Search results

The purpose of this paper is to propose a decision support framework that can be used by decision-makers to identify the most convenient disruption analysis (DA) methods for megaprojects and their stakeholders.

The framework was initially developed by conducting a comprehensive literature review to obtain extensive knowledge about disruption management and megaprojects. Focus group discussion (FGD) sessions with the participation of the construction practitioners were then organized to validate and strengthen the findings of the literature review. Consequently, 17 selection factors were identified and categorized as requirement, ability and outcome. Lastly, the most convenient DA methods for megaprojects were identified by performing integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis. Additionally, consistency analysis was also conducted to verify the reliability of the results.

The results revealed that the measured mile method is the most appropriate DA method for megaprojects. In case the measured mile method cannot be adopted due to various technical and contractual reasons, the decision-makers are proposed to consider program analysis, work or trade sampling, earned value analysis and control chart method, respectively. Second, the selection factors such as “Comprehensible analysis procedure,” “Existing knowledge and experience about a particular DA method,” “Ability to resolve greater number of disruption events,” “Ability to resolve complex disruption events,” “Ability to exclude factors that are not under the owner's responsibility” and “General acceptance by practitioners, courts, and arbitration, etc.” were given the top priority by the experts, highlighting the critical aspects of the DA methods.

Disruption claims in megaprojects are very critical for the contractors to compensate for the losses stemming from disruption events. Although the effective use of DA methods maximizes the accuracy and reliability of disruption claims, decision-makers can barely implement these methods adequately since past studies neglect to present extensive knowledge about the most convenient DA methods for megaprojects. Thus, developing a decision support framework for the selection of DA methods, this study is the earliest attempt that examines the mechanisms and inherent differences of DA methods. Additionally, owing to the robustness and versatility of this research approach, the research approach could be replicated also for future studies focusing on other project-based industries since disruption is also a challenging issue for many other industries.

An S-curve is an essential project-management tool. However, it is difficult to adjust S-curve to deal with a force majeure event. The present study develops four valuable adjustment approaches, designed to achieve a compromise between the views of the client and contractor. These can be used to control projects after a force majeure event.

The present study develops four adjustment approaches, which can be used to achieve a compromise between the views of the client and those of the contractor when controlling projects after a force majeure. To determine the S-curves during a force majeure event, two approaches can be selected: BCWS (budgeted cost of scheduled work)-base approach, or BCWP (budgeted cost of work performed)-base approach. To determine the rest of S-curves after a force majeure event, two approaches can be considered: maintaining the original curve of the remaining BCWS, or allocating the original curve of the remaining BCWS. Based on the validation of three empirical cases, drawn from a professional project-management website, this study confirms the feasibility of four proposed empirical approaches and a selection procedure for S-curve adjustment.

The S-curve-adjustment approaches presented here can be used to deal with cases that are ahead of, on and behind schedule. Using the proposed approaches and selection procedure, contractors can easily revise S-curves and control projects more effectively. To deal with a force majeure event, such as COVID-19, they are strongly advised to adopt the approaches labeled SA-A1 (to adjust the S-curve based on the extension ratio multiplied by the difference in progress during the force majeure) and SA-B1 (to maintain the original curve of the remaining BCWS) for the A/E and E/F curves, respectively.

The proposed approaches can be used in cases of continuous construction during force majeure events. If construction work is totally suspended during such an event, it will be necessary to fine-tune the proposed approaches.

Previous studies have used case-oriented or mathematical-simulation approaches to forecast S-curves. The present study proposes simple approaches that allow the client and contractor to adjust the S-curve easily after a force majeure event. These approaches can be used to adjust work and project-completion targets within an extended duration. Selecting the right S-curve adjustment approach can help to control the remainder of the project, reducing the possibility of delay claims.