Decision-making model for selecting the optimum method of delay analysis in construction projects

Abstract

In construction, delay claims resolution is at the center of apportioning liabilities between the claiming party and the defending party. This process generally consists of two phases of causation: (1) establishing each party's potential liability for the claimed occurrence; and (2) determining the quantum of the effect flowing from that liability. However, a lack of consensus among the practitioners of disputing parties as a result of the existence of various theories, concepts, and methodologies for apportioning liabilities has been acknowledged as an obstructing factor in delay claims resolution. When determining the quantum of the effects flowing from a liability, one potential main obstacle in apportioning liabilities is the existing dichotomous use of method of delay analysis (MDA), which can be responsible for the inconsistent outcomes of delay analyses and result in distrust among the disputing parties. Aiming to address this problem, the research project was set to develop a decision making model (DMM) to support practitioners in this matter. Following its validation, the developed DMM enhances fairness and transparency in apportioning liabilities, hence overcoming possible skepticism about the impartiality of the chosen MDA. Addressing the current need for an objective way to select the MDA, this DMM has made a contribution to the body of knowledge of construction engineering, particularly in the claims management aspects, by providing a novel tool that can be considered objective, reliable, and defendable for selecting the optimum MDA under the given circumstances of a construction project, and therefore minimizing the potential of conflict and disputes in apportioning delays' liabilities.