Automation of The Net Working Duration Technique For Analysis of Construction Delays and Work Changes

IPASJ International Journal of Computer Science (IIJCS)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJCS/IIJCS.htm

Email: editoriijcs@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-5992
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2016
Automation of the net working duration technique

for analysis of construction delays and work
changes
Mostafa G. Elwishahi1, Adel I. Eldosouky2 , Haytham M. Sanad3
1
Demonstrator, Faculty of Engineering Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
Emeritus Professor of Construction Project Management, Faculty of Engineering Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
3
Lecturer of Construction Project Management, Faculty of Engineering Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
ABSTRACT
Delays and work changes is the most common problem in the construction industry. Many methods have been developed for
analysis of delays. In this research the net working duration based model is illustrated and automated with MS project using visual
basic for applications (VBA) programming language. The automated model can deal with real life project networks by reducing the
network into equivalent one with only paths affecting the analysis leading to less effort and cost for delay analysis. Viewpoints of
float ownership and concurrency of delays are major factors affecting the delay analysis results. A percentage method which deals
with multiple critical paths is used within the automated model instead of accounting for concurrency of delays. Also a suitable and
flexible concept of total float ownership is used with the automated model. Delay analysis using the automated model requires MS
project updated schedule, the baseline which represents project as-planned schedule, and liability of delays lying on the equivalent
network only. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate the model and a practical case study is used to compare the model results
with other methods. The automated model enables project participants to identify their responsibilities towards project delays and
work changes precisely.
Keywords:Construction management, Delay analysis, Concurrent delays, Automation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Delays happen in most construction projects, whether simple or complex. In construction, delay could be defined as the time
overrun either beyond the contract date or beyond the date that the parties agreed upon for delivery of a project [1].
Construction delays can be caused by owner (compensable delays) or contractor (non-excusable delays) or third party
(excusable), work changes can be made by the owner (increase / decrease of work) or contractor (acceleration / loss of
productivity). There are various methods for delay analysis. However, different analysis techniques provide different results
for the same circumstances depending on the time and resources available for the analysis and the availability of project
control documentation [2]. Also, delay analysis results can vary because of different viewpoints of total float ownership and
concurrency of delays.
The net working duration is one of the accepted delay analysis techniques. It is characterized by fair results, simple and
non-expensive analysis. This method was introduced by Antill and Woodhead [3]. In this method, the critical paths of the
as-built network is plotted and examined in turn to determine the net working duration for each path. The net working
duration of any path in the as-built network is calculated by deducting the delays and work changes lying on the path from
its total duration. The net working duration is the actual time in which all the activities along that path could have been
completed if there had been no delays affecting the path.
The primary critical path is an as-built critical path with the longest net working duration. The work could not have been
completed in less time than this, even if the delays had not occurred. Other parallel apparent critical paths with less net
working duration don't control the contract duration. The responsibility of each party for the contract delayed completion is
determined based on the inspection of the delays on primary critical path. Determination of the final primary critical path of
a project requires the completion of the project. Nevertheless, it is possible to perform the analysis at any stage through the
progress of the project by the examination of critical paths of the updated network to determine the net working duration of
each path in order to determine the primary critical path controlling the delay of the project. In this case, delay analysis
should be adjusted at the end of the project.
Volume 4 Issue 5 May 2016
Page 1


ISSN 2321-5992
Jrad [4] introduced a net working duration based model for analyzing delays and work changes. This model improved the
original method and used the percentage method in case of multiple primary critical path instead of accounting for
concurrency of delays. It also has the ability to deal with a real life project network with thousands of paths, by eliminating
ineffective paths that would not be needed for the analysis, thus reducing the project network to equivalent one in order to
minimize the time and effort needed for the analysis. For many years, researchers developed different techniques for delay
analysis, but none of them reduced the project network into equivalent one.
In this paper, automation of the net working duration model with commercial scheduling software is considered to enable
project parties to identify their responsibilities towards project delays in an easy to use and effective way. Microsoft office
project is the most appropriate software to be used in the automation of the model using the visual basic for applications
(VBA) programming language. Minimization of users effort for data entry is considered through model automation.
2. FLOAT OWNERSHIP
Total float is defined as the amount of time by which the early finish date of any activity may be delayed without delaying
completion of the project. The delay analysis results can vary, depending on the different positions concerning float
ownership [5]. Available total float ownership viewpoints are reviewed in Al-Gahtani [6] and Tsai, Wang, and Chang [7].
A recent study investigating the opinions of Taiwanese and Chinese construction participants on float ownership through a
questionnaire showed that clearly defining float ownership in the contract is a preference of the majority of participants [8].
In the present research, it is assumed that total float of the as-planned schedule belongs to the contractor and can be used to
cover non-excusable delays. If the contractor did not consume the whole value of total float, the remaining total float can be
used to cover compensable delays. If any total float is left after covering non-excusable and compensable delays, this part of
total float can be used to cover excusable delays. This assumption of total float ownership of the as-planned network gives
suitable flexibility to the owner to order changes, keeps right of contractor to use the float and reduce the likelihood of the
contractor submitting unrealistic construction plans.
3. CONCURRENT DELAYS
Concurrency is one of the major challenges and is a controversial issue confronted by delay analysts. The main reason for
this situation is the different definitions of concurrency and the different methods of calculating entitlements for the
extension of time (EOT) and for calculating damages [9]. There are many definitions for concurrent delay. Five definitions
of concurrent delays are given by AACE [10]. Concurrent delays are customarily described as two or more delays that occur
at the same time, either of which would cause a delay but if either of them had not occurred, the project schedule would
have been delayed by the other [11]. There is different points of view concerning the timing condition of delays to be
considered concurrent. Some definitions considered only delays within the exact period of time to be concurrent. Other
definitions considered delays to be concurrent if they just fall on parallel critical paths. Others classified delays to have
concurrent effect if their effects in whole or in part are at the same time.
There are different points of view of apportionment of concurrent delays. A table showing different researchers viewpoints
of apportionment can be found in Nguyen [11]. Generally, when a compensable delay is concurrent with an inexcusable
delay, one of two scenarios is used: (1) Easy rule [12] or contributory negligence [13]; time extension is given. (2) Fair
rule [12] or comparative negligence [13]; apportionment of days and/or dollars. However, a recent trend advocates an
equitable apportionment when compensable and inexcusable concurrent delays occur. A party causing less impact of
concurrent delays should be permitted to recover damages from the other [11].
Accurate dealing and recognition of concurrent delays requires accurate recognition of delays and correct locating for them
on activities which is then required to be done on a daily basis. According to Arditi and Robinson [14], there is a difficulty
of how the day delay is located in activity duration especially in case of lost productivity delay. The net working duration
based model which is automated in this paper solves this issue by dealing with multiple critical paths using percentage
method instead of accounting for concurrency of delays.
4. MODIFIED NET WORKING DURATION METHOD

According to Jrad [4] the net working duration technique gives incorrect results in case the net working duration of the
primary critical path is equal to or less than that of non-critical paths. This problem can be shown in the hypothetical
example shown in Fig 1, where parts a and b represent the as-planned and as-built schedules. According to the original net
working duration method, project delay analysis is based on primary critical path which is the path having longest net
working duration between as-built critical paths.
Page 2

ISSN 2321-5992

1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
(C)
(B)
(L)
(D)
(E)
(A)
(M)
(F)
(H)
(G)
(U)
1
(K)
(I)
(S)
(P)
7
O
(V)
a- as-planned schedule
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
(C)
(B)
(L)
(D)
(E)
(A)
C
(F)
(P)
N
(K)
(I)
OW OW
(G)
(U)
(M)
(H)
O
(S)
O O O O O
(V)
b- as-built schedule
Paths with longest net working duration: ABCDK and AFGHK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1st slack period
Slack path
2nd slack
O
(C)
period
(B)
L
(D)
N N
Redundant
E
O O O
M
Firm path
(A)
(K)
3rd slack period
C C C C C
(I)
Slack path
(F)
N N
OW OW
(H)
(G)
(U)
(P)
O
Redundant
C
O
O O O
Firm path
(S)
(V)
c- Slack periods, firm and slack paths of as-built schedule
O
(B)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Slack path
1st slack period
2nd slack
C C
(C)
period
(D)
N N O
(A)
Firm path
C C C
C
(F)
Legend :
non-critical
3rd slack period

Slack path
(H)
O O
(I)
OW OW
(G)
(P)
O
C
O O O
Firm path
(K)
(S)
critical O = compensable delay
C = Non-excusable delay N = Excusable delay

O W = Owner work change CW = Contractor work change
d- Representation of slack periods as delays on the equivalent network of example project
Figure 1Example project

Path A-F-P-S-K is the only as-built critical path of the project, thus it is the project primary critical path. It is clear that the
net working duration of primary critical path A-F-P-S-K (17 days) is less than the non-critical paths A-B-C-D-K (20 days)
and A-F-G-H-K (20 days). The analysis should be based on paths with the longest net working duration (both paths A-B-CD-K and A-F-G-H-K).
Paths A-B-C-D-K and A-F-G-H-K which shares the project delay responsibility have three slack periods; two days between
activities C and D, one day between activities D and K, and two days between activities H and K. Responsible party for each
slack period should be determined in order to determine project delay responsibility using these paths. The reason of each
slack period is a delay of a parallel path. The reason of the first slack period between activities C and D is the delay of
parallel firm path A-B-E-I which is caused by non-excusable delays. So, the first slack period is considered non-excusable
delay. By the same way, the reason of the second and third slack periods (between activities D and K and between activities
Page 3


ISSN 2321-5992
H and K) is the delay of parallel firm path A-F-P-S as shown in Fig 1.c.
The above discussion considered two types of paths for the analysis which are: (i) Slack paths; as-planned critical paths
turned to be non-critical in the as-built network where slack periods happen such as paths A-B-C-D-K and A-F-G-H-K in
Fig 1.c. (ii) Firm paths; paths of as-built schedule which are needed to determine the responsibility for slack periods. These
paths dont have any slack period and including as-built critical paths such as paths A-B-E-I and A-F-P-S in Fig 1.c.
The slack period is a time interval in the as-built schedule created between two sequential as-planned critical activities. The
value of each slack period is presented by a delay caused by delays on the parallel firm path.
Analysis of the modified net working duration method determines the responsibility of each party for the contract delayed
completion based on delays on the primary path(s) which are the path(s) with the longest net working duration of both firm
and slack paths. The method consist of three steps: (1) Equivalent network formation. (2) Slack period responsibility
calculations. (3) Percentage method calculations (dealing with multiple primary paths).
4.1 Equivalent Network for Modified Net Working Duration Analysis
Project network may contain thousands of paths, most of these paths are redundant and do not affect the analysis. Thus, Jrad
[4] proposed a technique to reduce the project network to an equivalent one based on the linear graph theory. The new
equivalent network contains only effective paths for the analysis, which are:
(1) As-planned critical paths. These paths are the primary paths of the project. Slack periods may (or may not) be found
between activities of these paths.
(2) Apparent critical paths whose durations are equal to as-built project duration. In this paper, the definition of these paths
is modified to be as-built firm paths: paths without slack periods which are needed to determine the responsibility for slack
periods. These paths include as-built critical paths.
Other paths are redundant and can be eliminated in order to obtain an equivalent network, which contains the effective
paths only. For the example project shown in Fig 1, as-planned critical paths are A-B-C-D-K and A-F-G-H-K, firm paths
are A-B-E-I and A-F-P-S. Activities L, M, U, and V dont belong to these paths, then they are eliminated, Fig 1.d shows the
as-built schedule after elimination of these activities.
The importance of using the equivalent network in the manual solution is to simplify the analysis. The main advantage for
the automated solution is reduction of users effort for data entry to the program. Data which is needed to form the
equivalent network is the as-planned schedule (MS project baseline) and the actual start and finish dates for each activity
(MS project updated schedule) without definition of the responsible parties for any activity that has increase of as-built
duration than as-planned duration. The responsibilities of delays are assigned to activities of the equivalent network only
after its formation. Responsible parties for delays on activities L, M, U, and V are not needed to be defined for the example
project in Fig 1.
4.2 Slack Period Responsibility Calculations
The paths of the equivalent network are firm and slack paths. Slack paths contain slack periods. It is required to determine
the responsibility of slack periods and represent them as delays. A slack period happens when the as-planned critical path
(slack path) is delayed by another firm path on the as-built schedule. Jrad [4] introduced the principles for calculating the
responsibilities of slack periods. These principles are based on assigning the responsibility for the slack period to the party
who delayed the firm path beyond delay of the parallel slack path. According to Jrad, the principles considered for
analyzing the slack period are:
1- The difference between values of each type of delays on a slack and parallel firm paths are:
R1 =O1 O2
(1)
R2 =C1 C2 (2)
R3 =N1 N2
(3)
Where, R1, R2, and R3 are the differences between compensable, non-excusable, excusable delays on firm and slack paths
respectively. C1, O1, and N1 are summation of non-excusable, compensable, and excusable delays on a firm path
respectively. Also C2, O2, and N2 are summation of non-excusable, compensable, and excusable delays on a slack path
respectively. It should be noted that delays of firm path C1, O1, and N1 are the values after the subtraction of the as-planned
total float (considering the assumptions of total float ownership) and they are the values of the firm path which has the least
as-planned total float among all firm paths (in case of many firm paths linked to a considered activity).
2- Responsibility of delays on a slack path is determined based on maximum value of R1, R2, and R3.
Note that work changes caused by the owner or contractor will be added to summation of compensable or non-excusable
delays on both firm and slack paths; (O1, C1, O2, and C2).
Applying these principles to the example project in Fig 1; () The first slack period; R1= 0 1 = -1, R2= (5 2) 0 = 3,
R3= 0 0 = 0; R2 is the highest value. Then, the first day of the first slack period is represented as non-excusable delay.
Delay differences for the second day; R1= 0 1 = -1, R2= (5 2) 1 = 2, R3= 0 0 = 0; R2 is the highest value. Then, the
Page 4


ISSN 2321-5992
second day of the first slack period is represented as non-excusable delay. () The second slack period; R1= (5 1) 2 = 2,
R2= (1 1) 0 = 0, R3= 2 2 = 0; R1 is the highest value. Then, the second slack period is represented as compensable
delay. It is noted that as-planned total float of firm path is 2 days which are used to reduce C1 to be zero instead of one day,
then the remaining one day of total float is used to reduce O1 to be 4 days instead of 5 days. In the same way the third slack
period is represented as compensable delays. Representation of slack periods as delays for the example project is shown in
Fig 1.d.
4.3 Percentage Method Calculations In Case Of Multiple Primary Paths
Jrad [4] suggested a new method to analyze delays and work changes on multiple primary critical paths instead of the
known concepts of concurrent delays. In this method, the percentage of summation of any type of delays lying on all
primary critical paths and summation of all types of delays lying on all primary critical paths is calculated. This percentage
represents the responsibility of the considered type of delays towards total project delay. The percentage for each type of
delays will be calculated using Eq 4. The responsibility of each party towards total project delay is determined using Eq 5.
D% =
(4)
D = D% * TD
(5)
Where, D% is the percentage of the considered type of delay towards total project delay. D is number of days with
responsibility assigned to the party with percentage D% of project delay and TD is total project delay.
Applying the percentage method to the example project; Owner percentage = 6/12, owner delay
= 6 * 6/12 = 3 days. Contractor percentage = 2/12, contractor delay = 6 * 2/12 = 1 days. Third party percentage = 4/12,
third party delay = 6 * 4/12 = 2 days.
It is obvious that the percentage method solved the issue of locating the days of delays along activity duration especially in
case of lost productivity by dealing with network paths instead of determining location of delay on the activity and then
investigating whether the delay is concurrent or not. Also the method considered each delay on all critical paths and gave
the party causing more delays on critical paths higher responsibility towards project delay instead of giving time extension
only or giving equal liability for parties causing a concurrent delay. The method is simple and easy to be used and can be
considered as a development of the fair rule because the method uses the apportionment of delays on critical paths.
5. AUTOMATION OF THE MODIFIED NET WORKING DURATION METHOD

The steps of the modified net working duration model are automated using three VBA macros added to MS project using its
embedded visual basic editor to enable its users to analyze project delays and work changes. The first macro is just an
extraction of data from MS project updated schedule and baseline. The second macro is the equivalent network formation
(the first step of the model). The third macro contains slack period responsibility calculations and analysis of delays with the
use of percentage method in case of multiple primary paths (the second and third steps of the model). Automation of the
model using these macros is illustrated besides its application on the example project shown in Fig 1.
The assumptions of the model are: (1) All logical relationships between activities are finish to start zero lag. (2) As-built
duration for each activity must contain all the delays and work changes for the activity to be used for as-built schedule
analysis in order to determine as-built critical activities. (3) Total float of the as-planned schedule is treated as discussed in
section 2.
5.1 The First Macro; Prepare Data for Analysis
MS project columns for Duration1 and Duration2 are used to store activities as-planned and as-built durations extracted
from MS project baseline and updated schedule. These two columns are renamed to be as-planned duration and as-built
duration, respectively.
The as-planned schedule of the example project of Fig 1.a is entered to MS project and then it is set as baseline. Activities
actual start and finish dates from Fig 1.b are used to update the project. Then the first macro is applied, columns of
extracted data are shown in Fig 2. Columns of as-planned and as-built durations are editable and can be used for data entry
for the program.
5.2 The Second Macro; Equivalent Network Formation
Steps for redundant path elimination are: (1) Perform network analysis using activities as-planned durations. (2) Mark asplanned critical activities and store activities as-planned total float. (3) Perform network analysis using activities as-built
durations. (4) Force marked activities to be critical on as-built network then re-analyze network and all firm paths will be
critical. (5) Inactivate any non-critical activity (activities which dont belong to either as-planned critical or as-built firm
paths). These steps are based on using the data which is stored in MS project columns of Duration 1 and Duration2.
Page 5


ISSN 2321-5992
Marking as-planned critical activities in step 2 is performed by giving a value of 1 in column Number11 for critical
activities instead of 0 for non-critical activities. Column Duration 3 is used to store activities as-planned total float. Forcing
marked activities to be critical in step 4 is performed using MS project by assignment of a (temporary) start on constrain to
each marked activity start date. As a result of adding constrains and re-scheduling the project, activities which belong to asplanned critical path(s) or as-built firm path(s) (including as-built critical path) are critical. Inactivation for activities in step
5 is an option by MS project to omit the activity from the analysis without losing its data. Flow chart for equivalent network
formation is given by Elwishahi [15].
Applying these steps on the example project; activities A, B, C, D, and K are determined as critical activities and then
marked [steps 1 and 2]. These activities are forced to be critical in their timings of as-built schedule. By re-scheduling the
project, activities of firm paths; E, I, F, P, and S are critical beside marked activities [steps 3 and 4]. Activities L, M, U, and
V are non-critical then inactivated [step5].
At the end of the second macro, five columns are added for purpose of entry of delays and work changes in MS project. The
five columns are number1, number2, number3, number4 and number5 which are renamed to be Owner work change,
Contractor work change and Owner (O), Contractor (C), and Neither (N) delays respectively. Delays responsibilities are
assigned to active activities only (equivalent network activities) in order to reduce the users effort for data entry. The
assigned delays using MS project added columns are viewed within the results of the application of the second macro on the
example project as shown in Fig 3.
Figure 2 Example project after application of the first macro (prepare data for analysis)
Figure 3Example project after application of the second macro and entry of activities delays responsibilities
Page 6

ISSN 2321-5992
5.3 The Third Macro; Slack Period Computations and Analysis of Delays
Slack period computations and delay analysis are network paths based analysis. Therefore, it is needed to represent the
equivalent network as a set of all possible paths. Thus the third macro contains the following steps: (1) Defining equivalent
network as paths (path matrix formation). (2) Slack period computations. (3) Analysis of delays.
5.3.1 Defining Equivalent Network as Paths (Path Matrix Formation)
The representation of the equivalent network paths is done using a zero one adjacency matrix which describes the
graphical structure of the network. The matrix has rows and columns, the rows represent network paths and the columns
represent activities (network nodes). If the activity (network node) belongs to the path (row), value 1 is given in the node
column, otherwise value 0 is given. The path matrix for the example project equivalent network which defines its four
paths; ABCDK, AFGHK, ABEIDK, and AFPSK is shown in table 1 where, the order of the activities which are the
columns of the path matrix describes the direction of logical relationships between network nodes. In order to arrange
activities in this order, a serial of sequential numbers from 1 to the number of equivalent network activities are used as new
IDs for activities which is called activities sequence IDs. These IDs are assigned to activities in increasing order
according to activities positions from the start to the end of the network which is defined using activities sequence step
numbers. These step numbers are logical relationships based order for the network and can be defined as the earliest logical
position in the network that an activity can occupy while maintaining its proper dependencies [16]. Fig 4 shows activities
sequence IDs and step numbers for the equivalent network of the example project.
Activity
Sequence ID
Path1
Path2
Path3
Path4
A
1
1
1
1
1
Step 1
Table 1: Path matrix of example project

B
F
C
E
G
P
I
H
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
A
1
F
3
D
11
1
0
1
0
K
12
1
1
1
1
Step 5
C
4
B
2
S
10
0
0
0
1
Step 6
E
5
I
8
G
6
H
9
P
7
S
10
D
11
K
12
Legend:
Activity
Sequence ID
Figure 4 Activities sequence IDs and step numbers for example project equivalent network
Path matrix is represented by two dimensional array for visual basic language which is defined as:
1 if activity i belongs to path j
j = 1, 2, ., PN
P(j, i) =
i= 1, 2, ..,N
0 otherwise
(6)
Where, i is activity sequence ID, j is path number, N is number of activities in the network, and PN is number of paths of
the network.
It is noted that activities sequence ID is not activities original ID given and shown by MS project, but it is the ID used for
path matrix formation and any related calculations. Therefore, any data needed for rest of the analysis of each activity of the
equivalent network is stored as arrays of its sequence ID. The path matrix is defined using array P(j, i) through the
following steps; (1) Calculate activities step numbers in MS project column Number7. (2) Calculate activities sequence IDs
in MS project column of Number6. (3) Represent MS project data of each activity step number, number of successors,
logical relationships represented by identifying each successor of the activity, activity assigned delays, activity assigned
work changes, actual start, actual finish, and as-planned total float as VBA arrays of activitiy sequence ID. (4) Determine
number of paths of the equivalent network. (5) Identify the path matrix from the start to the end of the network using step
numbers and activities successors. Flow chart for path matrix generation is given by Elwishahi [15].
Page 7


ISSN 2321-5992
5.3.2 Slack Period Computations

.General steps for slack periods responsibility analysis are:
1. Determine as-planned critical paths, where slack periods may exist.
2. Check the existence of slack period on each as-planned critical path: (2.1) Consider each as-planned critical path on the
path matrix. Consider path cj. (2.2) Consider each two immediately succeeding activities a and b on path cj. It should be
noted that activity b is a predecessor to activity a. (2.3) If the difference between actual start of activity a and actual finish of
activity b is higher than zero, then a slack period is identified between b and a, and continue steps 3, 4, and 5 to determine
the responsible party. Otherwise, continue checking activities on path cj for existence of slack periods.
3. Study the firm paths connected to the considered slack period: (3.1) The firm paths for the considered slack period are
paths ending with activity a where predecessors of activity a on these paths are different from activity b. Store these firm
paths. (3.2) Determine the earliest activity connecting considered slack path cj and considered firm path jj; (activity II(jj)); it
may be first activity of the network. (3.3) Check that each firm path jj has no slack periods on it between activities a and
II(jj). (3.4) Determine as-planned total float of the considered firm path as the maximum total float of activities lying
between activities a and II(jj). (3.5) In case of multiple firm paths, determine the firm path having the least as-planned total
float; path fj. (3.6) Calculate summation of each type of delays and work changes on all activities of chosen firm path fj.
(3.7) Reduce summation of delays by total float of path fj according to float ownership rules mentioned in the assumptions
of the model. Get O1, Cl, and N1.
4. Calculate summation of each type of delays and work changes on all activities on the considered slack path cj. Get O2,
C2, and N2. This is because the studied part of the network to analyze the slack period is between activity II(fj) and activity
a where firm and slack paths are parallel.
5. Determine the responsibility for each day of the slack period: (5.1) Calculate the difference between each type of delays
on the firm and parallel slack path; R1, R2, and R3. (5.2) Determine the maximum value; M of R1, R2, and R3. The
responsibility for the considered day of slack period is determined based on the value M.
Where, C1, O1, and N1 are summation of non-excusable, compensable, and excusable delays on firm path. C2, O2, and N2
are summation of non-excusable, compensable, and excusable delays on a slack path. R1, R2, and R3 are the differences
between compensable, non-excusable, and excusable delays between firm and slack paths, respectively. Work changes
caused by the owner and contractor are added to relative summation of delays on firm and slack paths. Flow charts for
general and detailed steps for slack period responsibility analysis are given by Elwishahi [15].
5.3.3 Analysis of delays
The final step is to determine each party responsibility towards project delay using the net working duration method, by
determination of primary path(s) and accounting delays lying on these path(s) and using percentage method in case of
multiple primary paths.Primary path(s) is (are) the paths with the longest net working duration, delays on primary path(s)
determine the responsibility of each party towards delayed project completion. The net working duration of each path j;
WD(j) is determined by summing up its activities as-built durations after the subtraction of all delays and work changes
lying on them, and then the primary path(s) is (are) the path(s) with the longest networking duration. A zero-one array
pcp(j) is used to define whether the path j is primary or not. If the considered path is primary, then pcp(j) = 1 ,otherwise
pcp(j) = 0. Number of primary paths; NPP is calculated to determine whether the network has single or multiple primary
paths. In case of single primary path; NPP = 1, responsibilities towards project delay are found by summing up each type of
delays and work changes lying on this path. In case of multiple primary paths; NPP > 1, the analysis is continued using the
percentage method; responsibilities towards project delay are found using Eq 7 to. Eq 12.
CD` = SCD / (SCD + SND + SED) * (PAF PPF)
ND` = SND / (SCD + SND + SED) * (PAF PPF)
ED` = SED / (SCD + SND + SED) * (PAF PPF)
SCD =
* {DO(i) + WO(i) + SPO(j, i)}}
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
SND =
* {DC(i) + WC(i) + SPC(j, i)}}
(11)
SED =
* {DN(i) + SPN(j, i)}}
(12)
Where, CD`, ND`, and ED` are compensable, non-excusable, and excusable delays of the project, SCD, SND, and SED are
summations of compensable, non-excusable, and excusable delays on all primary paths. PAF and PPF are project actual and
as-planned finish dates. pcp(j) array which defines whether path j is primary pcp(j)=1 or not pcp(j)=0. DO(i), DC(i), and
DN(i) are compensable, non-excusable, and excusable delays of activity i. SPO(j, i), SPC(j, i), and SPN(j, i) are
Page 8

ISSN 2321-5992
compensable, non-excusable, and excusable slack periods on activity i of path j. WC, and WO are contractor, and owner
caused work changes. Respectively.
Flow chart of calculations of the responsibility of parties towards project delay and VBA codes for the three macros are
given by Elwishahi [15]. Applying the third macro to the example project, the results are given in message box which is
shown in Fig 5.
Figure5Example project delay analysis results
6. DELAY ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES COMPARISON - CASE STUDY

The case study used by Al-Gahtani and Mohan [17] for comparison between delay analysis techniques is solved by the
automated model to compare its results with other methods. As-planned CPM schedule of the case study is shown in Fig 6,
the as-built bar chart is shown in Fig 7. According to Al-Gahtani and Mohan [17], the case study has most types of delay
and acceleration events that might be faced on a real project. The results of applying the automated model to the case study
added to the results given by Al-Gahtani and Mohan [17] are shown in table 2.
0
0
start 0
0
0
Legend:
Early start
Early finish
Activity ID Original Duration
Late start
Late finish
0
A
0
7
7
7
7
B
7
17
10
17
17
C
17
30
13
30
0
D
0
10
10
10
10
E
10
22
12
22
22
F
22
30
8
30
0
G
5
8
8
13
8
H
13
16
8
21
16
I
21
25
9
30
30
J
30
38
8
38
0
K
7
9
9
16
9
L
16
17
8
24
17
M
24
23
6
30
23
N
30
31
8
38
9
O
19
16
7
26
16
P
26
20
4
30
38 38
Finish 0
38 38
Figure 6As-planned CPM schedule of the case study

1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
(A)
(B)
(B)
2 Days contractor accleration
(D)
(C)
(E)
(E)
(J)
(G)
(H)
(J)
(K)
O = compensable delay
C = Non-excusable delay
N = Excusable delay
(F)
C
Legend:
2 Days owner
acceleration
(I)
(L)
(L)
(O)
(M)
(P)
75% increase of work

(3 days owner change order)
(N)
Figure 7As-built bar chart of the case study
Page 9

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ISSN 2321-5992
Table 2: Results of different delay analysis techniques of case study

Project Delays (Days)
Delay Analysis Technique
Notes
Compensable Non-excusable Excusable
Global Impact
12
18
8
As-Planned (Gross of Measure)
4
9
3
As-Planned (Unite of Measure)
4
8
3
As-Built
4
6
3
Impacted As-Planned
4
0
3
Time Impact
4
9
3
But For (Gross of Measure)
0
5
3
But For (Unite of Measure)
0
6
3
Isolated Delay Time (IDT)
6
9
Window/Snapshot
5
7
3
Window/But For
3
5
3
6 and 2 days owner and
TF Management (Easy-Rule)
2
3
3
contractor total float
TF Management (Fair-Rule)
3
4
3
consumption
Automated model (Modified
1
6
3
Net Working Duration)
The results of Table 2 shows that the automated model gives the most accurate and fair results, it gives exact identification
of the responsibility of 10 days delay which is the project total delay, besides its effort reduction caused by assignments of
delays only to activities of the equivalent network which is not available by other methods.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The net working duration based model has been reviewed and automated with MS project using its built-in VBA
programming language. The automated model gives fair and accurate analysis of delays. The model uses a suitable and
flexible concept of total float ownership and uses the percentage method which deals with multiple critical paths instead of
accounting for concurrency of delays. The model has the ability to deal with real life large project networks by reducing the
project network into an equivalent one with less number of activities. Formation of that equivalent network requires MS
project baseline and updated schedule which are mainly available data to start the analysis, and then liabilities for only the
delays lying on activities of the equivalent network are required which lead to less users effort.
Automation of the model with MS project is illustrated using an example project. A practical case study is used to compare
the results of the model with other delay analysis methods results. The automated model enables construction practitioners
to identify their responsibilities towards project delays in an easy and effective way and made the analysis of delays and
work changes easier and costless.
References
[1] S. A. Assaf, S. Al-Hejji,Causes of delay in large construction projects, International Journal of Project Management,
24(4), 357-349, 2006.
[2] W. Menesi, Construction Delay Analysis under Multiple Baseline Updates,MASc Thesis, University of Waterloo,
Canada, 2007.
[3] J. M. Antill, R. W. Woodhead, Critical path methods in construction practice, Wiley Interscience Publication,New
York, 1982.
[4] F. A. Jrad, Analysis of Delays and Work Changes in Construction Networks, PHD Dissertation, faculty of engineering
Tanta University, Egypt, 2004.
[5] D. Arditi, T.Pattanakitchamroon,Selecting a delay analysis method in resolving construction claims, International
Journal of Project Management, 24(2): 145-155, 2006.
[6] K. S. Al-Gahtani, A comprehensive construction delay analysis technique: Enhanced with a float ownership
concept,PHD Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA, 2006.
[7] Tsai, Wang, Chang,Criticality index delay analysis method based on float allocation, Journal of the Chinese Institute
of Engineers, 10.1080/02533839.2015.1037350, 887-896, 2015.
[8] Wang, Fan, Tsai, Chang,A comparison of float ownership issues for construction projects between Taiwan and
China, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 69-77 DOI: 10.6119/JMST-014-0110-2, 2015.
Page 10


ISSN 2321-5992
[9] M. Abu-Osbeh, Integrated Forensic Delay Analysis Framework for Construction Projects Time and Cost Perspectives,
PhD thesis, Concordia University, Canada; 2011.
[10] American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE), AACE International recommended practice 29R-03: forensic
schedule analysis practice guide, Morgantown, WV, 2011.
[11] L. D. Nguyen, The Dynamics of Float, Logic, Resource Allocation, and Delay Timing in Forensic Schedule Analysis
and Construction Delay Claims, PHD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 2007.
[12] Z. M. Kraiem, J. E.Diekmann, J E,Concurrent delays in construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management ASCE, 113(4), 591-602, 1987.
[13] F. J. Hughes, J. K. Ulwelling, True concurrent delays and a proposed rule of law for apportioning damages for delay
arising therefrom, Francis J. Hughes, 33p; 1992.
[14] D. Arditi, M. A. Robinson,Concurrent delays in construction litigation, Cost Engineering AACE, 37(7), 20-30, 1995.
[15] M. G. Elwishahi, Automation of the net-working duration technique for delay analysis with Microsoft project, MASc
Thesis, faculty of engineering Tanta University, Egypt, 2016.
[16] R. B. Harris, Precedence and arrow networking techniques for construction, John Willey and Sons, New York, 1978.
[17] K. S. Al-Gahtani, S. B. Mohan,Delay Analysis Techniques Comparison, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, ISSN 1934-7359, USA, Volume 5, No. 8 (Serial No. 45); 740-747, 2011.
Page 11

Automation of The Net Working Duration Technique For Analysis of Construction Delays and Work Changes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Automation of The Net Working Duration Technique For Analysis of Construction Delays and Work Changes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPASJ International Journal of Computer Science (IIJCS)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJCS/IIJCS.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation ........

Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2016