researchers have studied the causes of delay and delay analysis techniques in theconstruction industry. We have broken the studies into two parts: studies on causes ofdelay; and studies on delay analysis techniques.

498

ECAM25,4

Studies on causes of delayDelay in construction is a global phenomenon affecting not only the construction industrybut the overall economy of countries as well (Sambasvian and Soon, 2007; Parchamijalaland Shahsavand, 2016). Delays in construction are caused by several factors. Ahmed et al.(2003) grouped delays into two categories – internal causes and external causes. Internalcauses arise from the parties to the contract (e.g. contractor, client, and consultant).External causes, on the other hand, arise from events beyond the control of the parties.These include the act of God, government action, and material suppliers. Sweis et al. (2008)studied the causes of delay in residential projects in Jordan and concluded that financialdifficulties faced by the contractor and too many change orders by the owner are theleading causes of construction delay. Abd El-Razek et al. (2008) in a similar study in Egyptfound that the most important causes of delay are financed by contractor duringconstruction, delays in contractor’s payment by owner, design changes by owner or hisagent during construction, partial payments during construction, and non-utilization ofprofessional construction/contractual management. Sambasvian and Soon (2007)identified the delay factors and their impact on project completion in the Malaysianconstruction industry. The results indicated that the ten from a list of 28 different causesof delay were: contractor’s improper planning; contractor’s poor site management;inadequate contractor experience; client’s inadequate financial resources and paymentsfor completed work; problems with subcontractors; shortage in material; labor supply;equipment availability and failure; lack of communication between parties; and mistakesduring the construction stage. Assaf and Al Hejji (2006) conducted a survey on timeperformance of large construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The survey had 73 differentcauses of delay. He studied the importance of various causes from the viewpoint ofcontractors, consultants, and owners. The most common cause of delay identified by allthe parties was “change order.” He also found that about 70 percent of the projectsexperienced time overruns.

The previously mentioned studies were generally focused on finding causes of delays.Some of these studies identified very limited (lacking) factors or ignored some importantgroups. This may be misleading or may result in wrong analysis. In this paper, through acomprehensive literature review and interviews with highly experienced constructionprofessionals, the authors attempted to use the relative importance index (RII) method in thequantification of the relative importance of a comprehensive list of delay factors inconstruction projects in Iran.

Studies on delay analysis techniquesProject managers and schedule (timing) analysts do often face with the problem of how toanalyze the complicated delays and resolve the claims resulted from it. In addition, inmost of the contracts of construction, it is not specified which method would be used toevaluate and analyze delays. On the other hand, the contractor and client have differentviews against analysis and determination of responsibility for delay. As a result,calculating delays and determination of responsibilities of each of the party is animportant issue. Therefore, project managers must have a systematic approach foranalyzing delays and allocation of responsibilities. Since there are different methods toanalyze delays such as: pervasive influence technique, Bar chart or Gant chart technique,collapse technique or (but because), critical path method, time impact technique,global impact technique, net impact technique, impacted as-planned technique, collapsedas-built technique, sectional technique or snapshot technique, isolated delay typetechnique. So choosing an appropriate delay analysis technique for calculation of theeffects of delay on project is a critical decision that is discussed in this paper(Hoshino and Livengood, 2011).

499

Causes ofdelays in


SCL has identified some factors that should be considered in choosing the method ofdelay analysis that includes the conditions related to the contracts, nature of causal events,value of claims, time in hand, recorded information, information of the existing time planand planner’s experience on the project (Braimah, 2013; Yangand Kao, 2012). SCL protocol isintended to act as an aid to the interpretation of the delay and disruption provisionscontained in standard of civil engineering and building contracts and to act as a guide to themanner in which the managers ought to properly prepare delay and disruption claims andhow adjudicators, arbitrators and judges ought to properly determine them. The protocoldoes not fully reflect the provisions concerning delay and disruption contained in certainstandard forms and is not intended to have contractual status, it is believed that it is at leasta useful guidance document.

Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2006) discussed selecting a suitable delay analysismethod and concluded that the most appropriate analysis method depends on informationavailable, time of analysis and capabilities of the method, as well as time, funds and effortallocated to the analysis. Bubshait and Cunningham (1998) proposed an approach forselecting one suitable method among the as-planned method, the as-built method, and themodified as-built method. Their approach consists of four scenarios, each comprisingvarious approved schedules (network or bar chart) with different evidence and progressreports. They concluded that method selection depends on the time and resources available,and on the accessibility of project control documentation. Mohan and Al-Gahtani (2006)discussed ten delay analysis techniques in analysis flow and compared them in resolvingthe issues of real time delay, concurrent delay and pacing delay. Based on study results,Mohan and Al-Gahtani proposed a desirable delay analysis system consisting of 11requirements, such as the requirement for the project schedule to be updated every day,taking account of all delays and changes in total floats.

MethodologyThis section is divided into two distinct parts: refers to the methods used to assess theperceptions of clients, consultants, and contractors on the relative importance of causes ofdelay in construction industry; and refers to the nature of process-based techniques used toanalyze delays and their conformity with SCL protocol.

Experts’ perception of causes of delayA questionnaire was developed to assess the perceptions of those in the Iranian constructionindustry on the relative importance of causes of delays. Then the questionnaire was filledout by highly experienced construction professionals including project managers, sitemanagers, technical office managers, technical office engineers, procurement managers, andtechnical consultants. The collected data were analyzed through the RII method. RII orweight is a type of relative importance analyses. RII was used for the analysis because itbest fits the purpose of this study. The analysis included ranking the different causesaccording to the relative importance indices. The analysis revealed the factors and groupsthat contribute most to delays.

The respondents were asked to indicate their response category on 78 well-recognizedConstruction delay factors identified by authors. These causes were categorized into thefollowing seven major groups. Client-related causes (with 19 factors); contractor-related causes(with 13 factors); consultant-related causes (with 9 factors); design-related causes (with 8factors); material-related causes (with 8 factors); labor and equipment category causes(with 8 factors); and external causes (with 13 factors). A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1(very low) to 5 (very high) was adopted to capture the importance of causes of delays. Beforedistributing the questionnaires, a small interview with industry professionals was conductedthat includes a 15 clients, 15 consultants and 15contractors. The basic purpose of this

500

ECAM25,4

interview was to verify the completeness of the questionnaire in capturing the factors relevantfor Iran. All the respondents agreed that the questionnaire was sufficient to capture the causesof delays. We distributed the questionnaires through our co-workers in Public WorksDepartment of Iran, developers, consultants and construction firms. Our co-workers in turndistributed to their friends. This sampling method enabled us to obtain a large number ofcompleted questionnaires quickly and economically. In total, 250 sets of questionnaires weredistributed to the potential respondents at all levels in the organizations within theconstruction industry. In all, 100 sets were distributed to clients, 70 sets to consultants and80 sets to the contractors. Of the 250 questionnaires, 175 sets (70 percent) were returned andthere were 62 sets (62 percent) from clients, 55 sets (79 percent) from consultants and 58 sets(73 percent) from contractors.

The nature of process-based techniquesAll process-based techniques of delay analysis have been present in this paper andcategorized in 11 groups. In order to understand the pros and cons of them, a thoroughreview conducted with the participation of clients, contractor and consultant to reveal thenature of these techniques. The results of this review on techniques have been obtainedbased on several years’ experiences of the client, consultant and contractor and studies thathave been done by authors .In the next step, the most appropriate technique has beenselected based on constraints and specific conditions of each project, which is one of themost important steps to carry out a successful delay analysis. The authors conformed, allprocess-based techniques of delay analysis, by SCL protocol and Association for theAdvancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) principles. The SCL protocolrecommends that wherever possible, an appropriate method should be agreed and adoptedby the parties before retrospective delay analysis is carried out. The protocol gives guidanceon the appropriateness, or otherwise of different types of retrospective delay analysis todifferent evidential situations. The protocol suggests that if the method is not agreedbetween the parties, then this failure to agreement should be taken into consideration by thearbitrator, or judge when awarding the costs of the dispute. Finally, the result of this matchwas brought in order to choose the best technique based on the specific circumstances ofeach project.

Data analysisKometa et al. (1994) and Sambasvian and Soon (2007) used the RII method to determine therelative importance of the various causes of delays. The same method was adopted in thisstudy. RIIs are calculated for each factor as in the following equation:

RIIð Þ ¼P

wAN

¼ 5n5þ4n4þ3n3þ2n2þ1n15N

(1)

where RII is the relative importance index; W the weighing given to each factor byrespondents (ranging from 1 to 5); A the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case); and N the totalnumber of respondents. The RII value had a range of 0 to 1 (0 not inclusive); the higher theRII, the more important was the cause of delays. The causes were ranked based on RIIvalues. From the ranking assigned to each cause of delays, we were able to identify the mostimportant factors or causes of delays in Iranian construction industry. For more informationabout the list of causes of delays categorized into seven groups refer to Table AI.

In Table AII, the main causes of delays in each category specified and have been rankedbased on RII. For more information on the way of ranking and 78 causes of delays fromexperts’ views refer to Table AII (Table I).

501

Causes ofdelays in


Table II, summarizes RII and ranking of the categories of causes of delay as perceived byall respondents.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA)ANOVA is used to get the average scores obtained by construction industry experts givento each of the causes of delay (i.e. RII) and every seven fold causes has been rated usingthese scores and the rate of their being under the effect on the projects has been prioritized.

According to Levene’s test, the significance of this test is more than 0.05 and parametrictests such as ANOVA can be used. ANOVA is a collection of statistical models used toanalyze the differences among group means. In the ANOVA setting, the observed variance

No. Client RII Contractor RII Consultant RII Overall RII

1 Delays insub-contractorswork

0.77 Inadequatedefinition ofsubstantialcompletion

0.82 Delay to furnishand deliver the siteto the contractor byowner

0.79 Change orders byowner duringconstruction

0.90

2 Poor sitemanagement andsupervision bycontractor



0.78 Underestimationof time forcompletion

0.88

3 Difficulties infinancing projectby contractor

0.75 Underestimationof time forcompletion

0.79 Underestimation oftime for completion

0.78 Underestimationof cost of projects

0.87

4 Unqualifiedworkforce

0.75 Effects ofsubsurfaceconditions (e.g.soil, high watertable, etc.)

0.79 Underestimation ofcost of projects

0.77 Delay to furnishand deliver the siteto the contractorby owner

0.87

5 Change orders byowner duringconstruction


0.77 Late in revising andapproving designdocuments byowner

0.77 Effects ofsubsurfaceconditions(e.g. soil, highwater table, etc.)

0.87

6 Underestimationof cost of projects

0.73 InsufficientFeasibility studiesand survey beforeinvestment

0.76 Difficulties infinancing projectby contractor


0.86

7 Poor qualificationof the contractorstechnical staff


0.74 Slow decisionmaking

0.76 InsufficientFeasibility studiesand survey beforeinvestment

0.84

8 Effects ofsubsurfaceconditions(e.g. soil, highwater table, etc.)

0.73 Underestimationof cost of projects

0.74 Delays in sub-contractors work

0.76 Unqualifiedworkforce

0.84

9 Underestimationof time forcompletion

0.71 Unqualifiedworkforce


0.75 Delay in obtainingpermits frommunicipality

0.84

10 Delay in obtainingpermits frommunicipality

0.70 Low productivityand efficiency ofequipment

0.74 Poorcommunication andcoordination byowner and otherparties

0.75 Slow decisionmaking

0.83

Table I.Importance ofdelay causes

502

ECAM25,4

in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources ofvariation. Factorial ANOVA can be balanced or unbalanced (Gelman, 2005; Armstrong et al.,2002). This is to say, you can have the same number of subjects in each group (balanced) ornot (unbalanced). The results shown in Table III indicate that the data were balance andthere is no significant difference among respondents’ data, at the community.

Pearson’s correlationData normality test (one sample K-S test) clarifies that the calculated p-value is greater thanthe significant level which is equal to 0.05 ( p-value W 0.05). This in turn denotes that datafollows normal distribution and we can use Pearson’s correlation test.

In order to test the degree of agreement between the three groups of respondents, acorrelation analysis was done using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Table IV gives theresults of this analysis. Based on this test, view point of clients and contractors are not thesame as consultants and have different opinions from each other. On the other hand, viewpoint of Clients and the contractor were nearly identical to rank of delay factors.

Category Clients Consultants Contractors OverallRII Rank RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank

Client-related causes 0/563 5 0/634 2 0/651 1 0/716 1Contractor-related causes 0/654 1 0/639 1 0/501 7 0/698 3Consultant-related causes 0/601 2 0/480 7 0/572 6 0/645 7Design-related causes 0/561 6 0/567 6 0/585 4 0/666 5Material-related causes 0/566 4 0/596 3 0/613 3 0/690 4Labor and equipment category causes 0/599 3 0/571 4 0/632 2 0/701 2External causes 0/546 7 0/569 5 0/584 5 0/662 6

Table II.RII and rankingof categories ofcauses of delay

Clients Consultants Contractors

ClientsPearson correlation 1 0.135 −0.672Sig. (2-tailed) 0.773 0.028N 7 7 7

ConsultantsPearson correlation 0.135 1 −0.002Sig. (2-tailed) 0.773 0.997N 7 7 7

ContractorsPearson correlation −0.672 −0.002 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0.028 0.997N 7 7 7

Table IV.Pearson’s correlation

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between groups 0.009 6 0.001 0.685 0.665Within groups 0.030 14 0.002Total 0.039 20

Table III.Analysis of

variance (ANOVA)

503

Causes ofdelays in


So based on the perceptions of clients, consultants, and contractors on the relativeimportance of causes of delay in Iranian construction industry and data analysis usingStatistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), we found that clients (with 19 subcategoriesand RII¼ 0.716); labor and equipment (with 8 subcategories and RII¼ 0.701) andcontractors (with 13 subcategories and RII¼ 0.698), respectively, have the highest impact inconstruction industry.

In this paper, at first all the delays have been identified and ranked and validated fromclient, contractors and consultants, viewpoint three factors of ten causes that lead to delaysand are of main causes have been identified in Table AI. Then, in Table II, based on theopinions of clients, contractors, consultants and all the three, the index of relativeimportance and ranking have been ranked in seven categories in which delays had beenexamined. In the following, in order to lower or remove those after interviewing withexperts, 40 alternative have been extracted and presented in Table AIII that performing thistask could prevent delays emergence in next projects.

Given that delays are an integral part of construction industry. Therefore, the authors insecond part of this paper discussed the pros and cons of all process-based techniques ofdelay claims and compared the versatility of each of them with SCL protocol.

In Table V, all the strengths and weaknesses of delay analysis techniques are studied indetail, and it should be noted that none of these methods are not preferred over one anotherand according to the conditions of project and available documentation; one of this methodscan be used in the project. Therefore, among them and with regard to the specific and betterfeatures that some of these techniques have than others, in terms of complexity, they can beseparated into two levels, namely:

(1) The first level that is shown in Table V (Items 4, 6 and 7), represents a simplemethod that a major problem in view of the simplification in these techniques is thatthey do not have a mechanism for exact determination of the types of delays, as aresult, those delays that should not be applied in the analysis, are considered andtherefore unrealistic and exaggerated results are obtained. In addition, thesetechniques consider the timing schedule only once (primary schedule) and assumethat the critical path is fixed for the entire project. This makes the delays in contrastto what has really happened, potentially be considered as critical and also globalimpact technique, against two other techniques, has another weakness that has notthe ability to consider the delays at the same time.

(2) The second level shows the detailed procedure, which includes the techniques thathave been identified with number 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, in Table V. These techniquesoffer convenient and reliable methods for analyzing delays. At the same timeenhancing and mitigation methods with analysis, define the type of delay.Increasing and decreasing methods while doing the analysis, identify the type ofdelay, too. Of course, the main problem is that these two techniques are applied onlyonce to the scheduled timing and thus no change in the critical paths during theproject implementation is accepted and also, simultaneous delays are not considered,of all the methods, both time impact technique and snapshot technique, because ofconsidering the impact of delays during project and CPM scheduling, are known assystematic and reliable methods for quantifying delays in construction projects.The biggest problem with these techniques is that during the analysis none of themidentify the delay type accurately and a series of other analyses to determine thecontribution of the employer and the contractor of the delay is necessary. Anotherdisadvantage of time impact technique is that the delay activities has been analyzedand examined separately and the impact of simultaneous delays is not specifiedduring the analysis and due to a number of delayed events in the project,

504

ECAM25,4

Avarietyof

delayanalysistechniqu

esTechn

iquestype

Techn

iquesdescription

Pros

ofthetechniqu

eCo

nsof

thetechniqu

e

1.Pervasiveinflu

ence

Techn

ique

Asimplemethodforanalysis

Whenthecalculationisnotaccurate,ithas

manyapplications

1.Ignoring

simultaneoustim

edelays

2.Rightsresultedfrom

delays

areshow

nwith

greatexaggeratio

n3.Ithasmanyopponents

2.Bar

chartor

Gant

charttechniqu

e(Clark,2006;Alkass

etal.,1996)

Itidentifiescriticalactivities

implem

entedinits

timetableandcomparesthem

with

critical

activ

ities

inplaned

schedu

le

1.Assessesdelays

impact

onoverallp

roject

2.Itindicatesthecauseandresponsibilityfor

thedelays

that

effect

onthecompletiondate

oftheproject

3.In

thecase

ofavailabilityof

plannedandreal

schedu

le,itischeapmethod

1.Because

theschedu

leprogram

isnotbased

onCP

Mcalculation,

thismethoddoes

not

includ

einform

ationlik

euseof

flotatio

n,and

changesofprojectscheduleandalso

changes

madein

thecriticalp

ath

2.The

methodistim

econsum

ingandshouldbe

done

basedon

judg

ment,research

and

professional

evaluatio

n3.Co

llapsetechniqu

eor

(but

because)

(Clark,2006;Alkass

etal.,1996)

Ituses

CPM

form

atandso

theresultisthe

difference

betw

eenthetim

ecompletionof

the

constructio

nandmodified

schedu

leThistechniqu

eisapplicableat

theendof

the

project,whenthereisno

otherpossibility

for

delaycompensation

1.Thisisthebest

methodwhenthedelay

analysisneedsto

berevised

2.Thistechniqu

eisvery

good

forprojectsthat

arelin

earin

nature

andstructureandthe

events

areconsidered

inAsbu

iltschedu

leinsteadof

plannedschedu

le3.Simplicity

ofcomparisonistheadvantage

ofthismethodto

project

manager’spresentatio

ns

1.There

isno

possibility

ofim

plem

entin

gthe

Asbu

iltprogram

aspredicted

2.In

complex

situations

where

manyevents

occursimultaneouslyin

projector

AsBuilt

schedu

lein

detailnotavailable,thismethod

does

notshow

therequ

ired

efficiency

4.Criticalpathmethod

andadjusted

asbu

iltCP

Mtechniqu

e

Thistechniqu

euses

theCP

M,and

developm

ent

AsBuiltschedu

leThistechniqu

eissimilarto

theNet

Impact

Techn

ique,for

Bothtechniqu

esshow

only

the

neteffect

ofallthe

claimed

delayin

projects

timecompletion

Thistechniqu

eisbetter

than

Net

Impact

Techn

ique

andifthereisinform

ation,

such

asAs-Builtprogram,analysisof

thementio

ned

techniqu

e,couldbe

done

easily

1.Delaystypesarenotbe

checkedcarefully

2.There

isno

possibility

foranalyzingthe

delays

atthesametim

e3.Delay

events

that

causeclaim

intheproject

may

beshow

intheschedu

lebu

tmostlikely

isnotclearandnotbe

onthecriticalp

ath

5.Tim

eim

pact

techniqu

e(Clark,2006;Alkass

etal.,1996)

Inthistechniqu

etheprinciples

ofCriticalP

ath

Methodareused

andtheeffectsofdelays

inthe

projectscheduleareevaluatedthroug

hperiodic

andusually

everydayanalysis.T

histechniqu

e

Thistechniqu

eprovides

asystem

aticand

scientificmethodto

quantifytheim

pact

ofdelays

inproject

1.Itisthemosttim

econsum

ingandmost

expensivemethod

2.Iftheinform

ationisinvalid

,the

results

ofthe

analysismay

bevery

differentfrom

reality

(con

tinued)

Table V.Type of delay

analysis techniquesand explanationof pros and consof each method

505

Causes ofdelays in


Avarietyof


esTechn

iquestype

Techn

iquesdescription

Pros

ofthetechniqu

eCo

nsof

thetechniqu

e

issimilarto

Snapshot

analysis,b

ythis

difference

that

Tim

eIm

pactTechn

ique

focuses

onthedelayor

delaycertainevents,n

ota

period

oftim

einclud

ingalld

elays.This

techniqu

eisan

advanced

modeofIm

pacted

As-

plannedTechn

ique

3.Ithasnottheability

todeterm

inetheexact

type

ofdelay,before

theanalysiscompletion

4.Delay

activ

ityisanalyzed

separately

and

therefore,theim

pact

ofsimultaneousdelays

inproject,whenanalysisisdone

isnot

traceableandtheseattitud

esareun

realistic

5.The

accuracy

ofthismethodissubjectedto

thenu

mberof

analysisthat

canbe

done,and

iftherearealotof

events

that

causedelays

intheanalysis,the

useof

thistechniqu

eis

very

difficultandtim

econsum

ing

6.Globalimpact

techniqu

e(Kartam,1999)

Inthistechniqu

e,thewholeprojects

delayis

achieved

bycollectingalld

elayswhich

are

appliedin

completionof

activ

ities

Simplicity

oftheanalysisandnotrequiring

for

activ

ities

andrelatio

nships

intheschedu

lesare

thenotableadvantages

ofthistechniqu

e

1.Ignoring

thesimultaneousdelays

2.The

lack

ofaccuratedeterm

inationof

delays

andtheinability

todeterm

inethecritical

path

andflo

atactiv

ities

7.Net

impact

techniqu

e(Stumpf,2000)

Thistechniqu

eonly

manifeststhewhole

claimed

delays

throug

hbargraph.

Inthis

techniqu

e,allthe

activ

ities

with

delays

are

beingconsidered,but

only

neteffectof

created

delays

intheactiv

ities,b

yconsideringthe

delays

beingsimultaneousareapplied

1.Using

thistechniqu

e,allthe

delays,n

on-

consistencyin

performingactiv

ities,w

ork

orders

andsuspensionsaredrow

nin

As

Builtschedu

lingandjust

neteffect

ofall

delays

iscalculated

2.Co

nsider

thesimultaneousdelays

1.Ithasnotability

toexactdeterm

inationof

thetypesof

delays

2.Aslong

asthenetw

orks

facilityisnotused,

thereal

impact

ofdelayon

thefull

completionof

theprojectisdifficult

todeterm

ine

8.Im

pacted

as-

plannedtechniqu

e(Keane

and

Caletka,2008)

Thistechniqu

euses

CPM

schedu

lingmodel

andonly

includ

esdelays

that

arerelatedto

one

oftheparties(Depending

onwhether

the

delays

analyst,from

which

side)

1.Thistechniqu

eoffers

arelativ

elygood

methodthat

with

limitedinform

ation

collected

from

thebeginn

ingof

theprojectis

ableto

analyzetheoccurred

delay

2.One

ofthemajor

advantages

ofthis

techniqu

ethat

canbe

notedisto

determ

ine

thetype

ofdelays

during

analysiswhich

performed

simplyandat

high

speed

1.Thistechniqu

eisnotconsidered

change

inCP

Mschedu

ling,

during

projectexecution

anddelays

inAs-plannedschedu

lingin

one

step

areappliedwhich

leadsto

achieve

unrealistic

results,b

ecause

probably

thecriticalp

athchangesdu

ring

projectexecution

2.Thistechniqu

ecann

otbe

considered

asan

impartiala

nalysis

(con

tinued)

Table V.

506

ECAM25,4

Avarietyof


esTechn

iquestype

Techn

iquesdescription

Pros

ofthetechniqu

eCo

nsof

thetechniqu

e

9.Co

llapsed

as-built

techniqu

e(Keane

andCa

letka,2008)

Like

impacted

As-plannedtechniqu

e,this

techniqu

euses

CPM

schedu

lingmodelandin

orderto

overcomesomeshortcom

ings,w

hen

doinganalysis,ituses

AsBuiltschedu

le,

thereforeat

first,itisnecessarythat

alld

elays

caused

bythepartiesinvolved

intheproject,be

identifiedandapplied

Thismethodisselected

whenthecontractor

hasnotan

acceptableschedu

le(duringproject

execution)

orwhenanypre-programmed

schedu

lein

thecontract

isnotneeded

1.Nochange

intheCP

Mschedu

ling,

during

projectexecution

2.Delaysrelatedto

oneof

thepartiesinvolved

intheprojectthat

have

takenplace,

altogether

andin

onestep

removed

from

the

AsBuiltschedu

lethat

would

causeto

achieveun

realistic

results

3.Thistechniqu

ehasnotanyrelianceand

depend

ence

onAs-plannedschedu

leas

the

basisforanalysis

10.S

ectio

nal

techniqu

eor

timeframeor

snapshot

techniqu

e

Inthistechniqu

e,independ

enta

ndconsecutive

timeperiodsin

As-plannedschedu

le(Primary

Schedu

le)a

reused

forim

posing

delays,b

ased

onwhatactually

happ

ened,ineach

ofthe

above-mentio

nedperiods.Thistechniqu

eis

form

edon

thebasisofAs-plannedschedu

le,A

sBuiltschedu

leandanyotherreview

schedu

lethat

iscreateddu

ring

theprojects

execution

Thistechniqu

eproposes

asystem

atic,

impartially

andfairly

accurate

way

forthe

quantificationof

thedelays

intheproject,

which

ismoving,

onan

ongoingbasis(based

onAs-plannedschedu

le)

Thismethodconsiderssimultaneousdelays

andindicatedtheim

pactof

delays

onthebasis

oftim

eandCP

Mschedu

lebasedon

whathas

really

happ

ened

atthat

timeperiod

andithas

been

know

nas

acompleteandaccurate

techniqu

eforanalyzedelays

1.The

typesof

delayisnotclearin

this

techniqu

eanditisnecessaryto

doother

analyses

ontheresults

inorderto

identify

theshareof

each

partyof

delays

2.Thistechniqu

eisvery

timeconsum

ing

11.Isolateddelaytype

techniqu

eThistechniqu

e,triesto

consider

allthree

principles

(Categorizationof

delays,

consideringsimultaneousdelays,analysisof

delays

inreal-time),intheway

ofperformed

analysiswhich

requ

irethepresence

ofan

event

logandaccuratedocumentatio

nof

inform

ation

system

from

thebeginn

ingof

theproject.

Albeit,theaccuracy

ofthisanalysisis

subjectedto

thenu

mberof

performed

analyses

Table V.

507

Causes ofdelays in


the analysis may be very time consuming. Accuracy of both time impact techniqueand snapshot technique is a function of the number of intervals between analysesthat occur during the project from beginning to end. Isolated delay type techniquerelying on the strengths of previous techniques, provide a practical method foranalyzing delays. The mentioned technique showed that in the case of reliableinformation and reports available in the project, it is superior to the other techniques.Isolated delay type techniques study the delays during the analysis process andtherefore it reduces time needed for delay analysis and so the expense is decreased.This technique considers the simultaneous delays in various activities.

The SCL protocol has been prepared by the SCL for determining extensions of time andcompensation for delay and disruption. It exists to provide guidance to all parties in theconstruction process when dealing with delay and disruption matters. It recognizes thattransparency of information and methodology is central to both dispute prevention anddispute resolution.

The object of the protocol is to provide useful guidance on some of the commondelays and disruption issues that arise in construction projects. The purpose of the protocol isto provide a means by which the parties can resolve these matters and avoid unnecessarydisputes. A focus of the protocol therefore is the provision of practical and principled guidanceon proportionate measures for dealing with delay and disruption issues that can be applied inrelation to all projects, regardless of complexity or scale, to avoid disputes and where disputesare unavoidable to limit the costs of those disputes. Users of the protocol should apply itsrecommendations with common sense. The protocol is intended to be a balanced documentreflecting equally the interests of all parties to the construction process.

Given that the delays occur in every construction project and the significance of thesedelays varies considerably from project to project, hence identifying the type of delayanalysis techniques and selecting the most appropriate technique based on constraints andspecific conditions of each project is one of the most important steps to carry out asuccessful delay analysis. But unfortunately in Iran, because of the lack of accurateknowledge on a variety of techniques all parties cannot use the most suitable delay analysistechniques for each project and this leads to create a lot of disputes and claims in projects.Hence the delay analysis techniques for further investigation are evaluated and conformedwith principles which have been released in Table VI by SCL and (AACEI. Finally, the resultof this match, the rate of using each of these techniques in various stages of constructionprojects, the plausibility of each of these techniques in court, the level of expertise needed toexperts analyst delays and the amount of time required for the analysis depends, the use ofeach of these techniques in large and complex projects, that regarding the mentioned items,each technique could be selected with respect to the kind of project regarding the feature ithas. The information needed to be analyzed the delay, etc. have been shown in Table VI.

AACEI RP-FSA SCL protocol

Contract requirements Conditions of contractAnalysis purposes Nature of the causal relations of the events in log projectThe availability and reliability of data sources The rate of claims valueThe complexity of the claims Existing time to analyzeTime and budget available to analyze Access to recordsAccess to experts of timing legal analysis Access to scheduling informationLegal services of the voting The planner’s skills and familiarity with projectPrevious methods of partiesLegal requirements

Table VI.Factors influencing onchoosing a suitablemethod to analyzedelay, according toSCL protocol andAACEI RP-FSA

508

ECAM25,4

By examinations carried out and interviews with the experts, the Iranian project have beendivided into three groups from magnitude perspective and into 6 categories from delay ratesperspective that regarding their features and the results obtained from complete comparisonof the methods of delays analysis (Tables V and VII) a proper method to examine delay insix above classes are suggested as the following table.

Conclusion

(1) Construction projects often suffer from delays due to a wide variety of reasons,which can have severe financial impact on the project. As a result, delay claims maybe filed. But delays can be avoided or minimized when their causes are clearlyidentified. However, in case of delays the analysis of its impact, the causes, andeffects of the delaying activities is one of the most complicated types of claimsanalysis. The aim of this paper is to identify the delay factors in constructionprojects and introduction type of delay analysis techniques for applying morereliable and precise techniques in order to reduce the frequency and to mitigate theseverity of disputes and litigation due to delay claims because delays are consideredto be a serious problem in the construction industry.

Hence through a detailed literature review and interviews with experts from theIranian construction industry, a total of 78 different delay factors were identified andcategorized into seven groups the field survey included 58 contractors, 55 consultantsand 62 clients. Data collected were analyzed by RII and SPSS. We identified maincauses of delay and ten most important causes, according to Table AI.

(2) According to the discussions and given that determining the contractualresponsibility of delay is the most likely source of dispute in constructionindustry and many techniques have been used in the courts to demonstrate thecriticalities of a delay event on the project schedule, the authors discussed the prosand cons of all process-based techniques of delay claims and compared theversatility of each of them with SCL protocol in order to choose the best techniquesbased on the specific circumstances of each project.

(3) The Iranian projects have been classified from magnitude perspective into threecategories and from the perspective of emergence of delays; they have divided intosix groups. Several methods of analyzing delays have been compared from differentdimension (Tables V-VII). So regarding the features of projects one could select themost suitable methods kind based on Table VIII. For example, for those megaprojects with many delays, i.e. 6th class, the methods of analysis of delays has beenselected as the most suitable method.

In this paper, by providing all the causes of delays in Iranian construction projects, allparties can be familiar with the variety of delays and implementation of solutions which arepresented in Table AIII in appendixes, they can decrease the causes of delays in projects.But delay cannot be controlled from time to time and occurs in every construction projectand the significance of this delay varies considerably from project to project. Unfortunatelyin Iran, there is not a comprehensive and practical package for delays analysis techniques todetermine which technique is appropriate for each project. So the implications of this papercould be used as a complete package, in order to select the appropriate delays analysistechniques according to the circumstances of each project. Hence, by the use of SCL protocolguidance and according to the circumstances of each project the authors show on whichbasis choose the best delay analysis technique to reduce the confusion and disputes arisingfrom the delays in construction projects.

509

Causes ofdelays in


Analysisbasedon

several

schedu

leprogram

The

rate

ofusein

complicated

and

valuable

financial

claims

Requires

thetim

eand

budg

etavailable

toanalyze

project

Requiresthe

sourcesof

inform

ation

andrecords

ofthe

projectto

analyze

Rateof

acceptance

from

the

legalservicesof

thevotin

gcourt

Possibility

ofusing

simultaneous

delay

Analysis

basedon

CPM

As-

Planned

Schedu

leAs-Built

Schedu

le

As-

Projected

Schedu

le

Rateof

acceptability

regardingits

use

Techn

iquestype

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Descriptio

nHigh

Low

1.Pervasive

influ

ence

techniqu

e

**

**

Thismethodis

simpleandignores

simultaneous

delays

and

exaggeratesin

show

ingthem

and

ithasmany

opponents

**

2.Bar

chartor

Gantchart

techniqu

e

**

**

Thistechniqu

eis

notaw

areof

those

events

occurring

during

theproject

likeflo

oted

consum

ption,

schedu

ling

changesand

criticalp

athandso

ithasproblem

inneeded

accuracy

**

**

**

3.Co

llapse

techniqu

eor

(but

because)

**

**

Incomplex

cond

itionsin

which

somanyevents

have

occurred

simultaneouslyin

**

*

(con

tinued)

Table VII.Accommodation andevaluation ofTables V and VI

510

ECAM25,4

Analysisbasedon

several

schedu

leprogram

The

rate

ofusein

complicated

and

valuable

financial

claims

Requires

thetim

eand

budg

etavailable

toanalyze

project

Requiresthe

sourcesof

inform

ation

andrecords

ofthe

projectto

analyze

Rateof

acceptance

from

the

legalservicesof

thevotin

gcourt

Possibility

ofusing

simultaneous

delay

Analysis

basedon

CPM

As-

Planned

Schedu

leAs-Built

Schedu

le

As-

Projected

Schedu

le

Rateof

acceptability

regardingits

use

Techn

iquestype

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Descriptio

nHigh

Low

theprojectandor

asbu

iltschedu

leis

notavailablewith

details,thismethod

will

nothave

necessary

efficiency

4.Criticalp

ath

methodand

adjusted

asbu

iltCP

Mtechniqu

e

*Delay

eventsthat

caused

claim,m

aynotbe

show

nin

scheduling,bu

tthey

aremorelikelynot

clearanddefin

iteandmay

notbe

oncriticalp

ath

**

**

*

5.Tim

eIm

pact

techniqu

e*

**

*Thismethodis

system

atic,

unbiased

and

relativ

elyaccurate

andtheanalysisis

severely

madethe

influ

ence

ofthe

basicprogram

and

programmer

skill

**

** (c

ontin

ued)

Table VII.

511

Causes ofdelays in


Analysisbasedon

several

schedu

leprogram

The

rate

ofusein

complicated

and

valuable

financial

claims

Requires

thetim

eand

budg

etavailable

toanalyze

project

Requiresthe

sourcesof

inform

ation

andrecords

ofthe

projectto

analyze

Rateof

acceptance

from

the

legalservicesof

thevotin

gcourt

Possibility

ofusing

simultaneous

delay

Analysis

basedon

CPM

As-

Planned

Schedu

leAs-Built

Schedu

le

As-

Projected

Schedu

le

Rateof

acceptability

regardingits

use

Techn

iquestype

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Descriptio

nHigh

Low

with

theproject.

The

accuracy

ofthismethodis

subjectedto

the

numberof

performed

analysis

andin

thecase

ofthepresence

ofhigh

amount

ofevents

causing

delayin

this

analysis,u

seof

thistechniqu

eisso

difficultandtim

econsum

ing

6.Globalimpact

techniqu

e*

**

*The

lack

ofaccurate

determ

inationof

createddelayed

anddisabilityin

determ

iningthe

criticalp

athand

contentm

ent

activ

ities

and

**

(con

tinued)

Table VII.

512

ECAM25,4

Analysisbasedon

several

schedu

leprogram

The

rate

ofusein

complicated

and

valuable

financial

claims

Requires

thetim

eand

budg

etavailable

toanalyze

project

Requiresthe

sourcesof

inform

ation

andrecords

ofthe

projectto

analyze

Rateof

acceptance

from

the

legalservicesof

thevotin

gcourt

Possibility

ofusing

simultaneous

delay

Analysis

basedon

CPM

As-

Planned

Schedu

leAs-Built

Schedu

le

As-

Projected

Schedu

le

Rateof

acceptability

regardingits

use

Techn

iquestype

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Descriptio

nHigh

Low

exaggeratio

nin

displaying

delay

andrejectionof

thismethodfrom

thecourt

7.Net

impact

techniqu

e*

**

*Thoug

hituses

simultaneous

delays,b

utithas

nottheability

tofollow

thedelay

accurately

andthe

delayisbeing

exaggeratedand

whenthenetw

ork

isnotbeingused,

determ

inationof

delayon

project

completiontim

eproperly

ishard

**

*

8.Im

pacted

as-

planned

techniqu

e

**

*In

thismethod,

the

analystcanadd

just

oneside

ofcontract

delays

toschedu

leprogram

**

** (con

tinued)

Table VII.

513

Causes ofdelays in


Analysisbasedon

several

schedu

leprogram

The

rate

ofusein

complicated

and

valuable

financial

claims

Requires

thetim

eand

budg

etavailable

toanalyze

project

Requiresthe

sourcesof

inform

ation

andrecords

ofthe

projectto

analyze

Rateof

acceptance

from

the

legalservicesof

thevotin

gcourt

Possibility

ofusing

simultaneous

delay

Analysis

basedon

CPM

As-

Planned

Schedu

leAs-Built

Schedu

le

As-

Projected

Schedu

le

Rateof

acceptability

regardingits

use

Techn

iquestype

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Descriptio

nHigh

Low

inanystep

and

exam

ineits

impact,

thereforeitis

unfairmethod

9.Co

llapsed

as-

built

techniqu

e*

**

*Regarding

thatthis

methoddoes

not

consider

those

delays

done

inproject

administrationand

change

inresource

allocatio

nand

schedu

lesteps,the

analyses

could

sometim

eslead

toun

acceptable

results

**

10.S

ectio

nal

techniqu

eor

timeframeor

snapshot

techniqu

e

**

**

Thistechniqu

eproposes

asystem

atic,

unbiased,and

relativ

elyexact

methodto

quantify

performed

delays

**

**

** (c

ontin

ued)

Table VII.

514

ECAM25,4

Analysisbasedon

several

schedu

leprogram

The

rate

ofusein

complicated

and

valuable

financial

claims

Requires

thetim

eand

budg

etavailable

toanalyze

project

Requiresthe

sourcesof

inform

ation

andrecords

ofthe

projectto

analyze

Rateof

acceptance

from

the

legalservicesof

thevotin

gcourt

Possibility

ofusing

simultaneous

delay

Analysis

basedon

CPM

As-

Planned

Schedu

leAs-Built

Schedu

le

As-

Projected

Schedu

le

Rateof

acceptability

regardingits

use

Techn

iquestype

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Descriptio

nHigh

Low

intheprojectand

isconsidered

asa

completeand

accurate

techniqu

efordelays

butisso

timeconsum

ing

11.Isolateddelay

type

techniqu

e*

**

*Thistechniqu

eproposes

asystem

atic,

unbiased,and

relativ

elyexact

methodto

quantify

performed

delays

intheprojectand

isconsidered

asa

completeand

accurate

techniqu

efordelays

butisso

timeconsum

ing

**

**

**

Table VII.

515

Causes ofdelays in


References

Abd El-Razek, M.E., Bassioni, H.A. and Mobarak, A.M. (2008), “Causes of delays in buildingconstruction projects in Egypt”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134No. 11, pp. 831-841.

Abdul-Rahman, H., Berawi, M.A., Berawi, A.R., Mohamed, O., Othman, M. and Yahya, I.A. (2006),“Delay mitigation in the Malaysian construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineeringand Management, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 125-133.

Ahmed, S.M., Azhar, S., Kappagntula, P. and Gollapudil, D. (2003), “Delays in construction: a briefstudy of the Florida construction industry”, Proceedings of the 39th Annual ASC Conference,Clemson University, Clemson, SC, pp. 257-266.

Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M. and Harris, F. (1996), “Construction delay analysis techniques”, ConstructionManagement and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 375-394.

Arditi, D. and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2006), “Selecting a delay analysis method in resolvingconstruction claims”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 145-155.

Armstrong, R.A., Eperjesi, F. and Gilmartin, B. (2002), “The application of analysis of variance(ANOVA) to different experimental designs in optometry”, Vision Sciences, Vol. 22, AstonUniversity, Birmingham, pp. 248-256.

Type of project The rate of delays

The volume ofavailabledocumentation

Timeduration ofdealingwith delay

Expense ofdealingwith delay

The proposedmethod for theanalysis of delays

Classification of delayed projects in construction industry of IranSmall projects:Implementation:in less than oneyear amounted toless than30 million dollars

Low to moderate High(The rate of delays Morethan 30 percent of theproject)

Low(simplified)

Low Low tomoderate

1. PervasiveinfluenceTechnique

4. Critical pathmethod andadjusted as-builtCPM technique

High (The rate of delaysup to 30 percent of theproject)

Medium projects:Implementation: 1to 3 yearsamounted tobetween 30 and50 million dollars

Low to moderate (Therate of delays up to30 percent of the project)

Low tomoderate

Moderate(less than6 months)

High 2. Bar chart orGant charttechnique

5. Time impacttechnique

6. Global impacttechnique

7. Net impacttechnique

High(The rate of delays Morethan 30 percent of theproject)

Large-scaleprojects:Implementation:over three yearsamounted tomore than50 million dollars

Low to moderate (Therate of delays up to30 percent of the project)

A lot of(complicated)over 50 Ledger

High (morethan 6months toone year)

Very high 3. Collapsetechnique

8. Impactedas-plannedtechnique

9. Collapsedas-builttechnique

10. Sectionaltechnique

11. Isolated delaytype technique

High(The rate of delaysMore than 30 percentof the project)

Table VIII.The method ofchoosing the mostappropriate techniquebased on the natureof project and thevalue of delays

516

ECAM25,4

Assaf, S.A. and Al Hejji, S. (2006), “Causes of delay in large construction projects”, International Journalof Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-357.

Braimah, N. (2013), “Construction delay analysis techniques – a review of application issues andimprovement needs”, Buildings, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 506-531.

Bubshait, A. and Cunningham, M.J. (1998), “Comparison of delay analysis methodologies”, Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124 No. 4, pp. 315-322.

Clark, R.P. (2006), “Time impact analysis”, available at: www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/CJ0625CL.htm

Gelman, A. (2005), “Analysis of variance: why it is more important than ever (with discussion)”, Annalsof Statistics, Vol. 33, pp. 1-53.

Hoshino, K.P. and Livengood, J.C. (2011), “Forensic schedule analysis”, AACE: InternationalRecommended Practice, Vol. 29 Nos 29R-03, pp. 130-139.

Kartam, S. (1999), “Generic methodology for analysing delay claim”, Journal of Construction andManagement, Vol. 125 No. 6, pp. 409-419.

Keane, P.J. and Caletka, A.F. (2008), Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts, Wiley Blackwell.

Kometa, S.T., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Harris, F.C. (1994), “Attributes of UK construction clientsinfluencing project consultants’ performance”, Construction Management Economics, Vol. 12No. 5, pp. 433-443.

Maura, H.P., Teixeira, J.C. and Pires, B. (2007), “Dealing with cost and time in the Portugeesconstruction industry”, CIB World Building Congress (422), University of Minho, Guimaraes.

Mohan, S.B. and Al-Gahtani, K.S. (2006), “Current delay analysis techniques and improvement”,Cost Engineering, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 12-21.

Odeh, A.M. and Battaineh, H.T. (2002), “Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 67-73, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00037-5

Parchamijalal, M. and Shahsavand, P. (2016), “The decision matrix approach to dealing with delays inconstruction projects”, International Conference on Management and Dynamic Economics.

Sambasvian, M. and Soon, Y.W. (2007), “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian constructionindustry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 522-531.

Stumpf, G.R. (2000), “Schedule delay analysis”, Journal of Cost Engineering, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 32-33.

Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008), “Delays in construction projects: the caseof Jordan”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 665-674.

Vilventhan, A. and Kalidindi, S.N. (2016), “Interrelationships of factors causing delays in the relocationof utilities: a cognitive mapping approach”, Engineering, Construction and ArchitecturalManagement, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 349-368.

Yang, J.B. and Kao, C.K. (2007), “A knowledge map for delay analysis development”, Proceedings ofFourth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, Gold Coast, pp. 565-573.

Yang, J.B. and Kao, C.K. (2012), “Critical path effect based delay analysis method for constructionprojects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-397.

Yang, J.B., Kao, C.K. and Lee, Y.Y. (2006), “System requirement analysis of a construction delayanalysis construction”, 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics inConstruction, Tokyo, pp. 102-106.

Further reading

AACE (2007), “International, AACE international recommended practice No. 29R-03”, Forensic ScheduleAnalysis, Published by the Society of Construction Low, Administrative Office, Wantage.

Badir, Y.F.M. and Kadir, M.R. (2002), “Industrialized building systems in Malaysia”, Journal ofArchitectural Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1.

517

Causes ofdelays in


www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/CJ0625CL.htm

www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/CJ0625CL.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00037-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00037-5

Desai, M. and Bhatt, R. (2013), “A Methodology for ranking of causes of delay for residentialconstruction projects in Indian Context”, International Journal of Emerging Technology andAdvanced Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 396-404.

Frimpong, Y. and Oluwoye, J. (2003), “Significant factors causing delay and cost overruns inconstruction of groundwater projects in Ghana”, Journal of Construction Research, No. 2,pp. 175-187.

Gidado, K. and Niazai, Gh. (2012), Causes of Project Delay In the Construction Industry in Afghanistan,University of Brighton.

Koushki, P.A., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N. (2005), “Delays and cost increases in the construction ofprivate residential projects in Kuwait”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 285-294.

Long, L.H., Lee, Y.D. and Lee, J.Y. (2008), “Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large constructionprojects: a comparison with other selected countries”, Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 6,pp. 367-377.

Parchamijalal, M., Golabchi, M. and Yusefi, E. (2015), “Analysing windows- based Delay analysismethods in easy plan program and offering a framework in selecting the best Delay analysismethod”, Sharif Journal Civil Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 41-49.

Parchamijalal, M., Shahsavand, P. and Marefat, A. (2015), “Examination and Classification of thecauses of creating delays in construction projects in Iran and comparative analysis techniquesdelay with SCL protocol”, 11th International Conference of Project Management, Tehran,February.

The Society of Construction Law (SCL) (2002), Delay and Disruption Protocol, 1st ed., Society ofConstruction Law, Oxford, pp. 20-80.

Trauner, J.T., Manginelli, W.A., Lowe, J.S., Nagata, M.F. and Furniss, B.J. (2009), Construction Delays:Understanding them Clearly and Delay Analysis in Construction Analyzing them Correctly”,Elsevier Inc, London.

Wa’el Alaghbari, M., Razali, A., Kadir, A. and Ernawati, A. (2007), “The significant factors causingdelay of building construction projects in Malaysia”, Engineering, Construction andArchitectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 192-206.

518

ECAM25,4

Appendix

No. Case of delay Group

1 Change orders by owner during construction Client2 Underestimation of time for completion Client3 Underestimation of cost of projects Client4 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the contractor by owner Client5 Inadequate definition of substantial completion Client6 Insufficient feasibility studies and survey before investment Client7 Slow decision making Client8 Poor communication and coordination by owner and other parties Client9 Late in revising and approving design documents by owner Client10 Type of project bidding and award (negotiation, lowest bidder) Client11 Type of construction contract (Turnkey, construction only) Client12 Suspension of work by owner Client13 Ineffective delay penalties by owner Client14 Unavailability of incentives for contractor for finishing ahead of schedule Client15 Delay in approving shop drawings and sample materials Client16 Delay in finance and payments of completed work by owner Client17 Poor supervision Client18 Low bid Client19 Delays in inspection and testing of work Client20 Difficulties in financing project by contractor Contractor21 Delays in sub-contractors work Contractor22 Poor qualification of the contractors technical staff Contractor23 Poor site management and supervision by contractor Contractor24 Rework due to errors during construction Contractor25 Ineffective planning and scheduling of project by contractor Contractor26 Inadequate contractor experience Contractor27 Frequent change of sub-contractors because of their inefficient work Contractor28 Poor communication and coordination by contractor with other parties Contractor29 Conflicts in sub-contractors schedule in execution of project Contractor30 Improper construction methods implemented by contractor Contractor31 Conflicts between contractor and other parties (consultant and owner) Contractor32 Delay in site mobilization Contractor33 Inadequate experience of consultant Consultant34 Delay in performing inspection and testing by consultant Consultant35 Poor communication/coordination between consultant and other parties Consultant36 Delay in approving major changes in the scope of work by consultant Consultant37 Inflexibility (rigidity) of consultant Consultant38 Late in reviewing and approving design documents by consultant Consultant39 Conflicts between consultant and design engineer Consultant40 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings Consultant41 Quality assurance/control Consultant42 Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents Design43 Delays in producing design documents Design44 Complexity of project design Design45 Insufficient data collection and survey before design Design46 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings Design47 Misunderstanding of owner’s requirements by design engineer Design48 Inadequate design-team experience Design49 Un-use of advanced engineering design software Design50 Shortage of construction materials in market Material

(continued )

Table AI.List of causes of

delay categorized intoseven groups

519

Causes ofdelays in


No. Case of delay Group

51 Delay in material delivery Material52 Changes in material types and specifications during construction Material53 Damage of sorted material while they are needed urgently Material54 Delay in manufacturing special building materials Material55 Late procurement of materials Material56 Late in selection of finishing materials due to availability of many types in market Material57 Escalation of material prices Material58 Unqualified workforce Labor and

equipment59 Low productivity level of labors Labor and

equipment60 Shortage of labors Labor and

equipment61 Low productivity and efficiency of equipment Labor and

equipment62 Equipment availability and failure Labor and

equipment63 Low level of equipment-operator’s skill Labor and

equipment64 Personal conflicts among labors Labor and

equipment65 Lack of high-technology mechanical equipment Labor and

equipment66 Effects of subsurface conditions (e.g. soil, high water table, etc.) External factor67 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality External factor68 Effect of social and cultural factors External factor69 Weather effect (hot, rain, etc.) External factor70 Changes in government regulations and laws External factor71 Unavailability of utilities in site (such as, water, electricity, telephone, etc.) External factor72 Traffic control and restriction at job site External factor73 Accident during construction External factor74 Differing site (ground) conditions External factor75 Delay in providing services from utilities (such as water, electricity) External factor76 Fluctuations in cost/ currency External factor77 Delay in performing final inspection and certification by a third party External factor78 Force majeure as war, revolution, riot, strike, and earthquake, etc. External factorTable AI.

520

ECAM25,4

Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

Client

comments

1.Employer

delays

1/1

Change

orders

byow

nerdu

ring

constructio

n4

812

1622

0/74

12/1

Und

erestim

ationof

timeforcompletion

312

1316

180/71

33/1

Und

erestim

ationof

cost

ofprojects

56

1418

190/73

24/1

Delay

tofurnishanddeliv

erthesite

tothecontractor

byow

ner

98

1315

170/67

55/1

Inadequate

defin

ition

ofsubstantialcom

pletion

813

1015

160/66

86/1

Insufficient

feasibility

stud

iesandsurvey

before

investment

612

1317

140/67

67/1

Slow

decision

making

710

1614

150/66

78/1

Poor

commun

icationandcoordinatio

nby

ownerandotherparties

511

1317

160/69

49/1

Late

inrevising

andapprovingdesign

documents

byow

ner

916

1411

120/6

1010

Typ

eof

projectbidd

ingandaw

ard(negotiatio

n,lowestbidd

er)

914

1315

110/62

911/1

Typ

eof

constructio

ncontract

(Turnk

ey,constructiononly)

1412

1512

90/57

1112

Suspension

ofworkby

owner

1519

137

80/52

1313/1

Ineffectivedelaypenalties

byow

ner

1422

710

90/53

1214/1

Unavailabilityof

incentives

forcontractor

forfin

ishing

aheadof

schedu

le18

249

65

0/46

1415/1

Delay

inapprovingshop

draw

ings

andsamplematerials

2225

54

60/43

1516/1

Delay

infin

ance

andpaym

ents

ofcompleted

workby

owner

3019

54

40/38

1617/1

Poor

supervision

3120

63

20/36

1718/1

Low

bid

2926

42

10/34

1819/1

Delaysin

inspectio

nandtestingof

work

3027

21

20/34

192.Co

ntractor

delays

2/1

Difficultiesin

financing

projectby

contractor

56

920

220/75

32/2

Delaysin

sub-contractorswork

47

819

240/77

12/3

Poor

qualificatio

nof

thecontractorstechnicalstaff

68

918

210/73

42/4

Poor

site

managem

entandsupervisionby

contractor

45

1024

190/76

22/5

Rew

orkdu

eto

errors

during

constructio

n6

912

1817

0/7

52/6

Ineffectiveplanning

andschedu

lingof

projectby

contractor

79

1317

160/68

62/7

Inadequate

contractor

experience

813

1016

150/65

92/8

Frequent

change

ofsub-contractorsbecauseof

theirinefficient

work

611

1417

140/67

72/9

Poor

commun


nby

contractor

with

otherparties

510

1916

120/66

82/10

Conflicts

insub-contractorsschedu

lein

executionof

project

1011

1714

100/61

102/11

Improper

constructio

nmethods

implem

entedby

contractor

1614

1211

90/55

11

(con

tinued)

Table AII.The main causes of

delays in eachcategory specified and

have been rankedbased on RII

521

Causes ofdelays in


Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

2/12

Conflicts

betw

eencontractor

andotherparties(consulta

ntandow

ner)

1724

68

70/48

122/13

Delay

insite

mobilizatio

n17

2310

66

0/47

133.Co

nsultant

delays

3/1

Inadequate

experience

ofconsultant

79

1315

180/69

13/2

Delay

inperforminginspectio

nandtestingby

consultant

910

1117

150/66

23/3

Poor

commun

ication/coordinatio

nbetw

eenconsultant

andotherparties

1011

915

170/66

33/4

Delay

inapprovingmajor

changesin

thescopeof

workby

consultant

1210

1114

150/63

43/5

Inflexibility(rigidity

)ofconsultant

139

1016

140/63

53/6

Late

inreview

ingandapprovingdesign

documents

byconsultant

1114

915

130/62

63/7

Conflicts

betw

eenconsultant

anddesign

engineer

1518

810

110/55

73/8

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

1720

89

80/51

83/9

Qualityassurance/control

1824

77

60/47

94.Designdelays

4/1

Mistakesanddiscrepanciesin

design

documents

89

1217

160/68

14/2

Delaysin

producingdesign

documents

811

1018

150/67

24/3

Complexity

ofprojectdesign

910

1316

140/65

34/4

Insufficient

data

collectionandsurvey

before

design

1612

1013

110/57

54/5

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

1215

1411

100/57

44/6

Misun

derstand

ingof

owner’s

requ

irem

ents

bydesign

engineer

1917

98

90/51

64/7

Inadequate

design

-team

experience

2123

57

60/45

74/8

Un-useof

advanced

engineeringdesign

software

2822

35

40/39

85.Materiald

elays

5/1

Shortage

ofconstructio

nmaterialsin

market

77

1317

180/7

15/2

Delay

inmateriald

elivery

911

1214

160/65

25/3

Changesin

materialtyp

esandspecificatio

nsdu

ring

constructio

n12

910

1714

0/64

35/4

Dam

ageof

sorted

materialw

hilethey

areneeded

urgently

1615

612

130/57

45/5

Delay

inmanufacturing

specialb

uildingmaterials

1617

811

100/54

55/6

Late

procurem

entof

materials

2017

511

90/51

65/7

Late

inselectionof

finishing

materialsdu

eto

availabilityof

manytypesin

market

1820

610

80/5

75/8

Escalationof

materialp

rices

2523

54

50/41

86.La

borandequipm

entdelays

6/1

Unq

ualifiedworkforce

47

1119

210/75

16/2

Low

productiv

itylevelo

flabors

612

718

190/7

26/3

Shortage

oflabors

715

616

180/67

36/4

Low

productiv

ityandefficiencyof

equipm

ent

1414

712

150/6

4

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

522

ECAM25,4

Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

6/5

Equ

ipmentavailabilityandfailu

re13

176

1412

0/58

56/6

Low

levelo

fequipm

ent-o

perator’s

skill

1619

89

100/53

66/7

Personal

conflicts

amonglabors

1821

68

90/5

76/8

Lack

ofhigh

-technology

mechanicalequ

ipment

2419

56

80/45

87.Externald

elays

7/1

Effects

ofsubsurface

cond

itions(e.g.soil,high

water

table,etc.)

76

1019

200/73

17/2

Delay

inobtainingperm

itsfrom

mun

icipality

69

1118

180/71

27/3

Effectof

social

andcultu

ralfactors

118

1017

160/66

37/4

Weather

effect

(hot,rain,

etc.)

89

1615

140/66

47/5

Changesin

governmentregu

latio

nsandlaws

1214

1112

130/6

57/6

Unavailabilityof

utilitiesin

site

(suchas,w

ater,electricity,telephone,etc.)

1415

1211

100/56

67/7

Trafficcontrola

ndrestrictionat

jobsite

1614

129

110/55

77/8

Accidentdu

ring

constructio

n15

1911

710

0/53

87/9

Differingsite

(groun

d)cond

itions

1721

87

90/5

97/10

Delay

inprovidingservices

from

utilities(suchas

water,electricity)

2123

86

40/44

107/11

Fluctuations

incost/currency

2523

74

30/4

117/12

Delay

inperformingfin

alinspectio

nandcertificatio

nby

athirdparty

2822

53

40/38

127/13

ForceMajeure

aswar,revolution,

riot,strike,andearthq

uake,etc.

2527

43

30/38

13Consultant

comments(55)

1.Employer

delays

1/1

Change

orders

byow

nerdu

ring

constructio

n2

75

2120

0/78

22/1

Und

erestim

ationof

timeforcompletion

36

423

190/78

33/1

Und

erestim

ationof

cost

ofprojects

47

418

220/77

44/1

Delay

tofurnishanddeliv

erthesite

tothecontractor

byow

ner

24

1019

200/79

15/1

Inadequate

defin

ition

ofsubstantialcom

pletion

46

820

170/75

76/1

Insufficient

Feasibility

stud

iesandsurvey

before

investment

57

915

190/73

97/1

Slow

decision

making

34

1119

180/76

68/1

Poor

commun


nby


47

916

190/74

89/1

Late

inrevising

andapprovingdesign

documents

byow

ner

36

720

190/77

510

Typ

eof

projectbidd

ingandaw

ard(negotiatio

n,lowestbidd

er)

48

1116

160/72

1011/1

Typ

eof

constructio

ncontract

(Turnk


810

913

150/66

1112

Suspension

ofworkby

owner

913

814

110/62

1213/1


byow

ner

1115

611

120/59

13

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

523

Causes ofdelays in


Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

14/1

Unavailabilityof

incentives

forcontractor

forfin

ishing

aheadof

schedu

le12

219

76

0/51

1415/1

Delay

inapprovingshop

draw

ings

andsamplematerials

1720

36

90/49

1516/1

Delay

infin

ance

andpaym

ents

ofcompleted

workby

owner

2115

67

60/46

1617/1

Poor

supervision

2220

73

30/4

1718/1

Low

bid

2421

53

20/37

1819/1

Delaysin

inspectio

nandtestingof

work

2621

42

20/36

192.Co

ntractor

delays

2/1

Difficultiesin

financing

projectby

contractor

34

1019

190/77

12/2

Delaysin

sub-contractorswork

35

920

180/76

22/3

Poor

qualificatio

nof


46

1115

190/74

32/4

Poor

site

managem

entandsupervisionby

contractor

311

521

150/72

42/5

Rew

orkdu

eto

errors

during

constructio

n5

912

1514

0/69

52/6

Ineffectiveplanning

andschedu

lingof

projectby

contractor

714

913

120/63

72/7

Inadequate

contractor

experience

1014

812

110/6

92/8

Frequent

change


theirinefficient

work

812

1114

100/62

82/9

Poor

commun


nby

contractor

with

otherparties

810

1016

110/64

62/10

Conflicts


lein

executionof

project

179

713

90/56

112/11

Improper

constructio

nmethods

implem

entedby

contractor

186

1011

100/56

102/12

Conflicts

betw

eencontractor


ntandow

ner)

208

99

90/52

122/13

Delay

insite

mobilizatio

n17

186

77

0/49

133.Co

nsultant

delays

3/1

Inadequate

experience

ofconsultant

1011

159

100/59

23/2

Delay


nandtestingby

consultant

1210

812

130/61

13/3

Poor

commun

ication/coordinatio

nbetw

eenconsultant

andotherparties

1514

710

90/54

33/4

Delay

inapprovingmajor

changesin

thescopeof

workby

consultant

1612

127

80/52

53/5


)ofconsultant

1512

137

80/53

43/6

Late

inreview


documents

byconsultant

2415

94

30/41

63/7

Conflicts

betw

eenconsultant

anddesign

engineer

2517

63

40/4

73/8

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

2619

53

20/37

83/9


2622

42

10/35

94.Designdelays

4/1


design

documents

57

1316

140/7

14/2

Delaysin

producingdesign

documents

69

1215

130/67

24/3

Complexity

ofprojectdesign

910

1014

120/64

3

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

524

ECAM25,4

Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

4/4

Insufficient

data

collectionandsurvey

before

design

169

910

110/57

54/5

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

1412

712

100/57

44/6

Misun

derstand

ingof

owner’s

requ

irem

ents

bydesign

engineer

1517

79

70/51

64/7

Inadequate

design

-team

experience

1720

67

50/47

74/8

Un-useof

advanced

engineeringdesign

software

1924

54

30/41

85.Materiald

elays

5/1

Shortage

ofconstructio

nmaterialsin

market

47

1314

170/72

15/2

Delay

inmateriald

elivery

410

917

150/71

25/3

Changesin

materialtyp

esandspecificatio

nsdu

ring

constructio

n8

117

1514

0/66

35/4

Dam

ageof

sorted

materialw

hilethey

areneeded

urgently

717

714

100/61

55/5

Delay

inmanufacturing

specialb

uildingmaterials

911

912

140/64

45/6

Late

procurem

entof

materials

1612

79

110/55

65/7

Late

inselectionof

finishing

materialsdu

eto

availabilityof

manytypesin

market

1617

69

70/51

75/8

Escalationof

materialp

rices

2421

44

20/38

86.La

borandequipm

entdelays

6/1

Unq

ualifiedworkforce

97

1014

150/67

16/2

Low

productiv

itylevelo

flabors

714

713

140/65

26/3

Shortage

oflabors

816

811

120/61

36/4

Low

productiv

ityandefficiencyof

equipm

ent

1414

89

100/55

66/5

Equ


re12

165

139

0/57

46/6

Low

levelo

fequipm

ent-o

perator’s

skill

1118

414

80/56

56/7

Personal

conflicts

amonglabors

1617

58

90/52

76/8

Lack

ofhigh

-technology

mechanicalequ

ipment

1921

46

50/44

87.Externald

elays

7/1

Effects

ofsubsurface

cond


water

table,etc.)

56

1214

180/72

27/2

Delay

inobtainingperm

itsfrom

mun

icipality

66

1115

170/71

37/3

Effectof

social

andcultu

ralfactors

54

919

180/75

17/4

Weather

effect

(hot,rain,

etc.)

86

1114

160/69

47/5

Changesin

governmentregu

latio

nsandlaws

118

914

130/64

67/6

Unavailabilityof

utilitiesin

site

(suchas,w


79

1015

140/67

57/7

Trafficcontrola

ndrestrictionat

jobsite

1311

912

100/58

77/8

Accidentdu

ring

constructio

n15

176

98

0/52

87/9

Differingsite

(groun

d)cond

itions

1816

86

70/48

97/10

Delay

inprovidingservices

from

utilities(suchas

water,electricity)

2119

65

40/43

10

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

525

Causes ofdelays in


Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

7/11

Fluctuations

incost/currency

2120

65

30/41

117/12

Delay

inperformingfin

alinspectio

nandcertificatio

nby

athirdparty

2618

53

30/38

127/13

ForceMajeure

aswar,revolution,


uake,etc.

2521

34

20/37

13Contractorcomments(55)

1.Employer

delays

1/1

Change

orders

byow

nerdu

ring

constructio

n3

65

1925

0/8

22/1

Und

erestim

ationof

timeforcompletion

45

814

270/79

33/1

Und

erestim

ationof

cost

ofprojects

67

519

210/74

64/1

Delay

tofurnishanddeliv

erthesite

tothecontractor

byow

ner

36

918

220/77

45/1

Inadequate

defin

ition

ofsubstantialcom

pletion

13

922

230/82

16/1

Insufficient

feasibility

stud

iesandsurvey

before

investment

48

520

210/76

57/1

Slow

decision

making

611

322

160/71

88/1

Poor

commun


nby


812

616

160/67

109/1

Late

inrevising

andapprovingdesign

documents

byow

ner

610

320

190/72

710

Typ

eof

projectbidd

ingandaw

ard(negotiatio

n,lowestbidd

er)

712

615

180/69

911/1

Typ

eof

constructio

ncontract

(Turnk


516

1210

150/65

1112

Suspension

ofworkby

owner

1313

911

120/59

1213/1


byow

ner

1415

1113

50/53

1514/1

Unavailabilityof

incentives

forcontractor

forfin

ishing

aheadof

schedu

le22

84

1410

0/54

1415/1

Delay

inapprovingshop

draw

ings

andsamplematerials

1717

68

100/52

1716/1

Delay

infin

ance

andpaym

ents

ofcompleted

workby

owner

924

78

100/55

1317/1

Poor

supervision

1121

118

70/53

1618/1

Low

bid

1516

147

60/51

1819/1

Delaysin

inspectio

nandtestingof

work

1517

158

30/49

192.Co

ntractor

delays

2/1

Difficultiesin

financing

projectby

contractor

169

126

150/58

22/2

Delaysin

sub-contractorswork

1413

183

100/54

62/3

Poor

qualificatio

nof


1213

1114

80/58

32/4

Poor

site

managem

entandsupervisionby

contractor

1814

135

80/5

72/5

Rew

orkdu

eto

errors

during

constructio

n16

1112

118

0/54

52/6

Ineffectiveplanning

andschedu

lingof

projectby

contractor

1610

712

130/59

12/7

Inadequate

contractor

experience

179

912

110/57

42/8

Frequent

change


theirinefficient

work

239

116

90/49

8

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

526

ECAM25,4

Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

2/9

Poor

commun


nby

contractor

with

otherparties

2818

33

60/4

122/10

Conflicts


lein

executionof

project

1625

45

80/48

92/11

Improper

constructio

nmethods

implem

entedby

contractor

1727

36

50/44

102/12

Conflicts

betw

eencontractor


ntandow

ner)

2022

121

30/41

112/13

Delay

insite

mobilizatio

n28

167

34

0/39

133.Co

nsultant

delays

3/1

Inadequate

experience

ofconsultant

710

418

190/71

23/2

Delay


nandtestingby

consultant

119

518

150/66

43/3

Poor

commun

ication/coordinatio

nbetw

eenconsultant

andotherparties

59

1114

190/71

13/4

Delay

inapprovingmajor

changesin

thescopeof

workby

consultant

614

815

150/67

33/5


)ofconsultant

1318

69

120/56

53/6

Late

inreview


documents

byconsultant

1820

59

60/48

73/7

Conflicts

betw

eenconsultant

anddesign

engineer

1518

138

40/49

63/8

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

1920

105

40/44

83/9


2318

85

40/42

94.Designdelays

4/1


design

documents

1212

611

170/63

34/2

Delaysin

producingdesign

documents

175

610

200/64

24/3

Complexity

ofprojectdesign

1712

211

160/59

44/4

Insufficient

data

collectionandsurvey

before

design

58

1315

170/71

14/5

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

1910

310

160/58

54/6

Misun

derstand

ingof

owner’s

requ

irem

ents

bydesign

engineer

1517

310

130/56

64/7

Inadequate

design

-team

experience

1519

47

130/54

74/8

Un-useof

advanced

engineeringdesign

software

2713

74

70/43

85.Materiald

elays

5/1

Shortage

ofconstructio

nmaterialsin

market

88

616

200/71

35/2

Delay

inmateriald

elivery

96

714

220/72

25/3

Changesin

materialtyp

esandspecificatio

nsdu

ring

constructio

n5

129

1517

0/69

45/4

Dam

ageof

sorted

materialw

hilethey

areneeded

urgently

93

918

190/72

15/5

Delay

inmanufacturing

specialb

uildingmaterials

1415

712

100/56

65/6

Late

procurem

entof

materials

918

1012

90/58

55/7

Late

inselectionof

finishing

materialsdu

eto

availabilityof

manytypesin

market

1521

76

90/51

75/8

Escalationof

materialp

rices

2815

54

60/41

86.La

borandequipm

entdelays

6/1

Unq

ualifiedworkforce

410

813

230/74

1

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

527

Causes ofdelays in


Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

6/2

Low

productiv

itylevelo

flabors

96

913

210/71

36/3

Shortage

oflabors

123

519

190/7

46/4

Low

productiv

ityandefficiencyof

equipm

ent

71

1123

160/74

26/5

Equ


re11

910

1414

0/64

56/6

Low

levelo

fequipm

ent-o

perator’s

skill

202

715

140/6

66/7

Personal

conflicts

amonglabors

2011

511

110/54

76/8

Lack

ofhigh

-technology

mechanicalequ

ipment

2616

105

10/39

87.Externald

elays

7/1

Effects

ofsubsurface

cond


water

table,etc.)

24

1021

210/79

17/2

Delay

inobtainingperm

itsfrom

mun

icipality

46

1118

190/74

27/3

Effectof

social

andcultu

ralfactors

48

1019

170/73

37/4

Weather

effect

(hot,rain,

etc.)

711

714

190/69

47/5

Changesin

governmentregu

latio

nsandlaws

98

815

180/69

57/6

Unavailabilityof

utilitiesin

site

(suchas,w


1813

48

150/56

67/7

Trafficcontrola

ndrestrictionat

jobsite

1622

28

100/51

87/8

Accidentdu

ring

constructio

n16

1310

811

0/55

77/9

Differingsite

(groun

d)cond

itions

1817

88

70/49

97/10

Delay

inprovidingservices

from

utilities(suchas

water,electricity)

2217

67

60/46

127/11

Fluctuations

incost/currency

1524

56

80/49

107/12

Delay

inperformingfin

alinspectio

nandcertificatio

nby

athirdparty

1229

67

40/47

117/13

ForceMajeure

aswar,revolution,


uake,etc.

2025

54

40/42

13Totalview

s(175

)of

allthree

factors(62clients,5

5consultants,58

contractors)

1.Employer

delays

1/1

Change

orders

byow

nerdu

ring

constructio

n9

2122

5667

0/90

12/1

Und

erestim

ationof

timeforcompletion

1023

2553

640/88

23/1

Und

erestim

ationof

cost

ofprojects

1520

2355

620/87

34/1

Delay

tofurnishanddeliv

erthesite

tothecontractor

byow

ner

1418

3252

590/87

45/1

Inadequate

defin

ition

ofsubstantialcom

pletion

1322

2757

560/86

56/1

Insufficient

feasibility

stud

iesandsurvey

before

investment

1527

2752

540/84

67/1

Slow

decision

making

1625

3055

490/83

78/1

Poor

commun


nby


1730

2849

510/82

89/1

Late

inrevising

andapprovingdesign

documents

byow

ner

1832

2451

500/81

910

Typ

eof

projectbidd

ingandaw

ard(negotiatio

n,lowestbidd

er)

2034

3046

450/78

10

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

528

ECAM25,4

Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

11/1

Typ

eof

constructio

ncontract

(Turnk


2738

3635

390/73

1112

Suspension

ofworkby

owner

3745

3032

310/67

1213/1


byow

ner

3952

2434

260/64

1314/1

Unavailabilityof

incentives

forcontractor

forfin

ishing

aheadof

schedu

le52

5322

2721

0/58

1415/1

Delay

inapprovingshop

draw

ings

andsamplematerials

5662

1418

250/56

1516/1

Delay

infin

ance

andpaym

ents

ofcompleted

workby

owner

6058

1819

200/54

1617/1

Poor

supervision

6461

2414

120/50

1718/1

Low

bid

6863

2312

90/47

1819/1

Delaysin

inspectio

nandtestingof

work

7165

2111

70/46

192.Co

ntractor

delays

2/1

Difficultiesin

financing

projectby

contractor

2419

3145

560/82

12/2

Delaysin

sub-contractorswork

2125

3542

520/81

22/3

Poor

qualificatio

nof


2227

3147

480/80

32/4

Poor

site

managem

entandsupervisionby

contractor

2530

2850

420/77

42/5

Rew

orkdu

eto

errors

during

constructio

n27

2936

4439

0/75

52/6

Ineffectiveplanning

andschedu

lingof

projectby

contractor

3033

2942

410/74

62/7

Inadequate

contractor

experience

3536

2740

370/71

72/8

Frequent

change


theirinefficient

work

3732

3637

330/70

82/9

Poor

commun


nby

contractor

with

otherparties

4138

3235

290/66

92/10

Conflicts


lein

executionof

project

4345

2832

270/64

102/11

Improper

constructio

nmethods

implem

entedby

contractor

5147

2528

240/60

112/12

Conflicts

betw

eencontractor


ntandow

ner)

5754

2718

190/55

122/13

Delay

insite

mobilizatio

n62

5723

1617

0/53

133.Co

nsultant

delays

3/1

Inadequate

experience

ofconsultant

2430

3242

470/78

13/2

Delay


nandtestingby

consultant

3229

2447

430/75

23/3

Poor

commun

ication/coordinatio

nbetw

eenconsultant

andotherparties

3034

2739

450/75

33/4

Delay

inapprovingmajor

changesin

thescopeof

workby

consultant

3436

3136

380/71

43/5


)ofconsultant

4139

2932

340/67

53/6

Late

inreview


documents

byconsultant

5349

2328

220/59

63/7

Conflicts

betw

eenconsultant

anddesign

engineer

5553

2721

190/56

73/8

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

6259

2317

140/52

83/9


6764

1914

110/48

9

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

529

Causes ofdelays in


Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

4.Designdelays

4/1


design

documents

2528

3144

470/78

14/2

Delaysin

producingdesign

documents

3125

2843

480/77

24/3

Complexity

ofprojectdesign

3532

2541

420/73

34/4

Insufficient

data

collectionandsurvey

before

design

3729

3238

390/72

44/5

Unclear

andinadequate

details

indraw

ings

4537

2433

360/67

54/6

Misun

derstand

ingof

owner’s

requ

irem

ents

bydesign

engineer

4951

1927

290/61

64/7

Inadequate

design

-team

experience

5362

1521

240/57

74/8

Un-useof

advanced

engineeringdesign

software

7459

1513

140/48

85.Materiald

elays

5/1

Shortage

ofconstructio

nmaterialsin

market

1922

3247

550/83

15/2

Delay

inmateriald

elivery

2227

2845

530/81

25/3

Changesin

materialtyp

esandspecificatio

nsdu

ring

constructio

n25

3226

4745

0/77

35/4

Dam

ageof

sorted

materialw

hilethey

areneeded

urgently

3235

2244

420/74

45/5

Delay

inmanufacturing

specialb

uildingmaterials

3943

2435

340/68

55/6

Late

procurem

entof

materials

4547

2232

290/64

65/7

Late

inselectionof

finishing

materialsdu

eto

availabilityof

manytypesin

market

4958

1925

240/59

75/8

Escalationof

materialp

rices

7759

1412

130/47

86.La

borandequipm

entdelays

6/1

Unq

ualifiedworkforce

1724

2946

590/84

16/2

Low

productiv

itylevelo

flabors

2232

2344

540/80

26/3

Shortage

oflabors

2734

1946

490/77

36/4

Low

productiv

ityandefficiencyof

equipm

ent

3529

2644

410/74

46/5

Equ


re36

4221

4135

0/70

56/6

Low

levelo

fequipm

ent-o

perator’s

skill

4739

1938

320/66

66/7

Personal

conflicts

amonglabors

5449

1627

290/60

76/8

Lack

ofhigh

-technology

mechanicalequ

ipment

6956

1917

140/50

87.Externald

elays

7/1

Effects

ofsubsurface

cond


water

table,etc.)

1416

3254

590/87

17/2

Delay

inobtainingperm

itsfrom

mun

icipality

1621

3351

540/84

27/3

Effectof

social

andcultu

ralfactors

2020

2955

510/83

37/4

Weather

effect

(hot,rain,

etc.)

2326

3443

490/79

47/5

Changesin

governmentregu

latio

nsandlaws

3230

2841

440/75

57/6

Unavailabilityof

utilitiesin

site

(suchas,w


3937

2634

390/70

67/7

Trafficcontrola

ndrestrictionat

jobsite

4547

2329

310/64

7

(con

tinued)

Table AII.

530

ECAM25,4

Criteriaweigh

tsRII

Rank

V.L

LM

HV.H

Delay

group

No.

Factor

ofdelay

1.2.

3.4.

5.

7/8

Accidentdu

ring

constructio

n46

4927

2429

0/62

87/9

Differingsite

(groun

d)cond

itions

5354

2421

230/58

97/10

Delay

inprovidingservices

from

utilities(suchas

water,electricity)

6459

2018

140/51

107/11

Fluctuations

incost/currency

6167

1815

140/51

117/12

Delay

inperformingfin

alinspectio

nandcertificatio

nby

athirdparty

6669

1613

110/48

127/13

Forcemajeure

aswar,revolution,


uake,etc.

7073

1211

90/45

13

Table AII.

531

Causes ofdelays in


No. Category Alternative of decrease and remove of delays

1. Client-related causes 1. Accurate and realistic estimation of the time of the Project and theresources on hand (to decrease the causes of No. 2, 3, 5 in Table AI)

2. Sufficient studies before investment and evaluation of the project beforestart of it (to decrease the causes of No. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17 inTable AI)

3. Lack of using poor executive principles due to hold low cost tenders (todecrease the causes of No. 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 in Table AI)

4. Removing conflict and lack of delay (to decrease the causes of No. 4 inTable AI)

5. Making correct decisions and in time (to decrease the causes of No. 4, 5,7, 10, 12, 18 in Table AI)

6. Not to change and excessive involve in initial assumptions and scope ofthe project (to decrease the causes of No. 1, 9 in Table AI)

7. Reduce dispute among executive subordinates (to decrease the causes ofNo. 13, 14, 15, 17 in Table AI)

8. Predict alternative financing in the case of deficiency (to decrease thecauses of No. 3, 16, 19 in Table AI)

2. Labor and equipmentcategory causes

9. Holding educational periods and safety justification in the workshop (todecrease the causes of No. 59, 63, 64 in Table AI)

10. The presence of incentive systems in the labor force11. Allocation of skilled manpower and increase productivity (to decrease

the causes of No. 58, 59, 60, 64 in Table AI)12. Supply of new equipment and machinery (to decrease the causes of

No. 62, 65 in Table AI)13. Use of modern methods in the repair and maintenance of equipment

during breakdowns and accidents (to decrease the causes of No. 65 inTable AI)

14. Considering standards in installation (to decrease the causes of No. 65 inTable AI)

15. Operating technology in mechanical devices and increasing the speedand efficiency and reduce errors (to decrease the causes of No. 61, 62, 63in Table AI)

3. Contractor-related causes 16. Selection of sub-contractors based on competence rather than on lowprices (to decrease the causes of No. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 in Table AI)

17. Considering safety points and HSE in Project (to decrease the causes ofNo. 21, 22, 24, 32 in Table AI)

18. Non-weak contractors in developing executive alternative of coping withsever territories (to decrease the causes of No. 22, 26 in Table AI)

19. The technical study and design schedule and planning by the contractorduring the tender stage (to decrease the causes of No. 23, 24, 27, 29 inTable AI)

20. Provide timely statements (to decrease the causes of No. 29, 31 in Table AI)21. Sub-contractors following of schedule (to decrease the causes of No. 21, 29 in

Table AI)4. Material-related causes 22. Timely selection in approval of resources of the materials and buying

them (to decrease the causes of No. 52, 55, 56, 57 in Table AI)23. Anticipation of the shortage of materials in the market and considering

the solutions before the crisis and rising prices (to decrease the causes ofNo. 50, 55, 57 in Table AI)

24. Requesting a guideline formulated about the condition of maintainingthe facilities and materials from manufacturers and suppliers (todecrease the causes of No. 51, 53, 54 in Table AI)

25. Prevention of crime and abuse of resources and materials while transit inworkshop environment

(continued )

Table AIII.Ranking the causes ofdelay and the ideas ofdecreasing andremoving it

532

ECAM25,4

Corresponding authorParvaneh Shahsavand can be contacted at: [email protected]

No. Category Alternative of decrease and remove of delays

5. Design-related causes 26. Use of advanced software engineering and design (to decrease thecauses of No. 42, 44, 46, 47, 49 in Table AI)

27. Provide timely execution plans to contractor(to decrease the causes of No. 45, 43 in Table AI)

6. External causes 28. No deficiency would be in the formulating contracts (to decrease thecauses of No. 67, 70 in Table AI)

29. Considering referee of resolving discrepancy among workforces (todecrease the causes of No. 67, 70 in Table AI)

30. Financial limitation faced due to lack of allocation budget bygovernment in the projects (to decrease the causes of no. 76 in Table AI)

31. Anticipation of international situation and prolong the negotiations withbuilders and track orders (to decrease the causes of No. 78 in Table AI)

32. Anticipation of prolonging orders because of office bureaucracy (todecrease the causes of No. 67 in Table AI)

33. Study and anticipation of regional bad weather conditions (to decreasethe causes of No. 69 in Table AI)

34. Study on inflation and market fluctuations and presenting alternatives(to decrease the causes of No. 76 in Table AI)

35. Exchange rate forecasting because of the political regional climate andgold and oil price impact on it (to decrease the causes of No. 76, 78 inTable AI)

36. Considering the conditions of societies and their cultures and preventingregional and labor strikes (to decrease the causes of No. 68, 78 inTable AI)

37. Paying attention to allocating credits in 2nd half of the year by thegovernment on public projects (to decrease the causes of No. 76 inTable AI)

7. Consultant-related causes 38. Accuracy in early studies and examining the feasibility of projectseconomic justification (to decrease the causes of No. 36, 41 in Table AI)

39. Timely providing design drawings and personating documents neededfor next decision makings (to decrease the causes of No. 33, 34, 35, 38, 40in Table AI)

40. High accuracy in evaluation and estimation of the volumes and worksums (to decrease the causes of No. 39, 40, 41 in Table AI) Table AIII.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

533

Causes ofdelays in


Causes of delays in construction industry and comparative ...

Documents

Transcript of Causes of delays in construction industry and comparative ...