Investigating Delay Analysis - A Common Sense Approach
Delay analysis is not the “dark art” it is often perceived to be. It is simply how to prove the purported delaying events impact (the cause) on time (the effect). The analysis must provide a clear and succinct distinction of the chain of events that have hindered progress and ultimately caused the delay(s) to completion.
Comprehensive and contemporaneous evidence that substantiates the causal events and their consequence is key. The facts should dictate the experts analysis and opinion.
The facts take precedence over the analysis. All too often, the expert’s focus is on the method of delay analysis used, rather than assessing the facts, meaning causation is inferred rather than proven. A true delay expert demonstrates the delay events’ cause and effect by using factual evidence and following a logical approach.
Delay reports are often overly complex and incomprehensible to anyone other than their author. Delay experts should present their findings so that anyone can understand them while being reinforced by a thorough analysis and supporting evidence.
There are two main types of delay analysis methodologies, retrospective (effect and cause) or prospective (cause and effect).
The methodology selected is usually dictated by the availability of records and the analysts competency and/or time constraints.
Prospective or cause-and-effect analysis (time impact analysis, as-built-but-for, time slice) models the likely impact of the delaying event at the approximate time the delay occurred. Retrospective or effect-and-cause analysis (longest path, impacted-as-planned) analyses the delay impact in hindsight.
Regardless of the delay analysis methodology deployed, the independent and impartial experts should come to the same conclusion given they have the same facts. They rarely do. Primarily because any retrospective analysis requires the Expert to infer causation, as opposed to proving it. In comparison, a prospective analysis relies on the underlying facts and evidence to demonstrate the chain of causation, albeit on a somewhat theoretical time model.
If the delay experts come to different conclusions regarding the quantum of time in delay, it is more than likely that the analysis methodology has dictated the outcome, rather than proving the cause and effect of the delaying event(s).
