Analysis paralysis

If Constructing Excellence’s KPI figures are anything to go by the UK construction industry is failing to improve its ability to predict construction cost and time. Delays and cost overruns now seem to be a fact of life and recent emphasis has been on how to analyse delays and determine responsibility.

The Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption Protocol, published in 2002, has been responsible for raising the profile of planning and programming and provided the catalyst for debate about the merits or otherwise of different techniques for analysing project delays.

A survey of the UK construction industry, originally carried out in 1994 during the development of the technique known as Time Impact Analysis, has just been repeated and it shows, across the whole of the industry, 86% of respondents use project management software to analyse project delays. Contractors alone, as expected, are more prolific users with 90% saying they use the software. Both figures are slightly up from the previous survey, 79% and 86%, respectively.

The greatest change is the software used by the industry today. In 1994 the survey identified 19 different project management software packages in use, the top three most used by contractors were Powerproject (54%), Pertmaster (38%) and Hornet (21%). Most used more than one type of software. In 2006, only six have survived. Powerproject has maintained and increased its premier position with 71% usage but is now followed by Microsoft Project and Primavera (both at 21%).

The 1994 survey sought to find out which methods of analysis of delays practitioners in the construction industry used and which they thought were the most useful. While terminology has changed a little the overwhelming favourite was the “as-built bar chart”, used by 94% of respondents and the favourite technique of more than half (55%). The second most useful technique was the “impacted as-planned”.

The Protocol details four methods of analysis: “as-planned v as-built”, “collapsed as-built”, “impacted as planned”, and “time impact analysis” and recommends the latter whenever the circumstances permit.

The class of 2006 has changed little in its favoured technique, 97% use “as-planned v as-built” and it is the favoured technique of 54% of users. The newcomer, “time impact analysis”, is now the second favourite with 29% of the vote.

It could be that most delay claims are not suited to the Protocol’s favoured technique or that the industry hasn’t caught up with the latest thinking of the experts. This seems to be borne out by the survey, which found that, despite all the publicity the Protocol received, less than half of contractors were aware of it – but of those that were, virtually all agreed with its aims.

Maybe practitioners are, in fact, more canny and take notice of what goes on in the courts where, in high-profile cases such as Skanska v Egger, confusion seems to have been caused by complicated and voluminous analyses.

Better education of practitioners may also raise the awareness of techniques. Worryingly the most common source of knowledge is experience and self-teaching, whereas formal undergraduate or post-graduate education is the least likely source.

When the Protocol was published some voiced concern that it would solely become a standard by which expert reports were to be judged. This does not seem to have been the case, as those that know about the Protocol say it is cited in less than half of disputes they have been involved with. It was not intended that it should be a contract document and only 13% say they have been involved in projects where the contract conditions have been amended to include or comply with its terms.

Having said that, one of the Protocol’s aims was that, in time, most contracts would adopt its guidance. This does not seem to be happening in the UK to any great extent although the SCL has recently reported that

the Romanian equivalent of the UK’s Highways Agency is to direct its consultants and contractors that they must implement the procedures of the Protocol on all existing and new projects.

• The Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption Protocol can be downloaded or purchased at www.eotprotocol.com/

The findings are based on the responses to a postal survey of the UK’s top 150 house builders and contractors, the UK’s top 200 construction consultants, 176 Chartered Building Companies and 165 delegates at the 2006 Asta National

User Forum (those delegates were not asked questions about software use). The survey is

part of an international research project – Developing Protocols for Virtual Prototyping – headed by Professor Andrew Baldwin of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with assistance in the UK from Professor Simon

Austin of Loughborough University and David Bordoli of Driver Consult.

• Further details of the results of the survey can be obtained from: david.bordoli@driverconsult.co.uk