Delay Analysis Methods Selection in UAE Construction

The research aims to understand the practical decision-making process for selecting appropriate Delay Analysis Methods (DAMs) in UAE construction projects. The study emphasizes the need for a holistic understanding of DAMs and their application in resolving construction delays. It highlights the significant impact of these decisions on the success of commercial ventures, arguing for the development of clear organizational guidelines to protect commercial interests. The research acknowledges the substantial consequences of using inadequate DAMs, including undermining analysis credibility and lowering chances of recovery. The fast-paced development in the UAE, with construction projects exceeding 800 billion USD, underscores the urgency for efficient and effective delay analysis. The study uses a qualitative approach, employing semi-structured interviews with eight delay analysis experts from five different UAE construction projects to gather data on the decision-making process. The research intends to add to the existing knowledge by examining the effectiveness of current methods and factors influencing DAM selection, analyzing the negotiation and decision-making processes involved in choosing suitable and effective DAMs.

The document introduces several Delay Analysis Methods (DAMs), including Impact As Planned (IAP), As Planned vs. As Built (APvAB), and Time Impact Analysis (TIA). IAP, a prospective method, adds delay events to the baseline schedule, assuming unchanged logic, sequence, and durations. While suitable for predicting future delays, it's unsuitable for ongoing or completed projects. APvAB compares planned and as-built activities, requiring both baseline and as-built schedules. It's described as simple, fair, and reasonable, but its application in time windows distant from the event is recommended. TIA, a dynamic method, creates separate sub-networks for each delay event and incorporates them into updated schedules. The document notes that before selecting a DAM, considerations should include the desired outcome and suitability to project circumstances. Various researchers and the Society of Construction Law (SCL) offer guidance on selecting appropriate methods, emphasizing factors such as baseline quality, contractual obligations, and project nature. However, a gap remains in understanding how these factors practically influence the selection process.

The research presents five case studies from different UAE construction projects to illustrate the practical application and decision-making processes related to DAM selection. Each case study profiles a delay analysis expert (A1, A2, A3, B2, C1, D1, E1) and their decision-making process in selecting and applying various DAMs (IAP, Float Mapping, TIA, APvAB). Project A, a five-star hotel in Dubai, showcases the use of IAP, float mapping, and TIA, highlighting discrepancies in EoT entitlement calculations based on different methods. Project B demonstrates the use of TIA by an independent consultant, again emphasizing the time required. Project C uses TIA based on the client’s expected sophistication, Project D used APvAB then TIA, revealing differences in identifying critical events, and Project E used TIA effectively in a running project where the consequences of delays were predictable. These case studies reveal variations in the selection and application of DAMs, often influenced by factors such as client attitude, analyst experience, and the urgency of the situation. The analysis underscores the lack of standardized procedures and the substantial influence of individual expert judgment.

The research identifies key factors influencing DAM selection, including contractual requirements, data availability (including a quality baseline schedule), time and cost constraints, project complexity, and the reputation and impartiality of the delay analyst. The status of the project (ongoing versus completed) significantly impacts the selection. While the literature often considers concurrent delays, acceleration, and mitigation as secondary factors, this research suggests their early consideration. The study finds that TIA was frequently preferred by clients, while IAP was often used by contractors for efficiency. Analyst skill and experience are crucial; an independent analyst's choice is less influenced by cost and time. The study's findings are limited by its focus on a small number of UAE projects between 2007 and 2012, a period impacted by the global financial crisis. The research concludes that the selection of DAMs, in the absence of contractual requirements, relies heavily on the analyst's judgment and understanding of the project context, and the final objective is to persuasively present a reasonable evaluation of delay impacts. The research suggests further investigation into the use of different DAMs and factors influencing their selection, particularly regarding SCL's (2017) recommended APvAB windows analysis.

The initial and most important factor influencing the selection of Delay Analysis Methods (DAMs) is whether the contract specifies a particular method. While newer contracts often stipulate the DAM, none of the projects in this study had such stipulations. Following this, the availability of complete and accurate project records is paramount. This includes readily accessible data, particularly a high-quality baseline schedule, deemed essential for any delay analysis, although its relative importance varies across methods and projects. The interviewees consistently emphasized the crucial role of comprehensive records in supporting the chosen DAM and ensuring the analysis's defensibility. The quality of the baseline schedule is linked to the overall accuracy and reliability of the subsequent delay analysis, making its accessibility and quality a crucial preliminary factor in the selection of the appropriate DAM.

Time and cost limitations significantly affect both the choice of DAM and the level of detail in the analysis. For contractors, particularly when under pressure to complete the analysis quickly, methods like IAP are favored due to their relative efficiency. However, this efficiency can come at the cost of accuracy, especially when dealing with complex projects or concurrent delays. The complexity of the project and the nature of the delay events are also considered, influencing the chosen level of detail. Even in simpler projects, a high level of detail might be pursued, especially when aiming for client acceptance. The inherent trade-off between efficiency and thoroughness is a central theme; the time and resources available frequently impact the selected method, sometimes leading to compromises in the depth of analysis.

The current status of the project (ongoing versus completed) significantly influences the DAM selection. For example, in a running project with predictable delay impacts, a method like TIA might be favored, offering more dynamic insights. The expertise and experience of the delay analyst directly impact the selection and the subsequent analysis. A delay analyst’s specialized skills in a particular method (e.g., float mapping) might lead to its selection, even if other methods might be theoretically more suitable. The analyst’s reputation and impartiality significantly influence client acceptance of the analysis. Interestingly, client reliance on analyst credibility suggests that the analyst’s reputation is a pivotal, yet under-researched, factor in DAM selection. This finding highlights the subjective element inherent in DAM selection, where trust and confidence in the analyst’s capabilities can outweigh other considerations. The role of an independent versus an in-house analyst also plays a role, with impartial experts less constrained by time and budget limitations compared to internal analysts.

The ability of the DAM to adequately address concurrent delays and account for mitigation efforts is crucial. While the literature frequently treats these aspects as secondary factors, the research shows their importance in the initial selection process. The chosen method should effectively reflect and deal with actual progress, changes in the critical path, and other complexities. The study acknowledges that the analyst's personal preference, shaped by experience and understanding, influences the final selection, even when other factors are considered. The strength of the selected DAM is evaluated early in the process; methods unable to manage concurrent delays or account for actual progress are often rejected. The analyst’s objective is ultimately to demonstrate, through the chosen analysis, a reasonable and defensible evaluation of the delay's impacts, regardless of the specific DAM used.

Time Impact Analysis (TIA) emerged as the most frequently used and client-preferred Delay Analysis Method (DAM) in the study's five case studies. TIA is described as a dynamic method that allows for the creation of separate sub-networks for each delay event. These sub-networks are then integrated into project-updated schedules for each relevant time period. While considered generally applicable, TIA requires more time and effort than other methods; however, the time commitment can vary significantly depending on project specifics. In one case study, TIA took six months, while in another it was completed within five weeks. The SCL (2017) notes that TIA might be inadequate when analyzing delays significantly after the event, and Livengood (2017) highlighted limitations, particularly in retrospective application, despite its widespread adoption. The case studies illustrate TIA’s effectiveness in complex projects, even in situations where other methods, initially used, failed to gain client acceptance, demonstrating its ability to handle concurrent delays and provide a detailed account of the delay events.

Impact As Planned (IAP) is a prospective method that adds all delay events to the baseline schedule, assuming the baseline logic, sequence, and durations remain unchanged. While suitable for predicting future delays, IAP is considered inadequate for analyzing ongoing or completed projects. Researchers such as Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2006), Braimah and Ndekugri (2008), and SCL (2017) criticize its limitations. The case studies demonstrated that while IAP might be chosen for its speed and simplicity (particularly by contractors aiming for maximum EoT entitlement), it often fails to meet client expectations due to its inability to handle concurrent delays and its perceived theoretical nature. IAP's assumption that the project suffered only from client-caused delays, without considering contractor mitigation, often leads to rejection by clients who demand a more comprehensive analysis. This highlights the trade-off between the efficiency of IAP and its shortcomings in dealing with real-world project complexities.

The As Planned vs. As Built (APvAB) method compares planned (baseline) activities with as-built activities, requiring both baseline and as-built schedules or records. While described by some as the most preferred method due to its simplicity and fair results, the case studies and literature suggest limitations. SCL (2015 and 2017) recommended using APvAB in time windows when analyzing delays distant from the event. However, the study showed instances where APvAB was deemed insufficient, particularly concerning its handling of concurrent delays. The limitations of APvAB led to its rejection in several cases; and a more sophisticated method like TIA was subsequently employed. This underscores the need to consider project complexity and the nature of the delays when selecting a DAM. While the simplicity of APvAB offers efficiency, its inability to handle complexity effectively resulted in its failure to provide satisfactory results in several projects.

Analysis of the five case studies revealed Time Impact Analysis (TIA) as the most frequently used Delay Analysis Method (DAM), employed in four out of five projects. This aligns with the Society of Construction Law's (SCL) 2002 preference for TIA, although SCL (2017) acknowledges its limitations when analyzing delays distant from the event. Conversely, Impact As Planned (IAP) emerged as a commonly used method, particularly favored by contractors due to its time and cost efficiency. However, the research highlights instances where IAP's simplicity led to its rejection, as it failed to account for concurrent delays and project complexities, thus failing to gain client acceptance. This observation indicates a clear preference among clients for more rigorous and comprehensive methods like TIA, especially when disputes arise, despite the contractors' preference for the expediency of IAP. The contrasting use of these methods highlights the differing priorities of clients and contractors in delay analysis.

The case studies demonstrated the significant influence of the delay analyst's reputation and impartiality on the acceptance of the chosen DAM. This factor, notably absent from prior literature, emerged as crucial in determining client approval. Even when analysts considered most relevant factors, their personal preferences shaped their choices. These preferences stemmed from individual experience, knowledge, and understanding, suggesting a subjective element influencing DAM selection. The research highlights that when the analyst is an impartial third party, factors such as time and budget constraints become secondary, while in-house analysts often prioritize those constraints along with organizational culture and individual motivation. This further reinforces the need to account for the analyst's profile, especially concerning the client’s perspective on handling delays, underscoring that the analyst's credibility is as important as the methodological choice.

The study identified key factors influencing DAM selection. Primary factors included the availability of project records, baseline schedule quality, the project's current status, and the time needed to perform the analysis. Secondary factors such as project complexity and the complexity of the delay events primarily affected the level of analysis detail rather than the method itself. The research underscores the importance of considering concurrent delays, acceleration, and mitigation efforts at an early stage of the selection process, alongside the opponent party's attitude. Time and budget constraints influenced both the DAM selection and the level of analysis detail, becoming less critical when impartial third-party analysts were involved. While the literature highlights several factors, this research brings to the forefront the crucial but often overlooked role of the delay analyst's reputation and impartiality in determining the successful selection and acceptance of a chosen Delay Analysis Method.

The research acknowledges limitations due to its reliance on a limited number of case studies conducted between 2007 and 2012, a period marked by financial pressures in the UAE construction industry. The findings might not be fully generalizable to other contexts or time periods. Therefore, the research suggests expanding the scope to include a wider range of projects, potentially exploring underutilized DAMs and investigating the application of SCL's (2017) APvAB windows analysis method. An ethnographic study is proposed to gain a deeper understanding of the real-time knowledge and practices regarding DAM selection and use. The researchers also indicate that even though different DAMs may produce different results, it is the analyst's responsibility to clearly and persuasively justify and defend their chosen method and the ensuing analysis. The ultimate goal is to secure agreement from all parties involved in the dispute regarding the reasonableness of the delay impact evaluation.