Evaluating Delay Impacts: From Root Cause Analysis to Dispute Resolution

Year : 2025 | Volume : 12 | 03 | Page : –
    By

    Anshul Rao,

  • J. R. Pitroda,

  • Jagruti P. Shah,

  • Dharmesh Kalthia,

Abstract

document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_abs_195949’);});Edit Abstract & Keyword

Construction projects inherently involve complex coordination among multiple stakeholders, interdependent tasks, and unpredictable external challenges, which frequently cause schedule overruns and disputes. Traditional contractual mechanisms—such as extensions of time (EoT), liquidated damages, and force majeure clauses—serve to define responsibilities, allocate risk, and establish formal dispute pathways when delays arise. For example, EoT provisions protect contractors from penalties when delays are beyond their control, provided proper notice and evidence are submitted liquidated damages impose a pre-agreed financial consequence without the need for actual loss proof and force majeure clauses excuse non-performance due to unforeseeable, uncontrollable events, safeguarding both parties. Beyond these legal tools, digital innovations are reshaping delay and dispute management: AI offers early detection systems and predictive analysis for slippages Building Information Modeling (BIM), especially in 4D and 5D forms, enables precise time-impact analysis and forensic investigation of delay origins ; and blockchain-powered smart contracts automate milestone payments, create transparent audit trails, and reduce the administrative burden of delay resolution. The convergence of clear contractual drafting and digital oversight aligns contractual intent with project execution, enabling timely dispute detection and efficient resolution. Taken together, this integrated model enhances resilience, procedural clarity, and flexibility in construction project governance. Ultimately, this paper supports a forward-looking framework—merging meticulously drafted EoT, liquidated damages, and force majeure terms with AI-driven analytics, BIM visualization, and blockchain enforcement—to minimize disruptions, resolve disputes effectively, and promote smoother, more efficient project delivery.

Keywords: Construction delays, Contractual provisions, Dispute resolution, Extension of Time (EoT), Liquidated damages, Force majeure, Smart contracts, Building Information Modeling (BIM), Project management, Artificial Intelligence (AI)

How to cite this article:
Anshul Rao, J. R. Pitroda, Jagruti P. Shah, Dharmesh Kalthia. Evaluating Delay Impacts: From Root Cause Analysis to Dispute Resolution. Journal of Structural Engineering and Management. 2025; 12(03):-.
How to cite this URL:
Anshul Rao, J. R. Pitroda, Jagruti P. Shah, Dharmesh Kalthia. Evaluating Delay Impacts: From Root Cause Analysis to Dispute Resolution. Journal of Structural Engineering and Management. 2025; 12(03):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/josem/article=2025/view=0


document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_ref_195949’);});Edit

References

[1]        K. Bagrecha and A. Bais, “Study on Delay Construction Project in India,” Int. J. Innov. Eng. Res. Technol. [IJIERT], vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 6–10, 2017.

[2]        J. Tariq and S. Shujaa Safdar Gardezi, “Study the delays and conflicts for construction projects and their mutual relationship: A review,” Ain Shams Eng. J., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 101815, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2022.101815.

[3]        K. K. Berta and M. Tesfaye, “Determinants of road construction project delay in the case of Woliso–Ambo road construction,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-86852-9.

[4]        K. Tochaiwat and V. Chovichien, “Contract Provision Inadequacies in Infrastructure Design-Build Contract: A Case Study,” Proceeding Fourth Reg. Symp. Infrastruct. Dev. Civ. Eng. RSID4, April. Bangkok, no. January 2003, 2003.

[5]        H. Y. Chong and R. M. Zin, “Selection of dispute resolution methods: Factor analysis approach,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 428–443, 2012, doi: 10.1108/09699981211237120.

[6]        S. Safinia, “A Review on Dispute Resolution Methods in UK Construction Industry,” Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 105–108, 2014, doi: 10.5923/j.ijcem.20140304.01.

[7]        S.-O. Cheung, H. C. H. Suen, and T.-I. Lam, “Fundamentals of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes in Construction,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 409–417, 2002, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2002)128:5(409).

[8]        J. R. Cheeks, “Multistep dispute resolution in design and construction industry,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 84–91, 2003, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:2(84).

[9]        P. Wong, P. Kennedy, and S. Cheung, “Use of alternative dispute resolution in construction,” Challenges, Oppor. Solut. Struct. Eng. Constr., pp. 58–63, 2009, doi: 10.1201/9780203859926.ch125.

Ahead of Print Subscription Case Study
Volume 12
03
Received 11/05/2025
Accepted 09/06/2025
Published 10/06/2025
Publication Time 30 Days
101

[first_name] [last_name]

My IP

PlumX Metrics