The study methodology includes the objective evidence analysis related to the events and factors which lead to the delays and probable occurrence in projects of highway construction. The study data was provided by the consultants of highway construction and included information on factors which caused delays in the projects of the past. One part of the study is dedicated to discovering howpractitioners can perceive a delay causes and probable occurrence in highway construction. It will help not only to identify factors of prevalence which lead to delays, but also address different types of delays in highway construction because it is caused by multitude factors. The methodology of case study, as mentioned byCreedy, is a significant approach which presents information, assists in solution prescriptions or treatments, and describes the problems at hand. The strategy of the survey will try to assistin the determination of sets of measures in order to prevent construction delays.
In case of delays in construction, it is necessary to ascertain the contracting party liabilities and make an influence on the project itself, at the same time attempting to make the appropriate amount of resources follow the recovery of the initial construction schedule. In spite of the fact that there are a lot of methodologies which analyze the delays in order to resolve claims and disputes, they are not standard or obsolete in the evaluation of delay impacts and the allocation of theappropriate measures with the aim to overcome delay occurrence.
Analysis of delays plays a pivotal role in computing of the compensation of damage since it lays the basis for delay analysis along with arguments related to the entitlement of claims (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon, 2008). The involved parties have an opportunity to adopt an applicable method which they consider appropriate to prove the compensation entitlement. The majority of the parties rely only on the methods which are thought to be fit, as well as their experience since there is no standard for the analysis of delays. This makes the judgment difficult and be inaccurate and unsuccessful. The analysis results may influence a second opinion and have quite a different result. Such circumstances cause analysis inaccuracy. Braimah et al argue that the methods of delay analysis (DAM) are straight forward and explicit in theory. Communities, which deal with the delay analysis, express their disagreement.
Multitudes of issues are the factors which influence the method of delay analysis, such as the float ownership, concurrent delays, theories which determine critical paths, and options of scheduling. Thus, the method of an adopted delay analysis should be studied in a broad spectrum. It may be a must to analyze process delays through consideration of every stage of the project.
It will also be highlighted thatmany methods of recent delay analysis are mostly assessed by computer and the information if captured from the database of the project. Correspondences, recordings, interviews, discussions, and assumptions constituted project database. The complexity of challenges makes it necessary to mention that the method adopted andscrutinizing supplied information will improve the quality of the results.
Braimah et al accounted that delay analysis can be grouped into the method of critical path, which is CPM-based and non-CPM based. The latter has caused a lot of criticism and inaccuracies as it is unable to determine the influence of delay events on the completion of the project, as reported by Braimah et al. That is why the CPM-based method caught more attention.
Braimah et al defined the CPM-based methodologies as following: Impacted As-planned Analysis, Collapsed As-built Analysis, As-planned vs. As-built Analysis, Time Impact Analysis and Window Analysis. Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon argued the classification and named the following methods: As-planned vs As-built Analysis, Schedule Review/Discussion, Collapsed As-built Analysis, Time Impact Analysis, Impact Asplanned Analysis, and Productivity Method. In spite of the fact that the researchers have different opinions, the methods which are common in literatures will be considered. There were a lot of methods developed and proposed, but none of them proved to be successful in practice as reported by Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon.
As-planned vs As-built
The method is considered to be path based that is critical and commonly used in the industry. Once therequirement and the scope of the project have been assessed, As-planned program is thought to be the contractor’s program reasonable view. As-planned program preparation needs awareness of the project to predict the plan in a reasonable and practical way while carrying out the activities involved. As-planned program is defined as the agreed program of initial construction.
As-built program is the schedule representation of the carried out activities. The program provides information concerning carrying out of various activities and is called by Linnet as accounted by Gani practical completion of activities. In caseAs-built schedule is the same as the agreed schedule that was initially planned, it is recognized that contractor substantially completed on time. As-built program is considered to be a delayed project delivery or late completion in case it exceeds the planned program. The study concerns a delayed project delivery or late completion, which is the most prevalent experience in the construction industry. It happens remarkably rarely that the project is completed before the initially As-planned schedule. If the project has objective time as a priority, the contractor is thought to have adjudged project delivery successfully and completed it in time.
The method of As-planned vs As-built analysis provides through bar charts As-planned schedule verses As-built schedule and represents the elapsing of the events and activities over time. Fruchtman’s account cited by Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon shows that the method also appreciates any gaps or delays while carrying out the overall project with the help of comparing the As-planned to the As-built program.
It has been accounted that the As-planned vs As-built method involves identification of the As-built critical activities to the As-planned schedule, which considers causes of activity sequences and events of actual delay, in order to state the impact of delay impact on the completion of the project.
In contrast, a quantitative measure of the events is considered to be a graphical representation in terms of time. As-planned vs As-built method is a widely used method in the construction industry. Depiction of the net impact or delay effect on the overall project is thought to be the limitation, which is associated with the As-planned vs As-built method.
Impacted As-planned method has relation to the As-planned vs As-built method as it provides the basis for the latter. Resulting in a rescheduling of program activities of the initial construction, the method adds to delays analysis. Braimah et al stated that Impacted As-planned method presupposed such events of incorporating delay as a chronological activist in order to show how the project completion date is affected by the delays.
The method is easy to use and it overcomes As-planned vs As-built method limitation in the assessment of delay progressive impacts on projects and is similar in graphical representation. Furthermore, As-planned method has an advantage over the As-planned vs As-built method as it is easy to produce with easy to understand results.
Collapsed As-built method presumes the fact that in case delay is eliminated from the As-built schedule, the project schedule would progress. The method is often considered being a converse method to the Impacted As-planned. Braimah et al follow the view that Collapsed As-built method is opposite to the Impacted As-planned method due to the approach that uses the As-built program as the baseline, which measures the project delay amount where delay events are removed (at the same time indicating the progress of the project but for those delays).The approach is related to the creation of an As-built schedule from appropriate information, determining the defendant’s delay impact and removing the claimant’s delay out of the As-built schedule.
Collapsed As-built method gives the idea of completion date the representation of original project, when delays are absent. It is believed that the method has an advantage over the Impacted As-planed as it tries to investigate the events, which cause the delay. However, when there is the absence of appropriate records, assumptions are the only events which lead to delays. Braimah et al as reported by Gani supported the idea that Collapsed As-built method limitations involvechanges ignored in the critical path.
The inability to feel concerned about the delay events multitude relating to the critical path during the overall process is considered to be the weakness of Impacted As-planned, As-planned vs As-built, and Collapsed As-built methods. However, Braimah et al reported theargument that the above mentioned methodologies have the weakness in considerationof the dynamic nature of the critical path as it is influenced by a multitude of factors.
Time Impact Analysis
The objective ofTime Impact Analysis is to take a projectsnap shot each time when it experiences the impact of a major delay to the program schedule. The method attempts to bring together influenced schedule through the delay events to the As-planned schedule with the help of observing the impact of each delay event on the duration of the total project. Wickwire et al as reported by Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon follow the idea that the method of Time Impact analysis is a an utilizing procedure of network schedules, as well as a fact analysis which is associated with each day events with the aim to demonstrate how the project schedule is affected by the delays. In general, the analysis has proved to be effective as it takes into consideration the dynamic of actual events sequence and compares impacts between snapshot periods.
The method of Time Impact analysis may serve as a technique which justifies the corrective approach to analysis of delays for projects which are in progress. In order to justify remedies, the accumulated impact of individual delay events is commonly used. However, the statement is controversial as the analysis may be more appropriate for projects in progress than for the assessment of delay impacts on completed projects, except the cases when there are adequate records to prove.
Selection of Methodology
Delay analysis is usually recognized as a disciplinary measure which is often associated with compensations and claims. Assumptions and current methods of delay analysis cannot provide the necessary reliability level that is needed for thescrutinizing and remedy of construction delays. That is why it is necessary in the modification process of the selected method of the As-planned vs As-built analysis in the form of incorporating factors, which lead todelays inactual construction.
In order to fulfill the objective of the study, As-planned vs As-built analysis will be viewed as the process which presupposes two stages and takes into account severity of delays in projects of considered highway construction, as well as factors which are the causes of delays. The basis for the measure determination (in order to remedy highway construction delays) will be the technique of the modified delay analysis.
The described methods of delay analysis wereImpacted As-planned, As-planned vs As-built, Time Impact, Collapsed As-planned, and Window analysis. Based on the critical path method, the above mentioned methods consider delay analysis as either for snap shots of progressing project, or the overall project, which is already completed and there is no particular method which will be capable to combine both stages. In spite of the fact that these methods may be adopted while analyzing impacts on the project delays, it has been stated thatthe current form of the techniques of the delay analysis are not reliable for recovering project andmay require modification in the way of incorporating scrutiny of delay types and the factors, which lead to the project delays.
The method of modifiedAs-planned vs As-built analysis has been selected to analyze delay data in the following chapter. The modification should fulfill the study objective in the way of incorporating factors which cause project delays in highway construction.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The research outlined the main factors which lead to highway construction delays and their influence on the construction of projects. The factors, which were identified, were analyzed by means of score ranking andvariance analysis with the aim to determine the perceived and experienced factors in the process of highway construction.
Data analysis limitations have brought us to the conclusion that there exist some important factors which cause delays in highway construction. If take into accountcritical impacts on projects, the causes are as follows: increase of material which is caused bysite conditions; material shortage which is caused by site damage/fault; investigation of inadequate ground. Furthermore, the reasons include adverse weather conditions; variations in design which were made due to the initiative of a client; rework due to client variation, poor communication by consultants, inaccurate program predictability, and build-ability or constructability.
Analysis of responses, which were influenced by face to face interviews, has shown the most effective ways of reducing and eliminating delays in highway construction. In this respect, it is noteworthy
1. To monitor weather forecasts with the aim to schedule works, in order to avoid the anticipated inclement weather.
2. To ensure proper staffing of the site with specialists that are competent in installing, loading and storing of materials. If possible, attempt to anticipate events that might have an influence on materials.
3. To engage contractor’s participation in the discussion at the early stage of the project. It may promote efficient communication, design, and the project delivery predictability.
4. To provide the clients with necessary information that pertains to possible risks, in order to enable on–site investigation. In this respect, it is essential to utilize the records of local geographical and historical information.
5. To recognize awarding contracts by the bid of the lowest price. It should be done during the process of procurement with the aim to ensure that work quality and funds are allocated to contractors, who are qualified and well experienced in the project works.
6. To adopt a favorable client interface and efficient communication during the overall lifecycle of the project. It will definitely increase project changes and management control.
7. To carry out an interim assessment of the project on a regular basis as it helps in assessment of timely performance of ongoing construction and to check the agreed or initial construction schedule.
Limitation of Study
It will be emphasized that the above mentioned results in the current context have no opportunity to be generalized due to the findings, which can be applied only to the Libyanhighway construction. It is worth mentioning that the data of the construction project were obtained from practicing consultancy as the time which was necessary to cover a wider region is inadequate even if it covered a wider range of clients. It is also necessary to note that multitude factors of unique construction nature cause delay, such as the condition of unique climates which may have an impact on the project completion, or even data of other research projects.
It has been suggested that, in the future, delays in the construction project need to be analyzed, in order to cover a wider project data with the aim to have objective measures and avoid or eliminate construction project delays.