Search results

This study aims to detect the most appropriate delay analysis method in mega airport projects.

First, the criteria affecting the selection of delay analysis methods were detected through an in-depth literature review and an expert panel, which was conducted with 12 experts who have experience in delay analysis domain in mega airport projects. Later, fuzzy VIKOR (VIsekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Resenje) approach was conducted by considering the detected selection criteria and the most common delay analysis methods.

Windows Analysis method was detected as the best option for mega airport projects. It was followed by Time Impact Analysis (TIA), collapsed as-built analysis, as-planned vs as-built method and impacted as-planned method, respectively.

Each project has its own characteristics and thus requires specific management techniques; therefore, selecting a delay analysis method without considering the project types and size may cause conflicts between the contracting parties. On the one hand, numerous fruitful studies concerning delay analysis methods have been conducted in the literature, but on the other hand, none of them has considered project characteristics in terms of project size and type while selecting the most appropriate delay analysis method. Moreover, the larger the size of a project is, the more vulnerable it is to encounter with delays. Mega airport construction projects are complex in their nature in that they are large size and involve multi-disciplinary processes; thus, they need special attention in the process of resolving delays. This study intended to fill this gap in the literature by focusing on selection of the most appropriate delay analysis method for mega airport projects, and it is clear that considering the project type and size in the selection of delay analysis methods will provide more reliable outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a decision support framework that can be used by decision-makers to identify the most convenient disruption analysis (DA) methods for megaprojects and their stakeholders.

The framework was initially developed by conducting a comprehensive literature review to obtain extensive knowledge about disruption management and megaprojects. Focus group discussion (FGD) sessions with the participation of the construction practitioners were then organized to validate and strengthen the findings of the literature review. Consequently, 17 selection factors were identified and categorized as requirement, ability and outcome. Lastly, the most convenient DA methods for megaprojects were identified by performing integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis. Additionally, consistency analysis was also conducted to verify the reliability of the results.

The results revealed that the measured mile method is the most appropriate DA method for megaprojects. In case the measured mile method cannot be adopted due to various technical and contractual reasons, the decision-makers are proposed to consider program analysis, work or trade sampling, earned value analysis and control chart method, respectively. Second, the selection factors such as “Comprehensible analysis procedure,” “Existing knowledge and experience about a particular DA method,” “Ability to resolve greater number of disruption events,” “Ability to resolve complex disruption events,” “Ability to exclude factors that are not under the owner's responsibility” and “General acceptance by practitioners, courts, and arbitration, etc.” were given the top priority by the experts, highlighting the critical aspects of the DA methods.

Disruption claims in megaprojects are very critical for the contractors to compensate for the losses stemming from disruption events. Although the effective use of DA methods maximizes the accuracy and reliability of disruption claims, decision-makers can barely implement these methods adequately since past studies neglect to present extensive knowledge about the most convenient DA methods for megaprojects. Thus, developing a decision support framework for the selection of DA methods, this study is the earliest attempt that examines the mechanisms and inherent differences of DA methods. Additionally, owing to the robustness and versatility of this research approach, the research approach could be replicated also for future studies focusing on other project-based industries since disruption is also a challenging issue for many other industries.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a disruption claim management (DCM) life cycle and a risk management framework to provide comprehensive guidance to construction practitioners for facilitating effective and efficient DCM.

DCM life cycle was initially developed through a focus group discussion (FGD) with the participation of the construction practitioners who have diverse experiences about DCM. The life cycle is comprised of 6 phases and also includes proper reactions of the owners and contractors. Then, 42 risk factors that can impact the deliverables of DCM were identified through a literature review and an additional FGD session. This was then followed by a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) which was performed to evaluate the importance of each risk factor in terms of the factor's impact on the success of DCM. Additionally, consistency analysis was performed to further maximize the reliability of the results.

Findings revealed that a proactive and systematic approach should be adopted and DCM practices should be initiated before any disruption event is triggered. Accordingly, the proposed framework recommends DCM practices to be initiated early in the contract development phase since compensation for the disruption might be recovered only to the extent that the contract permits. The contract-related risks were given top priority by the experts so that the results of the fuzzy AHP analysis also verified the significance of the contract development phase. Besides contract-related risks, risks related to insufficient site observation, ignorance of the project team, cognitive bias and conflict of interest were determined as the most significant DCM risks, needing an urgent and sophisticated risk response plan. Lastly, results suggested that “Site observation and record-keeping” is the most formidable phase since the phase's implementation on a continuous basis could create unforeseen organizational challenges such as mismanagement of project records, especially in the dynamic and turbulent environment of the construction projects.

Disruption – which is caused mostly by change – is inevitable in construction projects due to their sophisticated nature. DCM, therefore, becomes crucial to compensate losses of contractors and eliminate or diminish the prolonged dispute resolution process. Existing studies, however, do not provide a comprehensive theoretical basis for the DCM life cycle and DCM life cycle's potential risks so that DCM life cycle's promising benefits can hardly be materialized. Thus, developing a DCM life cycle and associating DCM life cycle with risk management, this study is highly believed to make a promising theoretical contribution to the DCM domain since this is one of the earliest attempts in the literature. Additionally, this research provides construction practitioners with an insight into the effective implementation of DCM practices in construction projects.