Muhammad Amir bin Abd Hashim (2014113931)

Problem Statement
Either through public or private sectors, infrastructure or building facilities,
construction projects in Malaysia are carried out coherently with the development of
the country. While phases of each construction projects may be differ from each
other, Arditi & Pattanakitchamroon (2006) identified in the past century that delays in
construction projects is still a common problem. Like Kaming et al. (1997) described
in their research, time overruns as the extended time after the intentional end dates
have proved that it is a rare occasion for a project to finish on its scheduled
completion date without any time extension period of their original schedule. As
stated by Arditi & Pattanakitchamroon (2006), delay analysis methodologies such as
the as planned method, as built method, modified as built method and time
impact analysis are considered crucial tools to be used in evaluating the impact of
delay factors.
These different methodologies have different kind of results in term of delays days as
proved by Abdulaziz & Michael (1998). Different kind of method can leads to varying
results in the amount of time a party has been impacted due to the unique
calculation required by each method, according to Abdulaziz & Michael (1998).
Abdulaziz & Michael (1998) concluded that the results of the delay analysis are
unpredictable, nor the capacity of using one method universally yet the different
results may also indicate that different method can be more beneficial than other in
terms of the application of the method and the results of it.
According to Khalid & Satish (2011), previous court cases proved the differences on
the outcomes resulting from variation delay analysis methodologies. Khalid & Satish
(2011) had proved that different outcomes from the current delay analysis method
using a case study as comparison. Khalid & Satish (2011) also had discussed the
differences in outcomes were the consequences from these different techniques in
responding to the common delay analysis issues that have been identified.
Conclusion by Khalid & Satish (2011) stated that the current techniques used in their
research were not responding accurately to all of the common delay issues indicated
during the analysis which were real time delay, concurrent delay, acceleration, and
pacing delay.

Muhammad Amir bin Abd Hashim (2014113931)

Nuhu Braimah (2013) stated that the different results in term of delay days were
produced mainly from the unique set of requirements and application procedures
each technique employs. Furthermore, Nuhu Braimah (2013) told that there were
several issues which were vital to ensure accurate and reliable analysis results, but
instead are not highlighted in the delay analysis methodologies. Those significant
issues like functionality of the programming software used in the analyzing process,
requirements of initial project schedule, the concurrent delay and delay pacing in the
project were actually the factors affecting the delay analysis results later in the
analysis process, which can only be determined through thorough scrutiny of the
project conditions according to Nuhu Braimah (2013).
This study would help and benefit professional planning engineers and project
managers that may involve in an extension of time analysis of a delayed project
upon provided with the study results. With larger options on the method of delay
analysis to be used in their application, they can choose the best method suitable
and appropriate to be implemented on the extension of time work schedule of the
delayed project. Planning engineers may use this study to understand more on other
types of delay analysis method and compare which method can be efficiently used
with certain volume of data and time they currently possess. Finally, further
researchers may continue the study of delay analysis methods in term of solving the
discrepancies of requirement from each methods.