A forensic delay analysis is done to figure out the two types of issues.
- Identifying which activities are resulting in forensic delay.
- How much of the critical delay is caused by each activity?
Ideally, the amount of delay caused by each delaying activity is an objective endeavor. However, normally consultants on the other end of the dispute come with different ideas and have different conclusions when analyzing the delay and amount of uncertainty caused by each activity. This difference may arise due to the difference in the selection of forensic delay analysis in each case.
While presenting a report on the forensic delay, a consultant may come with a different analysis methodology. However, some methods are more robust than others, and this understanding is essential while evaluating the analysis reports prepared by the consultants and figuring out their errors.
Hence, this article aims to disclose the following three delay analysis methods widely used by the analyzers.
- Impacted As-Planned
- Time Impact Analysis
- Planned v. As-Built.
Let’s discuss in detail these methodologies to have a better insight into their features.
1. Impacted As-Planned (IAP)
In this analysis methodology, fragments are introduced in the schedule of a planned project to analyze any change in the completion date.
Fragnet is a network of activities that show a change in the pre-planned activity or any other impact not considered while planning the schedule. A planned program involves the activities of the original project without any modification and is known as the baseline schedule. For analyzing any schedule, you need to consider some contemporaneously used plan or the one that has been approved formally by the experts.
Impacted as a planned analysis method suggests that while analyzing the activity when fragments are introduced into the already planned baseline schedule, a fragment represents change if the project is delayed.
2. Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
The difference between time impact analysis and impact as planned analysis is that in TIA, the analyzers insert the fragments into the project schedule update; usually, it is inserted into the date closest to the delay as represented by the fragnet.
If, after the insertion of fragnet, a delay in completion date is observed, then it is caused by the cause represented by the fragment.
3. Planned v. As-Built – in Periods (PAB)
The planned in-built analysis is a forensic delay analysis methodology. The planned performance is compared with the actual performance, where the impact on the path is evaluated cumulatively and chronologically.
For PAB analysis, it is suggested to take a start from some approved schedule, and if you don’t have some planned schedule, you can take a start from a plan that has already been used in some construction process.
When you observe any change in the performance already planned, you need to divide the analysis into different periods and then analyze the actual performance by comparing it with the contemporary plan.
Normally, each period in this process starts with some approved schedule according to the changed plan.