Analysis of Causes of Delay and Time

Performance in Construction Projects

Pablo González 1; Vicente González, Ph.D. 2;
Keith Molenaar, Ph.D., M.ASCE 3; and Francisco Orozco, Ph.D. 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Activity delays are a common issue in the construction industry and can increase project schedules and costs. Recent research
efforts have focused on the quantitative evaluation of delay impacts. The literature suggests that the construction industry is in need of
additional research to systematically relate the causes of delays to their impacts. To overcome this limitation, this paper analyzes delay
causes in activities that were not completed as scheduled. The paper contributes to a methodology to examine the qualitative (delay causes)
and quantitative (time performance) dimensions of the delay issue. The paper proposes two indicators, as follows: (1) reason for noncom-
pliance (RNC) as an indicator that characterizes scheduling failures, and (2) delay index (DI) as a time-performance indicator that describes
the impacts of delay on critical and noncritical activities. The paper presents two building projects as case studies, with planning and sub-
contractors as the primary RNCs that have the greatest impact on time performance. Planning was the most harmful delay cause on time
performance. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000721. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Project management; Delay time; Construction management; Scheduling; Costs.
Author keywords: Activity delays; Project planning; Reasons for noncompliance; Relationship; Time performance; Cost and schedule.

Introduction be understood as those problems that prevent the normal activity

Activity delays can negatively affect several dimensions of
construction-project performance. Delays can lengthen schedules,
increase project costs, and jeopardize quality and safety. Delays are
one of the most common problems that affect the competitiveness
of construction companies (Orozco et al. 2011) and the interests of
all stakeholders, including owners, designers, general contractors,
subcontractors, users, and others (Faridi and El-Sayegh 2006).
The first step in identifying existing problems in projects and
developing corrective actions is to determine their causes (Chang
2002). It is not only relevant to quantify delay impacts on perfor-
mance but also to identify the primary causes of such delays to
mitigate their effects. Delay analysis in construction has been pri-
marily focused on the quantitative impact on the time performance
of projects, leaving little room to address the qualitative dimension
of delays in terms of their causes. In this regard, the writers argue
that an approach based on the study of the causes of scheduling
failure (i.e., to analyze causes of delay) could help support the
qualitative dimension for delay analysis. Scheduling failures can
1 ects to analyze the relationships between these dimensions.
M.Sc., Director of Operations, Resinsa–Polytan, Santiago 7630628,
Chile. E-mail: operaciones@resinsa.com
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand (corresponding author). E-mail:
v.gonzalez@auckland.ac.nz
3
Stanton Lewis Chair and Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and
Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428.
E-mail: keith.molenaar@colorado.edu
4
Assistant Professor, Faculty, Escuela de Ingeniería, Univ. Panamericana
Campus Guadalajara, Guadalajara 45010, México. E-mail: faorozco@up
.edu.mx
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 7, 2012; approved on
March 29, 2013; published online on April 3, 2013. Discussion period open
until January 20, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/04013027(9)/$25.00.
progress as planned at the operational level and provoke activity
delays. According to Alarcón et al. (2005), field interference, lack
of labor, subcontractor delays, design changes and delays, and lack
of materials are among the reasons that cause these problems.
These reasons can correspond with different project team members
such as owners, designers, general contractors, subcontractors, and
materials suppliers. However, more research about the relationships
between delay causes and their impacts in terms of time perfor-
mance is needed. This paper explicitly examines these relationships
and attempts to link qualitative (delay causes) and quantitative
(time performance) dimensions.
This paper proposes two indicators that can describe delay
impacts on critical and noncritical activities. The first indicator,
reasons for noncompliance (RNC), is a delay indicator that char-
acterizes the primary causes or reasons for the noncompletion of
activities as planned in a project that result in scheduling failures
(Ballard 2000). The second indicator, a delay index (DI), is a time-
performance indicator. The writers argue that these indicators cover
the qualitative (i.e., RNC) and quantitative (i.e., DI) dimensions of
delays, and the writers applied these indicators in case study proj-
The subsequent sections describe the research objectives and
methodology reported in this paper, present relevant literature, dis-
cuss the approach used to relate delay causes and their time im-
pacts, and analyze and discuss the primary findings of this paper.
Research Objectives and Scope
The primary objective of this paper is to analyze the relationships
between delay causes and their impacts on time performance in
projects by studying the quantitative influence of RNCs relative
to construction delays characterized by DI. Delay analysis in this
paper is first developed at an activity level (over critical and non-
critical activities) and then at a project level. A secondary objective

© ASCE 04013027-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

 is to develop a preliminary methodology for addressing the delay-
cause and impact relationship. In this regard, the contribution of
this paper relies on linking the quantitative and qualitative dimen-
sions of delays such that root-cause impacts can be mitigated. This
paper does not propose a new method to quantify delays, but it
furthers the understanding of delays as they contribute to this com-
plex problem.
Research Methodology
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This research applies a case-study approach (Yin 1994) with an
in-depth statistical analyses of data obtained from two building
projects. Indicators used in the research reported in this paper ex-
amine the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of delay issues as
follows: (1) the qualitative dimension analyzes RNCs of delay
causes at the activity level, and (2) in the quantitative dimension,
the DI is applied to evaluate the activity-delay impact of the RNCs.
These indicators are aggregated to obtain information at the project
level. On-site data collection for this analysis was exhaustive and
involved gathering a large amount of empirical evidence from the
two case study projects. Special attention was given to the meas-
urement process for estimating activity delays through DI.
The research methodology consisted of five stages, as follows:
(1) an in-depth review of the literature related to project delays,
(2) definition of indicators for evaluating the qualitative and quan-
titative dimensions of delays, (3) development of a methodology
for linking the qualitative and quantitative indicators, (4) applying
the proposed methodology in two building-project cases, and
(5) analyzing and discussing the primary findings of the research
reported in this paper with project personnel.
Background
Time is a traditional index for project performance that is typically
measured by schedules. The actual time of project completion fre-
quently exceeds the planned time, commonly known as a delay or
overrun. Projects consist of collections of activities and delays can
be assessed at the activity or project level. At the activity level,
delays can affect completion of activities, which may or may not
have an impact on succeeding activities. At the project level, analy-
sis typically focuses on the impact of activity delays relative to
project completion (Shi et al. 2001). This section addresses several
issues related to delays in terms of the importance of delay, inci-
dence in the construction industry, and causes for delays. This re-
view explores available quantification methods, suggests that a
method to systematically relate the magnitude of a delay to its spe-
cific causes during the project control phase is unavailable, and also
suggests that incremental research is needed. The section concludes
with an exploration of the role of an RNC indicator.
Review of Delay Impacts on Construction
At the project level, time is frequently used to control performance
and its importance can directly affect economic issues (Alwi and
Hampson 2003; Bramble and Callahan 1992; Lyer and Jha 2006).
Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) developed a relevant study that sampled 248
infrastructure projects from 20 nations around the world over a
period of 70 years, finding “with very high statistical significance,
that cost escalation was strongly dependent on the length of the
implementation phase.” Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) also concluded that
cost escalation is even worse in developing countries than in
Europe and the United States.
© ASCE 04013027-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027
Delays are also a common problem and an increasing concern
in the construction industry, according to studies about project
delays in countries such as Chile, Hong Kong, India, the United
States, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Nigeria, and Ghana
(Alarcón et al. 2001; Assaf et al. 1995; Augustine and Mangwat
2001; Ellis and Thomas 2003; Fereig 2006; Frimponga et al.
2003; Koushki et al. 2005; Kumaraswamy and Chan 1998; Lyer
and Jha 2006; Toor and Ogulana 2008; Odeh and Battaineg 2002).
In some cases, the magnitude of the problem can be substantial. For
instance, Lyer and Jha (2006) reported that 40% of 646 national
projects in the Indian construction industry were approximately
40% behind schedule. In Chile, a sample of 34 projects showed
an average schedule delay of nearly 20% (Alarcón et al. 2001).
Delay Causes
Research into the causes of project delay is available from several
sources in the construction industry and provides valuable qualitative
information about the reasons of delays. A large part of the research
involved the collection of data from owners (public and private),
general contractors, subcontractors and specialists. Sources for the
information include quantitative project data, case studies, surveys,
and interviews. For example, in Kuwait a survey of construction
companies was used to determine the primary causes of delays
(Fereig 2006), and in Honk Kong, surveys, interviews, and case stud-
ies were used (Lo et al. 2006). In the United States, Ellis and Thomas
(2003) incorporated quantitative analysis in their study of the delay
issue. One of the most interesting conclusions from these delay stud-
ies is that the primary causes appear to cluster around management
issues and the project environment (Abdullah and Koskela 2008).
The writers argue that this conclusion warrants additional research
to address current management practices and negative delay impacts,
and provides motivation for the research described in this paper.
Quantification of Delay
The need for quantification of delays is apparent during construc-
tion for project control and postconstruction for claims analysis.
For project control, the literature generally applies three approaches
to quantify delays, as follows: (1) critical-path method (CPM) tech-
niques, (2) scheduling resource allocation, and (3) earned-value
analysis. CPM is a standard tool for control (Galloway 2006) that
is the basis for scheduling resource allocation. These two tech-
niques are combined to produce earned-value analyses (Liberatore
et al. 2001; Anbari 2003).
Claims analysis uses various techniques to calculate delays.
These are based largely on the use of CPM schedules in addi-
tion to maintenance of effective documentation and availability of
information (Kartam 1999; Adhikaril et al. 2006; Youngjae et al.
2005). The typical methods cited in the literature are as follows:
(1) as-planned versus as-built method, (2) global impact technique,
(3) as-planned technique, (4) impacted as-planned technique, (5) net-
impact technique, (6) time-impact analysis technique, (7) but-for,
(8) isolated delay-type technique, (9) snapshot technique, (10) win-
dows analysis, and (11) simulation (Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon
2006; Braimah and Ndekugri 2008; Bubshait and Cunningham
1998; Kao and Yang 2008; Alkass et al. 1996). More advanced tech-
niques such as simulation, fuzzy logic, or expert systems can also be
used to quantify delays in projects (Marzouk et al. 2008; Ordoñez and
Robinson 2005; Peña-Mora et al. 2008).
In summary, the importance of delays primarily lies in its cost
implications in addition to its effects on other activities and project
completion. Several methods focus on either the qualitative or
quantitative dimensions of delays with different emphasis, scope,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 and research approaches. However, formal methods to link their
qualitative and quantitative dimensions are not apparent. The next
section proposes a methodology to help deal with the previously
noted limitations in the analysis of delays.
Reasons for Noncompliance and Activity Delays
The reasons for nonompliance represent causes that prevent the
scheduled completion of an activity during a short-term period, typ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
slack (or float). Any delay to a critical activity will produce a delay
in the project’s final completion date. A noncritical activity has
slack (or float). A delay to a noncritical activity will not affect
the project’s final completion date. However, when a noncritical
activity is delayed beyond its slack, it becomes a critical activity.
Hence, decision makers can choose activities to evaluate based on
factors such as the control effort level, technical complexity, time/
cost incidence, or their own preferences while bearing in mind the
criticality of the activities. New activities other than those originally
planned can theoretically be inserted in the schedule as a result of

ically one workweek (Ballard 2000). In other words, RNCs can
characterize problems that affect the project-planning process.
The writers argue that if an RNC prevents the completion of an
activity, this should imply some level of delay in the activity
and explain the cause of the delay. Therefore, RNCs as causes
of activity delays and the delays themselves can be related to assess
causes and impacts in projects. One important point in this relation-
ship is the relative contribution of each RNC to activity delays. In
other words, the extent of delays in terms of time performance can
be different from one RNC to another. This provides motivation for
an in-depth study of the RNCs that have the largest impact on time
performance, first at an activity level and then at a project level.
Several RNCs (such as field interference, poor planning, defective
drawings, lack of labor, lack of materials, lack of supervision, sub-
contractor delays, design changes and delays, and poor execution)
have been proposed (Ballard 2000; Alarcón et al. 2005). This paper
proposes a more general RNC list that promotes simple, on-site
project analysis. For this reason and based on the literature review,
the writers decided to use the following general RNCs: (1) design,
(2) labor, (3) materials and equipment, (4) subcontracts, (5) weather,
(6) planning, (7) execution of work, and (8) others (Augustine and
Mangwat 2001; Assaf et al. 1995; Alarcón et al. 2005; Ballard 2000;
Ellis and Thomas 2003; Fereig 2006; Frimponga et al. 2003; Koushki
et al. 2005; Kumaraswamy and Chan 1998; Odeh and Battaineg
2002; Toor and Ogulana 2008). Table 1 provides brief descriptions
of the writers’ proposed general RNCs.
The following sections describe the proposal of a qualitative and
quantitative delay methodology that applies the general RNCs that
the writers propose. A case study illustrates the methodology and
results.
Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology for Delay
Analysis
changes in the project design, engineering specifications, or the
project contract agreement between the general contractor and
the client, among others, which would indicate changes in the criti-
cal and noncritical activities noted in the original master plan.
Furthermore, the dynamic nature of the planning process with
its different levels (long-term, medium-term, and short-term) can
also promote changes in the original plans (Ballard 2000). Thus,
it could be necessary to add new activities as the planning process
evolves. However, the methodology proposed in this paper assumes
that the master plan is well-defined, and that critical and noncritical
activities are already delineated by the decision makers (e.g., project
managers). Further research could consider a more dynamic plan-
ning process when selecting noncritical and critical activities.
The delay analysis methodology in this paper links qualitative
(delay causes) and quantitative (time performance) by relating
RNCs and their corresponding delay impacts at the activity and
project levels.
Note that the issue of root-cause analysis and preventive actions
proposed in this paper are presented as a purely technical exercise.
However, this process might even promote changes in current
managerial and organizational practices in projects by identifying
causes, responsibilities, roles, and impacts. Thus, an ongoing im-
provement process of the project practices that involve the planning
process could be developed, but this investigation is outside the
scope of this paper.
To quantify delays, the paper applies a cumulative progress in-
dex (actual and planned). The approach is similar to the earned-
value technique for relating two cumulative value curves (Anbari
2003). The goal is to initially measure the variation for each activity
between the actual and the planned values for a period of analysis,
and then consolidate them into only one value when the activities
are grouped around a cause of delay at the project level. The ap-
proach uses a weekly analysis. Fig. 1 illustrates the methodology
and the steps are described next.

The use of RNCs is only relevant if they allow construction man-

agers to know the most common causes of delays such that those
problems can be systematically reduced or even eliminated.
Defining critical and noncritical activities is required to apply
any activity-delay analysis. A critical activity is one without any
Selection of Critical and Noncritical Activities to be
Scheduled in the Week
In accordance with the master plan and different project priorities,
management (e.g., the project manager, planning department,

Table 1. General RNCs

RNC Description
Design Covers the causes of delays related to problems with project design and documentation work (e.g., errors, changes, omissions and
complexity, or lack of detail in the drawings)
Labor Includes absenteeism, low productivity, and shortage of workers
Materials and equipment Delays attributable to the lack or shortage of materials and machinery for external reasons not attributable to the administration
(failure of the supplier)
Subcontracts Delays attributable to low productivity or missed deadlines by subcontractors
Weather Includes delays for adverse weather conditions that impede the normal operation of the project
Planning Caused by poor planning, control, and scheduling of the project, including all the disruptions of the project caused by mistakes or
oversights in the project-planning process
Execution of work Includes errors in the execution of tasks and inappropriate construction methods
Others Covers delays attributable to causes not covered by the previous RNCs (e.g., theft)

© ASCE 04013027-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

 Start of
Project

Start of week i 1. Selection of critical (AC) and 4. Initial data collection of the
(i=1…..n) non-critical (ANC) activities to delay cause for each
be scheduled in week i non-completed activity

2. Data collection for each 5. Determination of Reasons for

activity scheduled at the Non Compliance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

beginning of week i: Rei RNCC and RNCGL

and WSi

3. Data collection for each
activity scheduled at the
end of week i: (Rei+1)
6. Calculation of Project
Delay Indicators
(DIC and DINC) and the
weighted average of the
RNC’s

7. Relationship between
i) Does each critical and global RNC’s
activity reached and WA-RNC’s
the scheduled No
progress? (Rei<WSi)

Yes 8. Determination of the

(Rei<WSi) highest impact causes in
week i

ii) Does the

delay Finish of
analysis No Project
continue?

Yes

Fig. 1. Methodology of quantitative delay analysis

production, and planning engineer) selects the activities to be per- Data Collection for Each Activity Scheduled at the End
formed in week i. The selected activities must be separated as being of the Week
critical (AC ) or noncritical (ANC ). It is also recommended that the At the end of week i, project management should measure the
activities should have simple and measurable progress. progress of the scheduled activities. In other words, it should be
checked to see if the activities were performed in accordance with
Data Collection for Each Activity Scheduled at the the requirements stated by management (e.g., physical advance,
Beginning of the Week quality, and details). Management should also gather the actual
weekly production data for each activity, as follows:
At the beginning of each week, along with the scheduling of both • Reiþ1 : Actual weekly cumulative progress by activity at the end
kinds of activities, project management should collect the following of week i (beginning of week i þ 1), i ¼ 1 : : : n, as a percentage
progress data for AC and ANC (Table 2): of the total progress (%); and
• Rei , actual weekly cumulative progress by activity at the begin- • Decision block, asks whether each activity (critical and noncri-
ning of week i, i ¼ 1 : : : n, as a percentage of the total progress tical) reached the scheduled progress; if the answer is no, the
(%); and step in the next section is followed, and if the answer is yes,
• WSi , planned weekly cumulative progress by activity for the the project is finished.
week i, i ¼ 1 : : : n, as a percentage of the total progress (%).
Data Collection of the Delay Cause for Each
Table 2. Example of Step 2 Noncompleted Activity
Activity number Criticality of the activities Rei (%) WSi (%)
When an activity has not reached the planned progress, manage-
1 ANC 5 8 ment should identify the delay cause for each activity (Table 3).
2 AC 20 30 The causes should be assigned in accordance with the general
3 AC 10 15 RNCs (Table 1). The proposed RNCs can be modified and config-
4 ANC 34 56 ured to reflect on-site conditions, project characteristics, construc-
5 AC 25 28
tion contract, management style, and relationships (e.g., general

© ASCE 04013027-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

 Table 3. Example of Step 4 Table 5. Example of Step 6
Whether Activity number Rei WSi Reiþ1
Criticality scheduled and criticality (%) (%) (%) Cause DI
Activity of the project has Rei WSi Reiþ1 Cause of
1, ANC 5 8 8 — —
number activities been reached (%) (%) (%) delay
2, AC 20 30 25 Planning DIðCÞ ¼ 0.5
1 ANC Yes 5 8 8 — 3, AC 10 15 12 Subcontracts DIðCÞ ¼ 0.6
2 AC No 20 30 25 Planning 4, ANC 34 56 40 Subcontracts DIðNCÞ ¼ 0.72
3 AC No 10 15 12 Subcontracts 5, AC 25 28 27 Materials and DIðCÞ ¼ 0.33
4 ANC No 34 56 40 Subcontracts equipment
5 AC No 25 28 27 Materials and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equipment
and activity progress in terms of production, with Rei as the starting
point for that week. When there is a delay, Reiþ1 reaches a weekly
contractor/client and general contractor/subcontractor), among progress less than WSi and, using a simple linear interpolation ap-
others. To render the results as representative as possible it is im- proach, the delay in terms of time in relation to projected progress
portant to include the most relevant delay causes in the RNCs. for reaching WSi can be estimated. It is also possible to estimate the
delay in terms of production as the difference between WSi and
Rei . Thus, by using the previous notion, DI allows the calculation
Incidence of Reasons for Noncompliance of the delay extent (Table 5) using Eq. (1):
The RNCs are determined for each incomplete activity in week i WSi − Reiþ1
(if any), allocating RNCs for both critical (RNCC ) and global DI ¼ ð1Þ
WSi − Rei
(RNCGL ) activities, i.e., those RNCs considering critical and non-
critical activities. The percentage incidence of RNCC is calculated The weighted average for each RNC can then be calculated for
by considering only critical activities. Otherwise, the incidence of either critical [WA-RNCiðCÞ ] or global [WA-RNCiðGLÞ ] activities in
RNCGL is estimated using all the activities (critical plus noncritical accordance with Eqs. (2) and (3):
activities) see Table 4.
P
DIRNCiðCÞ
WA-RNCiðCÞ ¼ P ð2Þ
Calculation of Project Delay Indexes and the Weighted DIAllðCÞ
Average of the RNCs
P
The DI allows for calculation of the delay between the planned DIRNCiðCþNCÞ
progress and the actual progress for an activity. Fig. 2 illustrates WA-RNCiðGLÞ ¼ P ð3Þ
DIallðCþNCÞ
the method used to estimate the activity delay using the DI.
WSi represents the cumulative planned progress for a given week where WA-RNCiðCÞ = weighted average index for the i RNC con-
sidering only critical activities; DIRNCiðCÞ = sum of DIðCÞ for the
Table 4. Example of Step 5 corresponding RNC; DIallðCÞ = sum of all DIðCÞ ; WA-RNCiðGLÞ =
weighted average index for the i RNC considering all activities
RNCC IncidenceC (%) RNCGL IncidenceGL (%)
(critical and noncritical); DIRNCiðCþNCÞ = sum of all DIðCÞ and
Subcontracts 33.3 Subcontracts 50 DIðNCÞ for the corresponding RNC; and DIallðCþNCÞ = sum of DI
Planning 33.3 Planning 25 for all the incomplete activities.
Materials and 33.3 Materials and 25 Table 6 shows an example of calculations of WA-RNCðCÞ and
equipment equipment WA-RNCðGLÞ for a specific RNC (subcontracts), and Table 7 illus-
trates both indexes for each RNC.

Cumulative
Progress (%) Relationship between Critical and Global RNCs and
WA-RNCs
WSi
CD: Control date of the After calculating both indicators for critical and global activities
scheduling per week i
(i.e., RNCs incidence and WA-RNCs), the indexes are related to
each RNC in the corresponding week. In other words, delay causes
Rei+1 are related to their time impact. In this manner, project management
can deal with both kinds of delay causes but with a different em-
phasis and priority. First, because they can produce direct losses in
Rei
the overall project, time delay causes that affect critical activities
should be resolved as soon as possible. Delay then causes that im-
pact global activities should be managed such they do not damage
Control the overall project performance if they persist (Table 8).
Dates (Time)
CDi CDi+1

Determination of the Highest Impact RNC and WA-RNC

Delay of the
activity in week i Finally, the process is repeated until all the activity data for week i
are processed. This is a key step in evaluating the results of both
Fig. 2. DI calculation
RNC and WA-RNC. After identifying the delay causes with the

© ASCE 04013027-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

 Table 6. Example of WA-RNCðCÞ and WA-RNCðGLÞ Calculation for Subcontractors’ RNC
P P P P P
Activity and criticality DI DIðCÞ DIallðCÞ WA-RNCðCÞ DIRNCðCþNCÞ DIall WA-RNCðGLÞ
3, AC 0.6 0.6 1.43 0.6=1.43 ¼ 0.42 1.32 2.15 1.32=2.15 ¼ 0.61
4, ANC 0.72

Table 7. Summary of WA-RNCðCÞ and WA-RNCðGLÞ Indexes for Each 3. The construction company responsible for managing and
RNC executing these projects has several years of experience in
Cause WA-RNCðCÞ WA-RNCðGLÞ multiunit residential buildings;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4. Subcontracts held approximately 80% of the principal tasks of

Planning 0.35 0.23
work being controlled in both case studies; and
Subcontracts 0.42 0.61
Materials and Equipment 0.23 0.15
5. During the development of the project, the control department
conducted weekly schedules, which determined what activities
would be done the following week.
The following sections describe the application of the method-
Table 8. Example of Step 7 ology (Fig. 1) and report the primary results for both case studies
Causes RNCC (%) WA-RNCðCÞ RNCGL (%) WA-RNCðGLÞ A and B.
Planning 33.3 0.35 25 0.23
Materials 33.3 0.42 25 0.61 Case Study A: Relationships between Delay Causes
Subcontracts 33.3 0.23 50 0.15 and Time Impact
Fig. 3 illustrates the average percentages (partials) of all the weekly
RNCs (both RNC global and critical) in Case A and the accumu-
highest impacts, project management should carry out actions to lated RNC percentages (RNC global accumulated and RNC criti-
reduce and mitigate the impact of these causes. cal). These indicate that the planning and subcontractor RNCs
The decision block asks whether the methodology process together represent nearly 80% of the most frequent delay causes
continues for the next week or it is stopped (when the project is in both global and critical RNC analyses. The partial percentages
finished). obtained by subcontracts in the global RNCs decreases in the criti-
cal RNCs; otherwise, the partial percentage of planning increases
its incidence from the global RNCs to the critical RNCs. Therefore,
Case Study Illustrations the critical RNC percentages suggest that planning, and not sub-
contracts, is the most critical frequent cause of delay in the project.
To demonstrate the methodology, two multiunit residential building These differences provide noteworthy information about the
projects executed by a construction firm in Santiago, Chile, were project. For instance, the most frequent delay causes that affect
used as illustrative case studies. The research described in this pa- the overall activities may not be the same causes that impact the
per lasted 20 weeks, during which planning measurements of critical activities.
project activities were made. Table 9 details the characteristics The incidence of the primary two RNCs, subcontracts and plan-
of both projects. ning (Fig. 3), are not significantly different in relative terms be-
The following study notes provide additional detail on the case tween the global and critical RNCs. However, the reason for
studies: doing this analysis is to focus not only on global activities, but also
1. Study stage refers to the execution phase in which the activities on critical activities in a project. Thus, different degrees of attention
were controlled: could be necessary and diverse management actions could be ap-
• Concrete work refers to all the activities in terms of struc- plied in accordance with the criticality of the delay causes, allowing
tural components in the building (e.g., columns, slabs, and project management to identify the delay causes with higher inci-
beams); and dence. Furthermore, this analysis allows preliminary identification
• Finishing refers to all the activities related to permanent of those delay causes that have more impacts to avoid the problem
work in the building. These activities do not have a struc- of delay causes being obscured when using simpler analysis of de-
tural nature but are necessary for the proper functioning of lay causes at the global level.
the building (e.g., partition walls, windows, and doors). Fig. 4 illustrates the weighted averages indexes for each RNC
2. Activities controlled refers to number of activities controlled (WA-RNC) in Case A in addition to their cumulative values, show-
by the researchers in each project studied; ing that the most significant delay causes are again planning and
subcontractors with a delay impact close to 80% (global and critical
analysis). In this analysis, planning has the higher impact in terms
of delay, experiencing an increase from the global activities to the
Table 9. Projects’ Characteristics
critical activities, unlike subcontractors, which reduces its delay im-
pact. This indicates that the most significant delay cause in terms of
Description of project component Project A Project B time performance is planning. If the delay analysis considers only
Area (m2 ) 20,000 8,000 global activities, subcontractors are the most important delay cause.
Number of floors 23 15 However, a detailed analysis on critical activities illustrates that
Number of apartments 300 117 planning is the most impacting delay cause considering the esti-
Study stage Interior and Concrete mated damages relative to project time-performance. These results
exterior finishes work–finishing also illustrate that even though a cause may be more common than
Number of activities 40 47 another, this does not indicate that it has the greatest impact on the
controlled
project.

© ASCE 04013027-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Global and critical RNCs in Case Study A

Case Study B: Relationships between Delay Causes
and Time Impact
Fig. 5 shows the RNC percentages (partials and accumulated) in
Case B. These indicate that the planning and subcontractor RNCs
together represent nearly 80% of the most frequent delay causes
(global and critical), which is similar to Case A. The writers suggest
that the same explanation for the behavior of Case A is valid in
Case B for the RNCs incidence patterns.
Similarly, Fig. 6 illustrates the weighted averages indexes for
each RNC (WA-RNC) in Case B and their cumulative values. In
this case, the most significant delay causes are planning and sub-
contractors, with a delay impact close to 80% (global and critical
analysis). The most harmful delays are caused by planning (46%).
Again, given the similar patterns, the explanation for Case A is
equally valid in Case B.
In summary, both Cases A and B have similar behaviors in
that planning and subcontracts are the most significant causes of de-
lay. However, in both cases the most frequent delay cause for the
global activities is subcontracts, whereas the planning RNC has more
impact on critical activities. The similarities in the results for these
case studies suggest that management’s attention should have been
directed towards both internal (e.g., planning) and external (e.g., sub-
contractors) issues related to the supply chain of the project.
Validation of this methodology was carried out by holding a
panel discussion with the project personnel (including project
managers, site engineers, and supervisors) and clients for both
projects. In general, project personnel reported that the methodol-
ogy was interesting and robust. In terms of the primary findings,
the project personnel and clients were surprised with the results
because they assumed that the primary reasons for delays were
external (e.g., subcontractors). After this panel, project personnel
decided to use this information to change some of their manage-
ment practices. First, they sought to improve their internal planning
processes, and second, they involved subcontractors in the plan-
ning process. The clients also assumed responsibility and improved
their project information-delivery and corresponding communica-
tion process. Having in mind this feedback, the writers argue that a
delay apportionment between the client and general contractor
could be performed effectively if delay causes and responsibilities

Fig. 4. Global and critical WA-RNC in Case Study A

© ASCE 04013027-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Global and critical RNCs in Case Study B

Fig. 6. Global and critical WA-RNC in Case Study B

are well-defined from the beginning. In fact, the RNCs that were
established in the proposed methodology described in this paper
could form the basis for calculating a delay apportionment that
could theoretically be weighted and allocated by applying the cor-
responding WA indexes.
In subsequent individual interviews, project personnel recog-
nized improvements in short-term and medium-term planning as
a result from these changes. They also adopted a new perspective
for managing delays in their projects. Even though there are no hard
data available on the impacts of subsequent performance based on
these changes in the management practices, the writers suggest that
the opinions from project personnel represent evidence that sup-
ports the value of the delay methodology reported in this paper
and tested on their projects.
Conclusions
The writers’ paper reports on the relationship between delay
causes and their impacts on time performance to provide some
insight into this complex problem. This paper presents a meth-
odology for analyzing the qualitative (delay causes) and quanti-
tative (time performance) dimensions of the delay issue that uses
two indicators, (1) RNC as the cause of delay, and (2) DI as a
delay indicator. This methodology was tested in two case studies
of building projects.
The methodology provided information for project managers
to make better decisions about the delay causes and assisted in
focusing management’s actions toward mitigating delay impacts
on a weekly basis. Although it is quite common in practice to base
decisions only on the delay causes that most frequently affect
project completion, linking delay causes with their impacts on time
performance can be overlooked. The analyses carried out in the
case studies showed that not only the frequency of delay causes,
but also the delay impact and its relationship with its causes,
can be properly considered in a methodological framework. In this
regard, the delay causes with the greatest impact on project time-
performance could be identified through the weighted average of
the reasons for noncomplianace.

© ASCE 04013027-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027

 The methodology also allows for differentiation between delay
impacts on both global activities (critical and noncritical) and criti-
cal activities. This analysis helps to prioritize management efforts
over resources and time directed to mitigate the effects of specific
delay causes. The writers consider that the implementation of this
methodology will help in identifying real causes that affect produc-
tivity, thereby decreasing wasted resources, time, and money.
In the case studies, the main results showed that planning and
subcontracts RNCs are the more frequent delay causes and have
also the larger impact in terms of time performance. The method-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli on 11/17/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ology demonstrated that the subcontracts RNC was the most im-
portant delay cause at the global level (frequency and impact).
However, this pattern was reversed when the analysis was con-
ducted at the critical activities level. As a result, the planning
RNC was the most important delay cause. These results reveal that
even though one RNC may occur more frequently than another, it
does not indicate that the more frequent RNC has the greatest im-
pact on the project. These findings were discussed and validated
with the project personnel and clients of both projects.
The methodology proposed in this paper can help identify re-
lationships between RNCs and their impacts on projects that will
allow management to direct construction projects more quickly and
effectively. Further research should focus on how to improve the
methodology and evaluate assumptions related to estimating delays
for more dynamic planning processes.
References
Abdullah, A., and Koskela, L. (2008). “What can be learned from studies of
delay on construction?.” Proc., 16th Annual Conf. of Int., Group for
Lean Construction, Manchester, UK.
Adhikaril, I., Kim, S.-Y., and Lee, Y.-D. (2006). “Selection of appropriate
schedule delay analysis method: Analytical hierarchy process (AHP).”
Proc., Technology Management for the Global Future, IEEE,
New York, 483–488.
Alarcón, L. F., Diethelm, S., Rojo, O., and Calderon, R. (2005). “Assessing
the impacts of implementing lean construction.” Proc., Int. Group
for Lean Construction Annual Conf., Group for Lean Construction,
Sydney, Australia, 387–393.
Alarcón, L. F., Grillo, A., Freire, J., and Diethelm, S. (2001). “Learning
from collaborative benchmarking in the construction industry.”
Proc., 9th Annual Conf. of Int., Group for Lean Construction,
Singapore, 1–10.
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., and Harris, F. (1996). “Construction delay
analysis techniques.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 14(5), 375–394.
Alwi, S., and Hampson, K. (2003). “Identifying the important causes of
delay in building construction projects.” Proc., East Asia-Pacific Conf.
on Structural Engineering and Construction, Bali, Indonesia.
Anbari, F. T. (2003). “Earned value project management method and
extensions.” Proj. Manage. J., 34(4), 12–23.
Arditi, D., and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2006). “Selecting a delay analysis
method in resolving construction claims.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 24(2),
145–155.
Assaf, S. A., Al-Khalil, M., and Al-Hazmi, M. (1995). “Causes of delay
in large building construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 11(2),
45–50.
Augustine, U. E., and Mangwat, J. (2001). “Time-overrun factors in
Nigerian construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(5),
419–425.
Ballard, G. (2000). “The last planner system of production control.” Ph.D.
dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ.
of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Braimah, N., and Ndekugri, I. (2008). “Factors influencing the selection
of delay analysis methodologies.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 26(8),
789–799.
© ASCE 04013027-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2014, 140(1): 04013027
Bramble, B. B., and Callahan, M. T. (1992). Delay construction claims,
2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Bubshait, A. A., and Cunningham, M. J. (1998). “Comparison of delay
analysis methodologies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(4), 315–322.
Chang, A. S. (2002). “Reasons for cost and schedule increase for engineer-
ing design projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 18(1), 29–36.
Ellis, R. D., and Thomas, H. R. (2003). “The root causes of delays in high-
way construction.” Proc., 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 1–16.
Faridi, A. S., and El-Sayegh, S. M. (2006). “Significant factors causing
delay in the UAE construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
24(11), 1167–1176.
Fereig, S. M. (2006). “Managing construction delay in international
projects with special reference to the Arabian Gulf area.” Proc., 3rd
Project Management Institute—College of Scheduling (PMI-COS)
Conf., Orlando, FL.
Flyvbjerg, B., Mette, K., Holm, S., and Buhl, S. L. (2004). “What causes
cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects?” Transp. Rev., 24(1),
3–18.
Frimponga, Y., Oluwoyeb, J., and Crawford, L. (2003). “Causes of delay
and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a devel-
oping countries; Ghana as a case study.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 21(5),
321–326.
Galloway, P. D. (2006). “Survey of the construction industry relative to the
use of CPM scheduling for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 132(7), 697–711.
Kao, C. K., and Yang, J. B. (2008). “Comparison of windows-based delay
analysis methods.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(4), 408–418.
Kartam, S. (1999). “Generic methodology for analyzing delay claims.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(6), 409–419.
Koushki, P. A., Al-Rashid, K., and Kartam, N. (2005). “Delays and cost
increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 23(3), 285–294.
Kumaraswamy, M., and Chan, D. W. M. (1998). “Contributors to construc-
tion delays.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 16(1), 17–29.
Liberatore, M. J., Pollack-Jhonson, B., and Smith, C. A. (2001). “Project
management in construction: Software use and research directions.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(2), 101–107.
Lo, T. Y., Fung, I. W. H., and Tung, K. C. F. (2006). “Construction delays in
Hong Kong in civil engineering projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
132(6), 636–649.
Lyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2006). “Critical factors affecting schedule per-
formance: Evidence from Indian construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 132(6), 636–649.
Marzouk, M., El-Dokhmasey, A., and El-Said, M. (2008). “Assessing con-
struction engineering-related delays: Egyptian perspective.” J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 134(3), 315–326.
Odeh, A. M., and Battaineg, H. T. (2002). “Causes of construction delay:
Traditional contracts.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 20(1), 67–73.
Ordoñez, A. V., and Robinson, A. (2005). “Fuzzy logic approach for ac-
tivity delay analysis and schedule updating.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
131(1), 42–51.
Orozco, F., Serpell, A., Molenaar, K., and Forcael, E. (2011). “Modeling
competitiveness factors and indexes for construction companies: Find-
ings of Chile.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Peña-Mora, F., Han, S., Lee, S., and Park, M. (2008). “Strategic-operational
construction management: Hybrid system dynamics and discrete event
approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(9), 701–710.
Shi, J., Cheung, S. O., and Arditi, D. (2001). “Construction delay compu-
tation method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(1), 60–65.
Toor, S. U. R., and Ogulana, S. O. (2008). “Problems causing delays in
major construction projects in Thailand.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
26(4), 395–408.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Youngjae, K., Kyungrai, K., and Dongwoo, S. (2005). “Delay analysis
method using delay section.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(11),
1155–1164.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.