Time Impact analysis

Page 1 of 3

Time Impact analysis

Date

28 June 2006

Judgment
The Issue

Implication

The time impact analysis method of delay analysis involves

updating the contractor's master programme with percentage
progress at the start of a delaying event. The programme is then
rescheduled to determine the resultant completion date. The
delaying event is then added and the programme rescheduled
again. The difference between the two completion dates, if any, is
the delay that is predicted to arise from the delaying event.

print

This approach takes account of actual progress and indicates the

critical path at the time of the event. This method predicts the
effect of an event on the completion date and is therefore a
prospective method of delay analysis. The predicted effect may
not precisely reflect what will actually happen, so this method is
often described as entitlement based.

In this the fifth in my series of articles on delay analysis, I consider the time impact method of delay analysis. This
is an approach to modelling delay that relies upon the use of the contractors planned programme and the
availability of progress data to determine the progress of the works at the time of a delaying event. This method
provides a basis for determining the expected effect of an event on the completion date and is therefore a forward
looking or prospective method of analysis.
The method
The method uses the contractors planned programme as the starting point for the analysis. The programme is
then updated with actual progress up to the start of each delay event and a note taken of the expected completion
date at that point in time. The delay event is then impacted and if the completion date is extended then this is
recorded as the critical effect of the impacted delay event. Each delay event is analysed chronologically and
cumulatively. The outcome is a reflection of the activities and logic of that part of the planned programme that at
that time remains to be completed.
There is scope for updating the planned programme to reflect changes in planning that often occur during the life
of a project the line in the sand. It may also be necessary to adapt the logic of the programme to introduce the
delay and properly model its expected effects as well as to allow for any potential mitigation that may be achieved
through re-programming.

The graphic above shows a simple example. The yellow bars are the baseline and the delay event being
modelled is a 10 day prolongation of activity 4 which originally had 5 days float. Progress is added as at 23
January showing that activity 4 was running later than planned using up 3 of the 5 days of float. The completion
date remains as planned. The 10 day delay event 1 is then added that uses up the remaining 2 days of float and
causes a critical delay to completion of 8 days.
Selection criteria

http://www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/case.php?id=6101

24/12/2009

Time Impact analysis

Page 2 of 3

Where there is a good planned programme, reliable and consistent progress data as well as good as-built data
and regular updates of the programme, then this method of analysis may be used.
Progress data may not be good enough to properly assess progress prior to the impact of each event and so
derivatives of this technique may be adopted such as windows analysis, which uses progress data at the
intervals at which it is available such as two-weekly or monthly intervals, or watershed analysis which adopts the
method at key milestones such as completion of foundations, building watertight, power-on etc.
Issues
This is a prospective method of analysis that provides for the assessment of the expected effect of an event at the
time at which it occurs. It is therefore sometimes described as an entitlement based approach. It does not
attempt to model the actual effect of an event based on a retrospective view of the actual consequences but it
looks at the likely effect of an event at the time it occurs. There may also be a further degree of speculation in the
assessment of the potential consequential effects of an event. Where the analyst makes such assessments this
may subjectively be based on an assumed course of events that may never occur.
Despite its advantages (described below), it should be recognised that this method also has a subjective aspect to
it which is that the planned programme yet to be progressed dictates the critical path at that time of the event and
any such programme is always at best an approximation of the reality of how things are built, so there is the
possibility that the actual critical path may not be the one modelled at the time of the event. Care must be taken to
ensure that the planned programme to complete is reasonable and any obvious errors in the programme are
corrected.
Advantages
The method has the merit of considering the impact of an event based on a consideration of the actual as-built
progress at the time of the event. This has the advantage, if the modelling of the delay impact is done properly, of
showing the expected entitlement that arises from an individual event, without the picture being confused by a
chain of subsequent intervening or supervening events.
This method has the particular appeal of providing an indication of the critical path at the time of the event rather
than the ultimate as-built critical path, and is therefore an appropriate method for determining the expected effect
of an event on the completion date.
Disadvantages
Despite its merits, the method has many problems, not least is that as the Protocol (2002) warns, it is the most
time-consuming and costly when performed forensically.
The fact that this method predicts the expected effect of an event means that the analysis will be partly
hypothetical.
The result is heavily influenced by the quality of the base programme, which has to be checked and verified as
being achievable, and may ultimately bear no resemblance to what actually happened. Since many construction
programmes are not resourced, and there may be a variety of ways of programming the project, this verification
exercise may itself be somewhat subjective.
A further problem is that the updates of the programme require adequate and consistent progress information at
each update. If there is no such progress information or it is not reliably consistent or it is necessary to infer from
the progress data that is available the state of progress specifically at the time of the event, then the effect of a
delay may be more or less in reality than would result from the analysis.
Further key factors are the way in which the events are impacted on the analysis and the extent to which any
subsequent reprogramming or re-sequencing is reflected in that part of the planned programme that remains to be
progressed. This ongoing tinkering with the logic at each update, which may be necessary to reflect the
inadequacies in the base programme can make the steps taken by the analyst using this technique difficult to
follow even for the trained eye.
Further there are very significant problems with communicating the results. Two programmes are generally
produced at each event, one that reflects progress before the delay is impacted and one after. So this can result
in a myriad of iterations of the analysis. Thus despite its appeal this method is difficult to put across in a manner
that can easily be followed.

http://www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/case.php?id=6101

24/12/2009

Time Impact analysis

Page 3 of 3

- Rob Palles-Clark
CJ-0625

FTI Brewer Consulting provides commercial and dispute

resolution services to the construction and engineering
industries working with contractors, employers and the legal
sector both in the UK and internationally.

London
Tel: +44 (0)20 7389 3800

The key services we provide are:

Epsom
Tel: +44 (0)1372 727100

Commercial Services

Bristol
Tel: +44 (0)117 9200 190

Northampton
Tel: +44 (0)1604 620404

Dispute Resolution
Training

The breadth of our international experience and network of

professional business partners allows us to undertake assignments
worldwide.

Stirling
Tel: +44 (0)1786 430800
Dubai
Tel: +971 (0)4 211 5165
Abu Dhabi
Tel: +971 (0)2 414 6670
brewer@fticonsulting.com

FTI Brewer Consulting

Close this window

http://www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/case.php?id=6101

24/12/2009