STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Journal of Construction Engineering, Technology & Management Original Research

Comparative Study of Time Slice Windows Analysis and Impacted As-Planned Analysis for Data Center Construction Projects Using Primavera P6 24.12 Version

  1. Sachinkumar Sahu Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology, Rasayani,
  2. Raju Narwade Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology, Rasayani
  3. Karthik Nagarajan Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology, Rasayani

Abstract

Data centers are IT infrastructure that needs to be precisely scheduled and coordinated. Significant financial losses and operational failures may result from building delays. Stakeholders can assign blame and comprehend the reasons behind delays with the aid of forensic delay analysis. Because of their unique approaches and legal acceptability, TSWA, and IAPA are commonly used among the many strategies. These methods provide various ways to analyze project schedules and pinpoint significant delays. IAPA looks at how certain events affect project completion, whereas TSWA compares planned and actual timetables. The complexity of the project, the documentation that is accessible, and the particular demands of the dispute resolution procedure all play a role in the decision between various approaches. Among the various delay analysis methodologies available, Time Slice Window Analysis (TSWA) and Impacted As-Planned Analysis (IAPA) are two of the most commonly applied techniques, largely due to their methodological rigor and acceptance in legal and arbitration settings. TSWA involves a detailed comparison between planned and actual project schedules across defined time periods, allowing analysts to assess delay impacts as the project progresses. This method is particularly useful for complex projects with extensive schedule updates and reliable contemporaneous records. In contrast, IAPA evaluates the effect of specific delay events by inserting them into the original baseline schedule to determine their impact on the planned completion date. This approach is often applied when contemporaneous updates are limited but a robust baseline program exists. The selection of an appropriate forensic delay analysis method depends on several factors, including project complexity,availability, and quality of documentation, and the specific requirements of the dispute resolution forum. Understanding the strengths and limitations of TSWA and IAPA is therefore essential for accurately analyzing delays and achieving fair and defensible outcomes in data center construction disputes.

Keywords

References (34)

  1. Abba, D. (2008). Assessment of contingency allowance at tender stage An unpublished B.Sc.
  2. Quantity Surveying Department Faculty of Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria
  3. Ahmed, et al. (1990). Decision-supportsystem for modeling bid/no-bid decision problems, Journal
  4. of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 116(4), 595–608
  5. Al-Bahar, J. and Crandall, K. (1990), Systematic Risk Management Approach For Construction
  6. Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 116(3), pp533–546
  7. Awodele , O. (2012). Framework for Risk Management in Privately Financed Market Projects In
  8. Nigeria, Ph.D Thesis, Hariot-watt University, School of Built Environment, UK.
  9. Baloi, D. and Price, A.D.F. (2003). Modeling Global Risk Factors Affecting Construction Cost
  10. Performance, International Journal of Project Management, 21, 261–269
  11. Brandon, P.S.(1990). Quantity Surveying Techniques: New directions the Challenges and the
  12. Response, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford, pp.1–2
  13. Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (2006).Definition of Project Risk Factors, 4th
  14. EditionPp1041, Great Britain, Harper Collins Publishers
  15. Khalafallah, A.M. (2002). Estimating Cost Contingencies of Residential Building Projects Using
  16. Belief Networks, M.Sc. Thesis, Cairo University Giza, Egypt, Faculty of Engineering.
  17. Latham M. (1994). Constructing The Team, SO, London Odeyinka, H.A.and Iyaba, R.I.(2000).
  18. Risk Management to Avoid Cost Overrun The Quantity Surveyors Journals, 31(1), 14–21
  19. Project Management Institute, (2000). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
  20. 2nd Edition, North Carolina, USA, PMI Communication Publishing
  21. Shehu, Z. and Sommerville, J.(2006). Real Time Risk Management Approach to Construction
  22. Projects. Glasgow University, Glasgow, United Kingdom
  23. Shen, L.Y. Wu, G.W.C. and Ng, C.S.K. (2001).Risk Assessment for Construction Joint Venture in
  24. China, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1), pp76–81
  25. Simu, K. (2006). Risk Management in Small Construction Projects. Department of Civil Mining
  26. and Environmental Engineering, Lulea, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden.
  27. Thompson, P.A. and Perry, J.G. (1992).Engineering Construction Risks: A guide to project risk
  28. Analysis and risk management, SERC Project Report, London, Thomas Telford
  29. Wakjira, T. (2011).Risk Factors Leading to Cost Overrun in Ethiopian Federal Road Construction
  30. Projects and its Consequences, M.Sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Addis Ababa
  31. University Ethiopia
  32. Wang, J.Y. and Liu, C.L. (2004).Risk Management in Construction Projects, Beijing, China Water
  33. Williams, T.M. (1999). The need for new paradigms for complex projects, International Journal of
  34. Project Management, 17(5): 269–73
Support