when project delays occur, it’s crucial to substantiate the impact, whether it’s related to time, cost, or both. the choice of delay analysis method has long been debated in the industry, with each method offering distinct advantages and limitations. in this post, we’ll explore some of the most widely used delay analysis methods, helping you choose the best approach for your project needs.
common delay analysis methods
1. contemporaneous period analysis:
this method functions similarly to window analysis, utilizing multiple timeframe updates to assess the schedule. it provides a detailed and ongoing evaluation of delays, offering a nuanced understanding of their impact.
2. as-planned vs. as-built analysis:
by comparing the updated schedule against the baseline, this method effectively identifies project delays and their causes. it’s a straightforward approach that highlights deviations from the original plan.
3. retrospective time-impact analysis (tia):
tia is applied to an updated schedule where delay fragments are added to assess their effects. this method is particularly useful for understanding the specific impact of each delay on the overall project timeline.
4. impact as planned:
in this method, delays are introduced into the baseline schedule to predict the revised completion date. it’s an effective way to project future impacts based on current disruptions.
5. as-built analysis:
when no schedule is available, this method establishes a baseline using updates from project reports to determine the actual completion date. it’s a useful tool when historical data is limited.
6. collapsed as-built analysis:
this method reverses the typical approach by removing delays and working backward from the project’s end date. it’s an innovative way to understand the true impact of delays by assessing what the project completion would have looked like without them.
| project delay analysis method | pros | cons |
| contemporaneous period analysis | effectively incorporates the dynamics of scheduling and project execution processes. | not effective if schedule updates are not reliable. |
| as-planned vs. as-built analysis | simple to perform and easy to understand. | prone to manipulation if updates are ignored or inaccurately recorded. |
| retrospective time-impact analysis (tia) | offers increased consideration of project dynamics. | can alter the contemporaneous critical path, leading to potential inaccuracies. |
| impact as planned | straightforward to perform and comprehend. | often accounts for delays from only one party, potentially overlooking the full scope. |
| as-built analysis | useful when no formal schedule is available. | highly subjective and may misrepresent the true sequence of work. |
| collapsed as-built | appears to be a practical and logical approach. | neglects the planning sequence and the realities of the planning process. |
each of these methods offers unique insights into project delays, enabling you to make informed decisions on time and cost claims. selecting the right approach depends on your specific project circumstances and objectives.
learn how to use these methods, navigate limitations and more in our upcoming forensic schedule delay analysis live course:
