An interactive exhibit to assist with understanding 1 project delays 2

4 Time, a dynamic concept, can be difficult to understand in static form. As a consequence, the pro-active 5 management and retrospective analysis of delays on construction projects can prove challenging using 6 conventional methods. This can result in time overruns and the rejection of valid delay claims which 7 could develop into dispute if they are not resolved. Disputes have a negative effect on the construction 8 industry but their occurrence, value and duration is rising. This research aims to reduce the likelihood 9 and severity of common delay disputes by providing a solution which aims to: 1) assist with the pro- 10 active management of delays; and, 2) improve the presentation of delay claim information. A detailed 11 background study was undertaken which identified technological opportunities and modes of 12 presentation as potential ways of overcoming the challenges associated with managing and analysing 13 delays. Two stages of assessment were then undertaken to determine the suitability and application of 14 these findings. The first stage utilised a workshop with 50 construction adjudicators to determine the 15 appropriateness of modes of presentation in assisting construction claims. The second stage developed 16 the workshop findings with previous research and integrated modes of presentation with delay analysis. 17 The output was an interactive exhibit, which was assessed through a simulation based on case study 18 data. The interactive exhibit is intended to support, not replace, traditional methods of delay analysis 19 but the solution encountered difficulties with technology as well as the challenge of creating a holistic 20 tool for both pro-active management and retrospective analysis. It is perceived that the interactive exhibit would add most value to the resolution of construction delay claims but further investigation is 22 required to validate the proposed concept before it is used in practice.


27
Over 60% of complex construction projects are not delivered by their due date (CIOB, 2008) and this 28 can lead to cost overruns, benefit shortfalls (Flyvberg, 2014) and disputes. Disputes occur after a claim 29 is rejected and generate direct and indirect costs for the parties involved (Love, 2010). Despite the 30 negative consequences, the number of disputes in the construction industry is expected to rise (NBS, 31 2015) and two of the common causes include (Arcadis, 2015): 32 1. failure to make interim awards on extensions of time and compensation; and, 33 2. poorly drafted or incomplete and unsubstantiated claims. 34 This research aims to reduce the likelihood and severity of disputes by providing a holistic solution to 35 the common causes. This includes: 36 1. assisting with the pro-active management of delays so appropriate control action can be taken 37 and interim awards of extensions of time can be granted; and, 38 2. improving the presentation of delay claims so they are better understood and can be settled 39 before external support is required. 40 To provide context for the research, a detailed study into delays was undertaken. The study identified 41 the challenges of understanding delays and how technological opportunities and modes of presentation 42 could assist the current legal environment. As a link between modes of presentation and delay analysis 43 is not present in the literature, two stages of assessment were undertaken to determine the suitability 44 and application of the proposed concept. The first stage determined the appropriateness of using 45 different modes of presentation on construction claims by collecting data from a workshop with 50 46 industry experts. The second stage developed the findings of the workshop and previous research 47 (Gibbs, 2014) to produce a concept which integrates modes of presentation with delay analysis. The 48 output was an interactive exhibit, which is assessed through a simulation using case study data. The 49 research findings show that modes of presentation can be integrated with delay analysis and that an 50 interactive exhibit could assist with understanding delay. The proposed concept is intended to support, 51 not replace, traditional methods of delay analysis and it is recommended that additional stages of 52 assessment are undertaken before the concept is used in practice. 53 Background 54 Managing time and analysing delay 55 The term "delay" can be defined as the non-completion of works by a date agreed in the construction 56 contract (Fenwick Elliott, 2012). A delay event could occur for a wide-range of reasons (Ramanathan,57 2012) and could affect project progress or project completion (SCL, 2002). A construction programme, 58 also referred to as a construction schedule, can be used to manage time on a project and should 59 consider contractual compliance, logic, duration, development and components (Moosavi, 2014). It is 60 recommended that the construction programme is produced using the critical path method (CIOB, 2011) 61 which uses activity durations and logical relationships to mathematically calculate the shortest possible 62 time to complete a project (Kelley, 1961). Activities which are delayed on the critical path will extend 63 the project duration and there may be parallel, or near critical, paths on a project. Therefore, due to the 64 amount of change a project will encounter, it is likely that the critical activities will alter as the project 65 progresses (Whatley, 2014). 66 Good project management recommends that the construction programme is continually updated and 67 revised as more accurate and detailed information becomes available, which includes impacting change 68 events into the programme (CIOB, 2011). Delay can still occur if this good practice is followed, but the 69 pro-active approach should allow the effect of change to be realised close to when the event arose. 70 Therefore, appropriate control action can be taken or prospective claims can be submitted based on 71 the findings of the analysis. However, many projects do not follow this good practice and the processes 72 and tools they adopt for pro-active management may not produce the information required for 73 retrospective analysis (Scott, 1990). As a consequence, if the effect of a change event is not analysed 74 contemporaneously, a retrospective delay analysis may be required. 75 However, this methodology is not without its shortcomings and it is recommended that the findings are 105 compared with as-built information to ensure the integrity of the analysis (Whatley, 2014). 106 To make complex analyses easier to understand, "windows" (sometimes called "time slices") can be 107 applied to any of the delay analysis methods. This involves dividing the programme into logical 108 segments and analysing the impact of delay in each segment (Pickavance, 2010). However, even if this 109 approach is used, the claim might still not be understood or agreed, so it could be rejected and develop 110 into a dispute. 111 Claims and disputes 112 The number of disputes in the construction industry are expected to rise (NBS, 2015) and the global 113 average construction dispute costs US$51.1 million, lasts 13.2 months (Arcadis, 2015) and generates 114 indirect costs of lost productivity, stress and fatigue, loss of future work, reduced profit, and tarnished 115 reputation (Love, 2010). 116 A dispute occurs when a claim cannot be resolved but because change is inevitable on any project, 117 some claims are an inherent and necessary part of construction (Kumaraswamy, 1997). Therefore, 118 claims should not be judged emotively or as an indication of project failure (CRC, 2007). Instead, they 119 should be addressed appropriately to avoid the potential of dispute. 120 Claim requirements 121 A claim is intended to return the party affected by a change to the position they would have been if the 122 change did not occur (Robinson v. Harman). Unless designated in the contract, a claim is required to 123 be proven to receive damages and the burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion. A claim 124 should prove breach, causality, responsibility and quantum (Williams, 2003) that is not too remote 125 (Hadley v. Baxendale) and be presented in its clearest form (National Museums and Galleries on 126 Merseyside Board of Trustees v. AEW Architects and Designers Ltd). It will be judged on the balance 127 of probabilities, which is that an event is more likely than not to have occurred, and can be swayed by 128 the standard of evidence provided (Haidar, 2011). This will depend on the available facts and how they 129 are presented (Gibbs, 2013), with preference to neutral, contemporaneous records (Kangari, 1995). 130 dependent on the contract and the claiming party ( Figure 1). 132 < Figure 1FIGURE  Although it may be simple for a claim to originate, communicating and agreeing the effect of change on 142 a project can be difficult. This is because a change to a single item has a "ripple effect" on other often 143 complex and interrelated work activities (CIRIA, 2001). Therefore, the sum of individual changes does 144 not necessarily equal the overall change to a project (Williams, 1995). Castaneda). In an attempt to overcome these challenges, the courts have started to utilise technology 156 (Narayanan, 2001;Feigenson, 2011;Schofield, 2011). 157 Use of technology in the legal sector 158 The legal sector tends to be risk averse, so any technology which is adopted by legal service providers 159 is required to go through rigorous analysis and review to ensure it is correctly utilised and fit for purpose. 160 Client demands, competitive pressure and the recession have prompted law firms to increase IT use 161 but investment in technology by the legal sector still remains lower than other industries (LSN, 2015). 162 In an attempt to improve efficiency, the UK criminal justice system is going through a process of 163 digitisation. The aim is to reduce the heavy reliance of paper, which contributes to fragmentation and 164 wasted time, and replace it with digital case files, digital courtrooms and a single information in the highest legal setting, the courtroom, was explored (computer generated exhibits) as well as the 175 opportunity to enhance understanding through technology (interactive videos) and the science behind 176 communication (modes of presentation). 177

4D modelling
178 4D modelling is the process of linking a construction programme to a 3D virtual model to produce a 179 sequence of the construction work (RIBA, 2012). Virtual 3D models are not always produced for 180 construction projects and their absence has restricted the uptake of 4D modelling. However, access to 181 object orientated 3D virtual models has increased following the uptake of Building Information Modelling 182 (BIM) on international construction projects (NBS, 2014). This provides a platform for 4D modelling and 183 the opportunity to harness recognisable benefits, most notably in the planning and construction stages 184 when information needs to be communicated to individuals with a lack of site related knowledge 185 (Mahalingam, 2010). Using this approach, individuals no longer have to imagine and interpret the 186 activity sequence in their mind, instead they are able to view a fact driven 3D construction sequence 187 using a single medium (Koo, 2000). Coupled with the appropriate skillset, 4D modelling could be used 188 for effective communication to foster productive discussions for pro-active management or within the 189 early stages of different forms of alternative dispute resolution (Wing, 2016). However, while BIM and 190 4D modelling could assist with reducing the likelihood and severity of some disputes, they will not 191 eradicate disputes within the industry and the new processes of working and ways of communicating 192 information could unveil different forms of dispute (Gibbs, 2015;Olatunji, 2016). 193 Computer generated exhibits However, construction delays have experienced little advancement in technology (Vidogah, 1998) and 203 only a small amount of research discusses the practical application of CGE for construction claims 204 (Pickavance, 2007). To avoid affecting the admissibility of CGE's as evidence, emotive content such as 205 manipulating camera angles and adding special effects should be avoided (Schofield, 2011). Further 206 research into this field is required (Feigenson, 2003) but in an attempt to overcome these challenges 207 and encourage CGE use, recommendations on the creation of CGE's for the pro-active control and 208 retrospective analysis of delay have been published (Gibbs, 2014). The suggestions include: 209  performing a cost benefit analysis to determine the value of the CGE to the claim; 210  accurately demonstrating the delay in its clearest form; 211  producing a side by side comparison of as-panned and as-built CGE's with timeline; and, 212  ensuring communication between the creators of the programme and the virtual modelling 213 organisation. 214 analysed if the viewer is able to interact (Pensa, 2014). This has given rise to interactive videos, which 217 place motion-tracking hotspots, or "tags", on an item in the video. The tags remain fixed on the item as 218 the video progresses and when the viewer clicks the tag they can access more information about an 219 item and influence the flow of the video (Stenzler, 1996). 220 This concept has been utilised by the advertising industry but the benefits could assist with education 221 because it improves understanding through the incorporation of different modes of presentation within 222 one medium. 223

224
When information is processed, three types of memory are required for meaningful learning to take 225 place. Sensory memory briefly stores sights and sounds and transfers information to the working 226 memory. The capacity of the working memory is limited and temporarily stores information to be 227 organised, this is where an audience holds their attention (Clark, 2008). The new information is then 228 integrated with existing knowledge to form long term memory and understanding (Mayer 2009). 229 The ability to integrate this information can depend on how the material is communicated. VARK modes 230 of presentation, whereby each of the acronym letters are described below, identify that individuals learn 231 in different ways and can have preference to one of the following (Fleming, 1992;Leite, 2009 Preference to a mode of presentation is not specific to a certain type of job. For example lawyers, who 237 might be perceived to learn through Read/Write, actually have diverse learning styles (Boyle, 2005). A 238 combination of presentation modes may be advantageous to some individuals (Mayer, 1991;Fleming, 239 1995) whilst improving the satisfaction of the task (Sung, 2012). However, in some instances, 240 individuals can report fragmented or even no learning because the working memory is overloaded with 241 processing irrelevant information (Mayer, 2001). To combat this, regular pauses are recommended 242 (Spanjers, 2012)  Aspects of Kinesthetic learning were incorporated into the CGE as the user was able to increase speed, 273 filter information and access further information through interaction. 274 < Figure 2FIGURE 2 > 275 At designated stages in the workshop, the participants were asked to provide binary responses to 276 structured questions asked by the presenter (Table 1). The responses were recorded and promoted 277 discussion which was captured and is reported. 278

279
Following the experts discussion, the second assessment developed the findings and assessed the 280 proposed concept through a simulation. This was required to demonstrate how modes of presentation 281 could be incorporated into delay analysis. 282 Given the legal sectors need to rigorously test new technology before use, simulations were chosen as 283 they avoid the risk of failure on a live project by creating and testing a concept in a synthetic environment 284 (Wieringa, 2014). Although there will always be uncertainty about the integrity of a synthetic 285 environment, greater credibility is given to the results obtained from testing a simulation in an 286 environment as close to the context it was intended (Zelkowitz, 1998). Therefore, to establish a realistic 287 environment for testing, data was obtained from a case study of a construction dispute. 288 Case studies allow complex problems to be explored within a real-world context (Yin, 2013). A synthetic 289 environment was created using the case study of a dispute between steelwork contractors and concrete 290 frame contractors whose works were sequential to complete a fast tracked, multi-story office building. 291 Empirical data was obtained from claim consultants but due to the sensitive nature of the dispute, some 292 of the information was limited and modified to preserve anonymity. However, this did not compromise 293 the output. 294 The claim represents a concrete frame contractor who was required to follow a mandatory sequence of 295 works (Figure 3). One of the principal delay events which contributed to the 147 days delay to the 296 agreed practical completion date was slow progress by the steelwork contractor. 297 < Figure 3FIGURE 3 > 298 A time impact analysis with one month windows was used to analyse the delay on the project. The 299 delay analysis consisted of over 3,500 interconnected activities and although this approach provided a 300 detailed mathematical analysis, it made understanding the cause and effect of delay challenging. 301 Incorporating modes of presentation 302 A CGE, in the form of an interactive exhibit, was produced to represent one of the monthly windows. 303 The interactive exhibit integrated all of the different modes of presentation with the delay analysis as 304 well as current and past research findings, using a variety of software packages (Figure 4). 305 < Figure 4FIGURE 4 > 306 To create a fact driven 4D model of the delay claim, a 3D model and the construction programme were 307 required. The original delay analysis was produced in programming software which did not interface 308 with the construction sequencing software. Therefore, to use the delay analysis, the file was transferred 309 through different programming packages until it could be converted into a file format which allowed it to 310 be imported into the construction sequencing software. Checks and modifications were undertaken to 311 ensure an exact replica of the analysis was presented. 312 A 3D model of the project was not available and had to be created using object-oriented software. The 313 3D model was produced using technical drawings, design information and photographs which were 314 provided to the claim consultants. The 3D model was imported into the construction sequencing 315 software and the activities in the programming software were linked to the 3D objects. Appropriate 316 camera angles and visualisation techniques were employed to demonstrate as-planned (baseline) 317 progress against the as-built (time impacted) data. The Visual output was recorded and edited using 318 video creating software and saved as a video file. 319 Aural narration, which summarised the report narrative, was recorded in the video creating software to 320 describe what was occurring on screen. The Visual and Aural recordings were performed independently 321 to provide additional explanation of the delay analysis. The length of the text was limited so it did not 323 compromise the Visual appearance but additional written information could be found through 324 Kinesthetic interaction. This was achieved by placing clickable tags on the written description of the 325 delay event which contained additional information such as photographs, videos, graphs and more 326 detailed and cross referenced text description. 327  The workshop participants stressed that a CGE should only display fact and that the information driving 334 the Visual should be visible to the viewer. To determine the value of CGE, some participants indicated 335 a preference to interrogate the exhibit but the necessity of this split the workshop. The majority of 336 participants commented that interrogation was not fundamental and, in its most basic form, the CGE 337 could be used to give an overall impression of a claim. It was stated by a participant that this would be 338 advantageous in adjudications, where an adjudicator has a short duration to understand a dispute and 339 report their decision. However, some participants indicated that although CGE's may be visually 340 appealing and useful in swaying a jury, there will always be an element of doubt that it is accurately 341 reflecting the facts. 342

Suitability of proposed concept
There was a common consensus amongst the participants that it is the responsibility of the CGE's 343 creator to tell the viewer how it can be relied upon. Furthermore, there was a general agreement that 344 the CGE should be kept as simple as possible and include sufficient explanation to communicate what 345 is occurring on the screen. The participants recommended showing actual progress against what was 346 planned and using video and pictures as supporting evidence. It was also stated in the workshop that 347 the CGE could be useful to pro-actively manage a project. 348 demonstrates that CGE's are not widely used to support construction claims. Of those who had 351 encountered a CGE, the respondents did not indicate multiple experiences. 352 The ability to display the information driving the CGE will vary depending on the claim. For delay claims, 353 the delay analysis should suffice and can be included and made visible as part of the CGE. The detail 354 of the information included and displayed in the CGE will depend on its purpose. It appeared that the 355 workshop participants were unaware of the different degrees of CGE value which may have contributed 356 to the divided response on the appropriateness of CGE's as supporting evidence. Therefore, the use 357 of a narrative to explain how the viewer can rely upon the CGE would be of benefit. 358 There may be a lack of confidence in CGE's due to personal views and the demographic of the job role. The innovation considers the technological capabilities of the legal system to provide a practical 373 solution. The output, the interactive exhibit, incorporates the workshops findings and the 374 recommendations found in related literature (Gibbs, 2014), as outlined in Table 2Table 2.  375 interactive exhibit, to demonstrate how the slow progress of the steelwork contractor caused delay to 378 the concrete frame contractor during one window of analysis. 379 < Figure 5FIGURE  These text boxes act as the clickable tags, which make the video interactive. 393 < Figure 8FIGURE 8 > 394 01min 06sec When the tag is clicked the exhibit is paused and a box containing additional 395 information, such as pictures, videos or text reference to the report narrative, is 396 displayed. If the tag is not clicked, the exhibit progresses as normal. 397 < Figure 9FIGURE  Interactive exhibit observations 402 The interactive exhibit provides an innovative way of understanding Gantt chart information. Instead of 403 converting the data into a meaningful mental image to compare planned and actual progress, the need 404 for this conceptualisation is reduced and the proposed concept enhances understanding by 405 incorporating modes of presentation into the analysis. The application of these modes of presentation 406 into the interactive exhibit are summarised and their benefits and limitations are presented in Table  407 3Table 3. 408 < Table 3TABLE  limited and if any additional information was required, it could be achieved by clicking on the interactive 434 tags. The information behind the tags might not offer the required level of information to support a claim; 435 therefore, a report narrative should still be provided with the appropriate detail. 436 Nevertheless, the clickable tags promote Kinesthetic learning through user interaction. This style of 437 learning could be enhanced by viewing the interactive exhibit on a mobile device, which would allow 438 the viewer to understand information away from their desk. This option is supported through private 439 online access; however, this requires the data to be held on a third party sever. This could form a barrier 440 to adoption but it is anticipated that alternative ways of creating and viewing interactive exhibits will 441 become available in the future. 442 Given the nature of video, Visual is the primary mode of presentation for the exhibit and the other modes 443 of presentation provide secondary support. As it is impossible to interact all senses with digital 444 technology, incorporating Kinesthetic modes of presentation into the delay analysis posed the greatest 445 challenge. Furthermore, a video was required to support Aural and Read/Write modes of presentation 446 in the delay analysis. This removed the ability to interrogate the delay analysis in a 4D environment, 447 which would have benefited Kinesthetic learning. Therefore, a native file of the 4D model could be 448 provided in addition to the interactive exhibit to allow for interrogation and enhanced Kinesthetic 449 learning. 450 The time impact analysis demonstrates how the modes of presentation could assist with pro-active 451 control and retrospective analysis. However, the interactive exhibit appears most suitable for 452 construction claims. 453 The resources required to produce the interactive exhibit for pro-active control may outweigh the overall 454 value gained. Pro-active control of delays requires fast decisions but the interactive exhibit requires 455 time and resources for its creation. Furthermore, those involved with decision making at this stage may 456 not significantly benefit from improved understanding as the individuals are likely to be familiar with the 457 details of the project. Therefore, although recording the effects of change is important, some individuals 458 might argue that the time and resources could be better focused on overcoming delays than reporting 459 their effects in the form of an interactive exhibit. However, the Visual concept of side by side comparison 460 of as-planned and as-built 4D models could, in isolation, be utilised to pro-actively manage delays. The first stage confirmed the suitability of using modes of presentation to improve the understanding of 471 construction claims and gathered requirements for future development. In line with the literature, the 472 industry experts identified that CGE's are not common forms of evidence for construction claims 473 (Vidogah, 1998) and when CGE's have been used to support claims, they have not always been helpful. 474 The expert's suggestions for improvement were consistent with previous research (Gibbs, 2014) and 475 their concerns mirrored some of the issues presented in the literature (Schofield, 2011). This included 476 informing the viewer how they can rely on the CGE, as not all individuals are familiar with the different 477 categories of CGE's (Burr, 2010). If this is not communicated, it could cause the CGE's integrity to be 478 questioned and this could be exasperated if the CGE cannot be interrogated. For avoidance of doubt, 479 it is recommended that the native 4D file is made available so the data can be independently analysed 480 if required. The integrity of the CGE as evidence could be assisted by the inclusion of modes of 481 presentation and could be used to explain and cross reference what is occurring on the screen. 482 The second stage developed the workshop findings and demonstrated that all four modes of 483 presentation could be successfully integrated into an interactive exhibit; however, this was not without 484 its challenges. Integrating the different modes of presentation evenly into the CGE was restricted by 485 technology. In the proposed concept, the Visual mode of presentation appears to be the primary mode, 486 with the other modes attached. Therefore, some of the perceived benefits of the interactive exhibit might 487 be attributed to the side by side comparison of as-planned and as-built progress. Further challenges 488 included the interoperability issues. Literature on the interoperability issues for 4D modelling is lacking 489 and while this research goes some way to demonstrate the challenges, additional research into software 490 interoperability and the granularity of detail for the simultaneous production of programme and 3D virtual 491 model is required. 492 The time impact analysis demonstrates how the proposed concept could be used for both pro-active 493 control and retrospective analysis but the research exemplifies the challenge of creating a holistic tool 494 (Scott, 1990). It is perceived that the interactive exhibit would add greatest value to construction claims 495 because it can assist with communicating causality, responsibility and quantum in its clearest form. This 496 is consistent with literature associated with the applicability of 4D modelling, which identifies the greatest 497 value of 4D modelling is to those with a lack or site related knowledge (Mahalingam, 2010). Therefore, 498 the interactive exhibit could improve the standard of evidence and tip the balance of probabilities but 499 further research is required to test the concept in practice and additional value could be gained through 500 analysis on non-linear projects with different methods/classifications of delay analysis which require 501 different levels of communication (Ng, 2004). Further research is also required to determine the added 502 value of the interactive exhibit for pro-active control. 503 Overall the research aim, reducing the likelihood and severity of construction disputes, is addressed 504 through the development of the interactive exhibit, which can be used to accelerate and improve 505 understanding about project delay through modes of presentation. It is suggested that the interactive 506 exhibit is used as a supportive tool and not as a replacement for conventional methods but before the 507 proposed concept is incorporated into practice, additional stages of assessment should be undertaken. 508     Demonstrates the complex interdependency between trades.

Acknowledgements
Side-by-side analysis shows change events and the effect on the project.
If 3D and 4D models do not exist, creating them can be resources intense. Issues with interoperability of software packages.

Aural
Aural explanation of what is occurring on screen. This is likely to be a summary of the written report narrative.
Can be turned on/off at viewer's discretion.
Detail might not be sufficient as a standalone item.
Read/Write Text captions summarise key events and pieces of information.
Summarises and draws attention to key items.
Cannot be turned on/off when interactive exhibit is created.
Detail might not be sufficient as a standalone item.

Kinesthetic
Novel way for the viewer to interact with the simulation and gain additional information using clickable "tags".
Simple and effective way to interact with the exhibit to gain additional information.
Can be played on a handheld device to enhance Kinesthetic learning.
All senses cannot interact with digital technology for full Kinesthetic learning. Interaction is limited, viewer cannot navigate the model. Data held on a server external to those involved with the project. 698