The Window Delay Analysis Technique: The Clear
Solution of the Coming Millennium
Anamaria I. Kohler, M.S., E.I.T, Carter & Burgess
Dr. John D. Borcherding, The University of Texas at Austin
Introduction
Delays in construction schedules are nothing new. Even when
the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid of Gizeh around 2500
BC, delays often surfaced, and finger-pointing became a pop-
ular pastime of all parties involved in the ancient project. Un-
fortunately for the Egyptian workers, the blame seemed to
consistently land on their shoulders regardless of the true
cause of the delay. I assume that the Nile crocodiles were par-
ticularly well fed during that century!
As the construction industry enters the twenty first centu-
ry, are we less naive than the Egyptians? Both owners and
contractors have viewed delay analysis techniques as after-
the-fact weapons to expediently slaughter one another in
courtroom battles. This inefficient application of delay analy-
sis techniques must be tempered in order to propel the con-
struction industry into a new century where legal dramas are
simply relics of a claims-conscious past.
The first section of this paper is a review of the most com-
mon delay analysis techniques applied in the construction in-
dustry. The successive sections deal with the results of a sur-
vey designed to discover the most effective delay analysis
technique. The survey was given to a Delphi panel of twenty
experts whose forte lies in the schedule analysis arena. Both
the strengths and the shortcomings of the “ideal” analysis
technique are brought into focus.
Delay Analysis Techniques
Schumacher (1995) stated the following about the evolution
of delay techniques:
“At least three techniques have evolved over the last 30
years. They are generically known as “what-if ” evaluations
(otherwise known as impacted as-planned analysis), “but-for”
evaluation, and Contemporaneous Period Analysis (window
analysis). Primarily, they differ in the baseline that is used to
measure the delays.”
Window Analysis Technique
The window analysis technique (WAT) is the most advanta-
geous of all the as-planned approaches, according to C.Popes-
cu (1991). The most effective as-planned based delay impact
116
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium
Chicago, Illinois: Papers Presented September 29 to October 1, 1997
analysis utilizes a scenario with a CPM program, which is ful-
ly implemented and updated frequently. This brings the
greatest benefit to both the owner and contractor and mini-
mizes controversy during dispute resolution.
Using CPM-based networks, the window analysis breaks
up the project into smaller time periods defined by major
schedule revisions. These smaller time periods are referred to
as “windows.” Each succeeding window becomes the con-
temporaneous “baseline” schedule, and previous windows
are ignored. Each window is “framed” between two revisions
(Galloway 1990). Example: Window number one is framed
between the initial as-planned schedule (baseline) and the
first schedule revision. There are two schedules for each win-
dow—an as-planned and an actual. The actual project com-
pletion date is the end of the final window.
In other words, the window technique “relies on the sim-
ulation of progressive updates of the as-planned schedule to
yield incremental extensions on the contract’s milestones as
a result of each delay” (Fredlund 1990). The window tech-
nique is useful in proving that controlling critical paths
change, pinpointing when these changes occur, and indicat-
ing what would have happened had the contractor been able
to adhere to his as-planned schedule (Fredlund 1990).
Impacted As-Planned Technique
Zafar (1996) believes “this is one of the simplest ways of do-
ing a delay analysis where the baseline schedule is affected for
different delays, one after another.” This technique also uses
a CPM network to demonstrate delay impacts; however, the
original approved as-planned schedule is the only baseline uti-
lized to evaluate individual delays as they occur. This method
does not update the schedule using actual as-built informa-
tion, and there is no comparison of the “impacted” schedule
with the actual as-built information (Trauner 1990). Unlike
the impacted as-planned technique, the window technique
does update the as-planned schedule and uses the new im-
pacted as-planned for comparison with the actual schedule.
Callahan (1992) believes, “Under the as-planned method,
the contractor is entitled to a time extension only if the
scheduled completion is delayed beyond the extended con-
tract completion date. The as-planned method employs the
planned schedule to measure the delay, regardless of whether
the actual construction in the field differs from the planned.”
In this statement lies the inherent problem with the impact-
ed as-planned technique.
But-For Technique
The but-for technique is considered to be “less of a CPM
technique than a legal standard for evaluating delay claims”
(Barba 1994). This technique is commonly used in court to
prove specific delay claims due to its visual nature. A con-
tractor may use this technique to claim entitlement for com-
pensation from a date earlier than the required contract com-
pletion date. Barba states:
“In determining the merit of such a claim the ‘but for’ ap-
proach compares the actual date of project completion with
the point in time at which the work would have been com-
pleted but for delays caused by other factors or parties.”
The but-for technique essentially “pulls out all owner de-
lays that affected the as-built critical path. The amount of
compensable delay is the difference in time between the ac-
tual completion date shown on the as-built schedule and the
completion date shown on the but-for schedule” (Schumach-
er 1995).
Summary of Techniques
It becomes clearly evident by examining Exhibit 1 that the
window analysis technique is the most comprehensive of the
three analysis techniques described in the preceding para-
graphs. WAT is the only technique out of the three that ac-
knowledges the dynamics of the schedule. The critical path is
not static. In fact, it may go through dynamic fluctuations
upon every update. The windows technique captures these
fluctuations.
However, along with this advantage, the window tech-
nique does have some drawbacks. It requires an extensive
amount of data input to maintain accurate results, and a
skilled scheduler is essential to interpret and analyze the up-
dated reports.
Survey Methodology
The main intention of the survey was to determine the most
frequently applied delay analysis technique in the construc-
tion industry. Data collection was based on the Delphi
method. The Delphi method requires the researcher to iden-
tify a panel of experts with which to conduct his survey and
have an iterative exchange of ideas over a substantial period
of time.
The selection criteria for the panel of experts was based on
the following:
• Must have ten years or more delay analysis experience
• Must have applied in practice at least one of the tech-
niques on a regular basis
117
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium
Chicago, Illinois: Papers Presented September 29 to October 1, 1997
Exhibit 1. Characteristics of Delay Analysis
Techniques
Attributes W I B
Based on Critical Path Method X X X
Need Skilled Schedule Analyst X X X
Based on Dynamic As-Planned Schedule X
Distinguishes between Delay Types X X X
Accounts for Critical Path Shifts X
Recognizes Concurrencey of Delays X X
Degree of Data Intensity H M H
Forward or Backward Based Analysis F F B
• Must be willing to be included in an iterative process that
could last one year
• Must be comfortable sharing ideas with academia.
The initial screening based on these criteria was conduct-
ed via telephone interviews. Twenty members were finally se-
lected to become part of the Delphi panel. Sixty percent of
the panel participants had roles of project management con-
sultants. Twenty percent were scheduling specialists, and the
other 20 percent were attorneys specializing in construction
claims.
Survey Results
Exhibit 2 depicts the original thirteen questions asked in the
survey.
Review of Responses
Thirteen out of the twenty respondents indicated that the
window technique is the delay analysis tool they apply in
practice. In fact, eleven out of these thirteen people have ap-
plied the windows technique for at least five years, and eight
people have used it for over ten years.
Eleven out of the thirteen respondents also answered affir-
matively to question 6, “Have you used this technique for allo-
cating delays among the GC and subcontractor?” This over-
whelming response indicates that the windows technique
contains a greater amount of flexibility than the other delay
analysis techniques, allowing you to pinpoint delays down to
the subcontractor level. This is extremely important on projects
where the general contractor plays the role of a broker, allow-
ing the subcontractors to perform all of the project activities.
The way delays are represented in the analysis is ex-
tremely important. All thirteen survey participants that im-
plement the window analysis technique stated that delays are
represented as separate activities. The impacted activity is
broken into two separate activities and the delay activity is
 Exhibit 2. Summary of Questions

1. What techniques are you familiar with?
2. Check the techniques that you have used or are
using as a delay analysis tool.
3. Which one technique do you apply in practice?
9. What do you believe to be the greatest strengths of
this technique?
10. What do you believe to be the major limitations of
this technique?
11. What do you believe to be the perceived
shortcomings of the remainder of the techniques?

4. How long have you been using this technique? 12. How do you represent delays?

5. Have you ever used this technique for allocating 13. How do you distinguish between owner-caused and
delays among the GC and the owner? contractor caused delays?
6. Have you ever used this technique for allocating
delays among the GC and subcontractor?
7. Why did you chose to apply this technique over the
others listed above?
8. Have you in any way modified this technique to suit
your needs? If yes, please describe these mods.

Exhibit 3. Top 10 Strengths of the Window Analysis Technique

1. Great visual impact.

2. Court Friendly: most effective on juries
3. Most credible delay analysis technique and the most persuasive.
4. Considers revisions in logic and critical path: dynamic.
5. Looks at delays contemporaneously giving the most accurate picture.
6. Analyzes delays caused by all project participants.
7. Easier to assign delay responsibility by viewing specific windows.
8. Gives contractors a “fresh start” by updating the baseline: eliminates focus on impacts of
past changes.
9. The project is divided into manageable parts for analysis.
10. Recognizes concurrency of delays.

inserted in-between. By using this method, the delay can be
coded so that a report can be easily generated. This report in-
dicates all delays, which activities they affect, and for what
duration.
Top Ten Lists
The top ten strengths of the window analysis technique, as
indicated by the survey participants, are listed in Exhibit 3.
The window analysis technique has a very persuasive list
of positive attributes that make it the logical choice for a
schedule analysis tool. However, the windows technique does
have some limitations that should be a caveat to every pro-
fessional schedule analyst.
Concluding Remarks
A progressive owner who recognizes the benefits of spending
money initially on the preplanning stage of a project, instead
of after the fact on lawyers fees, will also embrace the appli-
cation of the windows analysis technique over all other delay
analysis methods. An owner that exhibits these traits will be
ready for the future of project management.
References
Barba, Evans M., and Thomas C. Caruso. 1994. Approaches
to Schedule Delay Analysis. Session 1012 Ninth Annual
Construction Superconference, Barba-Arkhon Interna-
tional Inc.

118

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium

Chicago, Illinois: Papers Presented September 29 to October 1, 1997
Exhibit 4. Top 10 Limitations of the Window Analysis Technique

1. Need accurate and detailed contemporaneous documents to obtain accurate updates.

2. Excessive expenditures are incurred to analyze the windows when faced with inadequate
support data.
3. Schedules are not updated consistently and accurately to implement technique.
4. Not as accepted by seasoned construction lawyers.
5. The maximum number of Windows must be limited to 5 but no less than 2 for optimum
effectiveness.
6. The outcome can be manipulated by the selection of the Window cut-off dates.
7. A small delay could become a non-issue in later windows; therefore, a time extension
granted now could turnout to be a “gift” later.
8. The as-planned schedule must be well thought out and detailed in order to be an accurate
baseline for the first window.
9. The analysis must be done contemporaneously to be fully effective.
10. If the contract is not required to follow the guidelines, the technique is almost impossible to
apply.

Callahan, Michael T., Daniel G. Quackenbush, and James E.

Rowings. 1992. Construction Project Scheduling. Mc-
Graw Hill, New York.
Fredlund, Donald J., and Gui Ponce de Leon. 1990. “Delay
Evaluation Using Record Schedules.” 1990 AACE Trans-
actions. R.2.1-R.2.7.
Galloway, Patricia D., and Kris R. Nielsen. 1990. 1990 PMI
Seminar/Symposium. Calgary, Alberta: 412–418.
Popescu, Calin. 1991. “Selecting As-Planned Base in Project
Disputes.” 1991 AACE Transactions. C.2.1-C.2.4.
Schumacher,Lee. 1995. “Quantifying and Apportioning De-
lay on Construction Projects.” Cost Engineering (Febru-
ary): 11–13.
Trauner, Theodore J. 1990. Construction Delays. R.S Means
Company Inc., Kingston, MA.
Zafar, Zartab Q. 1996. “Construction Project Delay Analy-
sis.” Cost Engineering (March): 23–27.

119

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium

Chicago, Illinois: Papers Presented September 29 to October 1, 1997