Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reveal the main causes of delays in the projects are from the client (relative importance index (RII)=0.716), labor and equipment (RII=0.701) and contractor (RII=0.698). Hence determining the contractual responsibility of delay is the most likely source of dispute in construction projects and many techniques have been used in the courts to demonstrate the criticalities of a delay event on the project schedule. Therefore, authors try to investigate all process-based techniques of delay claims and evaluated and conformed them with principles by Society of Construction Law (SCL) protocol and Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) in order to choose the best techniques based on the specific circumstances of each project.

This section is divided into two distinct parts: refers to the methods used to assess the perceptions of clients, consultants, and contractors on the relative importance of causes of delay in construction industry; and refers to advantages and disadvantages of various techniques used to analyze delays and their conform with SCL protocol. A questionnaire was developed to assess the perceptions of clients, consultants, and contractors on the relative importance of causes of delay in Iranian construction industry. The respondents were asked to indicate their response category on 78 well-recognized construction delay factors identified by authors.

In total, 78 causes of delay were identified through research. The identified causes are combined into seven groups. The field survey included 58 contractors, 55 consultants, and 62 client. Data collected were analyzed by RII and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The authors identified main causes of delay and ten most important causes, according to Table AII, from the perspective of three major groups of participants (clients, consultants and contractors). The ranking of categories of causes of delay, according to Table I, were: client-related causes (RII=0.716); labor and equipment category causes (RII=0.701); contractor-related causes (RII=0.698); material-related causes (RII=0.690); design-related causes (RII=0.666); external causes (RII=0.662); and consultant-related causes (RII=0.662). But according to the discussions and given that determining the contractual responsibility of delay is the most likely source of dispute in construction industry and many techniques have been used in the courts to demonstrate the criticalities of a delay event on the project schedule.

All process-based techniques of delay analysis have been present in this paper and categorized 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 project is one of the most important steps to carry out a successful delay analysis. The authors conformed, all process-based techniques of delay analysis, by SCL protocol and AACEI principles. Finally, the result of this match was brought in order to choose the best technique based on the specific circumstances of each project.

Almost all projects in the world are delayed, and sometimes even lead to the full bankruptcy of their beneficiaries. These delays can be calculated using techniques, but most importantly, there must be a fair and realistic division of delays between project beneficiaries. The most valid delay calculation techniques belong to the SCL Global Protocol, but they also have significant drawbacks, such as these: (1) They do not have the capability to prevent project delays (Delay Risk Management); (2) The protocol identifies and introduces any delays in activities with a ratio of one to one as a delay (Effective Delay); (3) It also does not offer the capability to share delays between stakeholders, which is a huge weakness. Floating in the base schedule activities is one of the cost control tools of projects, but it can hide project delays. In this paper, the researchers believe that the floating ownership belongs to the project and not belong to the stakeholders. This is the main tool for analyzing and sharing delays in this research.

The research methodology adopted included an extensive literature review, expert interviews, use of questionnaire and designing three innovative linked together models by researchers.

In this research, an integrated technique is introduced which has the following capabilities; delay risk control, result-based delay analysis and stakeholders delay sharing. This technique with an incursive and defensive approach implements claims management principles and calculates, respectively, non-attributable and attributable delays for each beneficiary.

This creativity led to the introduction of the Incursive and Defensive (In-De) technique; in the SCL protocol techniques, none of these capabilities exist.