Delay Expert Review: Time Impact Analysis vs. As-Planned vs. As-Built
Choosing the right methodology for forensic delay analysis is critical to accurately evaluating project delays and resolving disputes.
Among the most commonly used approaches are Time Impact Analysis (TIA), As-Planned vs. As-Built, and As-Built methodologies. Each method has its unique features, advantages, and limitations, making the choice highly dependent on the project’s complexity, available data, and contractual requirements. This article explores these methodologies, providing guidance on when to use each approach to achieve optimal results.
Overview of Key Delay Analysis Approaches
Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
TIA is a prospective methodology used to evaluate the potential impacts of delay events on the critical path. By incorporating delay events into the baseline programme and recalculating the schedule, TIA assesses how individual delays affect project completion.
Advantages:
Provides a forward-looking perspective on delays.
Ideal for ongoing projects where delays are still unfolding.
Highly transparent and widely accepted in formal dispute resolution settings.
Challenges:
Requires detailed and accurate baseline programmes and contemporaneous updates.
Can be resource-intensive and time-consuming.
As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis
This retrospective method compares the planned project schedule (as-planned) with the actual schedule (as-built) to identify deviations. It focuses on understanding how delays occurred and whether they impacted the critical path.
Advantages:
Simple to apply and understand.
Useful for identifying general trends in project delays
Challenges:
May lack precision in isolating specific delay causes.
Limited in analysing complex projects with overlapping delays.
As-Built Analysis
As-Built analysis involves reconstructing the project’s actual progress based on as-built records and identifying deviations from the baseline. It is typically used to evaluate the sequence of events and their impact on the critical path retrospectively.
Advantages:
Highly detailed and accurate when supported by robust records.
Effective for disputes where historical delays must be quantified.
Challenges:
Relies heavily on comprehensive as-built data.
Can be labour-intensive for large-scale projects.
How to Choose the Best Approach
1. Project Stage
Ongoing Projects: TIA is often the best choice for assessing potential delays and seeking extensions of time (EOTs) proactively.
Completed Projects: Retrospective methods, such as As-Planned vs. As-Built or As-Built analysis, are better suited for analysing past delays.
2. Data Availability
Comprehensive Records: If detailed as-built records and baseline updates are available, As-Built analysis provides the most accurate results.
Limited Data: As-Planned vs. As-Built is more practical for projects with incomplete or inconsistent records.
3. Project Complexity
Simple Projects: As-Planned vs. As-Built may suffice for straightforward projects with minimal interdependencies.
Complex Projects: For multi-phase or high-value projects with overlapping delays, TIA or As-Built analysis is often more appropriate.
4. Dispute Resolution Requirements
Courts, arbitrators, and adjudicators favour methodologies that demonstrate clear cause and effect through evidence-based analysis.
Key Takeaways
Collaborate with an experienced delay expert to select the right methodology for your project.
Ensure your forensic delay analysis is supported by accurate baseline programmes and as-built data.
Use Time Impact Analysis for ongoing projects and As-Built Analysis for completed ones.
Partner with a planning expert to maintain robust records and minimise disputes.
Final Thoughts
Selecting the appropriate delay analysis methodology is a critical decision that can significantly influence the outcome of a dispute or project evaluation. By understanding the strengths and limitations of TIA, As-Planned vs As-Built, and As-Built methodologies, project stakeholders can ensure that delays are analysed effectively and fairly. Engaging delays and planning experts early in the process ensures that the chosen methodology aligns with the project’s needs, legal requirements, and available data.
At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
