Enhanced Daily Windows Delay-Analysis Technique
Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 13, Issue 3
Abstract
Forensic schedule analysis is necessary to fairly apportion schedule delays and accelerations among project parties. Although each method in the literature has unique benefits, no single method provides a comprehensive schedule analysis, particularly when concurrent events by different parties cause multiday project delays and/or accelerations at different stages along the schedule. This paper, therefore, introduces an enhanced daily windows analysis (EDWDA) that combines the ability of the daily windows method to consider all critical path fluctuations, and the ability of the modified but-for method to analyze concurrent delays and accelerations. The EDWDA follows the day-by-day analysis of daily windows and, within each day, apportions multiday project consequence using the modified but-for method. To facilitate the application of EDWDA, a macro program was written on MS Project software and case studies were used to prove its ability to resolve the shortcomings of parent techniques. The EDWDA method is beneficial to both researchers and practitioners and contributes to developing a readily usable and comprehensive method for schedule analysis that produces accurate repeatable results to avoid disputes among project parties.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in the published paper.
References
Works Cited
AACEI (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International). 2011. Forensic schedule analysis. AACEI RP 29R-03. Morgantown, WV: AACEI.
Arditi, D., and T. Pattanakitchamroon. 2006. “Selecting a delay analysis method in resolving construction claims.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (2): 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.08.005.
Arif, F., and A. A. Morad. 2014. “Concurrent delays in construction: International legal perspective.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 6 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000134.
ASCE. 2017. Schedule delay analysis. ASCE 67-17. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bhih, M., and T. Hegazy. 2019. “Concurrent delays: Comparison among forensic analysis recommended practices.” In Proc., CSCE 7th Int. Construction Conf./Construction Research Congress 2019, CON117-1–10. Pointe Claire, QC, Canada: Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Bhih, M., and T. Hegazy. 2020a. “Enhanced but-for method (EBFM) to apportion net delays and accelerations.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002094.
Bhih, M., and T. Hegazy. 2020b. “Improving concurrency assessment and resolving misconceptions about the but-for delay analysis technique.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000378.
Dale, W. S., and R. M. D’Onofrio. 2017. Construction schedule delays. Toronto: Thomson Reuters.
El-adaway, I. H., S. A. Fawzy, R. Bingham, P. Clark, and T. Tidwell. 2014. “Different delay analysis techniques applied to the American Institute of Architects A201-2007 standard form of contract.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 6 (3): 02514001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000145.
Golanaraghi, S., and S. Alkass. 2012. “Modified isolated delay type technique.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2012, 90–99. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412329.010.
Hegazy, T., and M. Abdel-Monem. 2012. “Email-based system for documenting construction as-built details.” Autom. Constr. 24 (Jul): 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.014.
Hegazy, T., E. Elbeltagi, and K. Zhang. 2005. “Keeping better site records using intelligent bar charts.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (5): 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(513).
Hegazy, T., and W. Menesi. 2008. “Delay analysis under multiple baseline updates.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (8): 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:8(575).
Hegazy, T., and K. Petzold. 2004. “Genetic optimization for dynamic project control.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 129 (4): 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(396).
Hegazy, T., and K. Zhang. 2005. “Daily windows delay analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (5): 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(505).
Mbabazi, A., T. Hegazy, and F. Saccomanno. 2005. “Modified but-for method for delay analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (10): 1142–1144. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:10(1142).
Society of Construction Law. 2002. Delay and disruption protocol. Oxfordshire, UK: Society of Construction Law.
Society of Construction Law. 2017. Delay and disruption protocol. Oxfordshire, UK: Society of Construction Law.
Stumpf, G. R. 2000. “Schedule delay analysis.” Cost Eng. 42 (7): 32.
Yang, J.-B., and C.-K. Kao. 2009. “Review of delay analysis methods: A process-based comparison.” Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 3 (1): 81–89. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836800903010081.
Yang, J.-B., and P.-C. Yin. 2009. “Isolated collapsed but-for delay analysis methodology.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (7): 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000016.
Zack, J. 2001. “But-for schedules: Analysis and defense.” Cost Eng. 43 (8): 13–17.
Zhang, K., and T. Hegazy. 2005. “Apportioning concurrent delays and accelerations using daily windows.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives, 787–796. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)77.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 13 • Issue 3 • August 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Nov 3, 2020
Accepted: Feb 17, 2021
Published online: Apr 19, 2021
Published in print: Aug 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Sep 19, 2021
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Bibliographies
- Business management
- Case studies
- Construction engineering
- Construction management
- Critical path method
- Engineering fundamentals
- Forensic engineering
- Information management
- Management methods
- Methodology (by type)
- Practice and Profession
- Project delay
- Project management
- Research methods (by type)
- Scheduling
- Structural engineering
- Structural systems
- Windows
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Grzegorz Grzeszczyk, Tristano Sainati, Christine Unterhitzenberger, The Evolution of Forensic Delay Analysis: A Literature Review Investigating Changes and Progress in Project Management Approaches to Delay Measurement, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-897, 16, 1, (2024).
- Murat Çevikbaş, Ozan Okudan, Zeynep Işık, New Delay-Analysis Method Using Modified Schedule and Modified Updated Schedule for Construction Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002394, 148, 11, (2022).
- Moneer Bhih, Tarek Hegazy, Multiple-window Modified But-For analysis of project delays and accelerations, International Journal of Construction Management, 10.1080/15623599.2021.1916708, 23, 4, (686-696), (2021).