A Better Way to Estimate and Mitigate Disruption
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 124, Issue 6
Abstract
The construction industry has a difficult time prospectively identifying, with accuracy, either the scope or magnitude of change-caused disruption at the activity level. This difficulty increases contractors' risks when negotiating change orders, makes owners more suspicious of contractors' negotiating positions, increases the chances that change orders will not be settled and will turn into claims or disputes, and makes it more difficult for contractors to foresee and mitigate the disruptive effects of change orders. This article proposes a methodology which will solve these problems by (1) qualitatively identifying the scope of possible disruption, thereby limiting the scope of application of any disruption estimating methodology; (2) within this scope of possible disruption, quantifying disruption using an improved factor-based estimating methodology; and (3) yielding activity-specific estimates of disruption. The proposed methodology recognizes the specific characteristics of the interacting activities, and more realistically models the process by which disruption occurs. Activity-specific estimates of disruption will allow contractors to mitigate disruption by taking advantage of available float to selectively postpone some combination of the disrupting and/or disrupted activities.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Adrian, J. (1987). Construction productivity improvement. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
2.
Barrie, D., and Paulson, B. (1992). Professional construction management: Including CM, design-construct, and general contracting. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Construction Claims Monthly : “The Cumulative impact of multiple changes.” (1996). Business Publishers, Inc., Silver Spring, Md. Contractual arrangements (Report A-7) . (1982). New York.
3.
Handa, V., and Rivers, D. (1983). “Downgrading construction incidents.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 109(2).
4.
Hinze, J. (1998). Construction planning and scheduling. Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J.
5.
Kasen, B., and Oblas, V. (1996). “Thinking ahead with forward pricing.”J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 12(2).
6.
Keifer, S. (1996). “Scope creep ... not necessarily a bad thing.”PM Network, Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, Pa., (X)5.
7.
Leonard, C. (1988). The effects of change orders on productivity. Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
8.
Meyers, J. (1994). “Changes resulting from delays.”Construction Change Order Claims. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Somerset, N.J.
9.
Moselhi, O., Leonard, C., and Fazio, P. (1991). “Impact of change orders on construction productivity.”Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 18(3).
10.
Schwartzkopf, W. (1995). Calculating lost labor productivity in construction claims. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Somerset, N.J.
11.
Shea, T. (1989). “Proving productivity losses in government contracts.”Public Contract Law Journal, 18(2).
12.
Thomas, H., and Napolitan, C. (1994). The effects of changes on labor productivity: Why and how much. Construction Industry Inst., University of Texas, Austin, Tex.
13.
Thomas, H., and Napolitan, C. (1995). “Quantitative effects of construction changes on labor productivity.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 121(3).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 124 • Issue 6 • December 1998
Pages: 490 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Dec 1, 1998
Published in print: Dec 1998
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.