10  The Australian Journal of Constru<tion Economio and Building (Vol6, No 21 

 

ilS u inererh SLage::.. 

 
 
 

Formulation of Generic Simulation Models for Analyzing 
Construction Claims 

 

Rifat N. Rustom (Vci e President for IT and External Affairs,Associate Prof. of Civil Eng.,  Islamci 
University of Gaza, Gaza,Palestine) 

 

 
 
 
 

ABSTRACT   
 
 

While there are several techniques for analyzing 
the impact of claims on time schedule and 
productivity, very few are considered adequate 
and comprehensive to consider risks and 
uncertainties. A generic approach for claims 
analysis using simulation  is proposed. The 
formulation of the generic methodology 
presented in this paper depends on three 
simulation models;As-Planned Model (APM), 
As-Built Model (ABM), and What-Would-Have- 
Been Model(WWHBM). The proposed generic 
methodology as presented in this paper provides 
a good basis as a more elaborate approach to 
better analyze claims and their impacts on 
project time and productivity utilizing discrete 
event simulation.The approach proposed allows 
for scenario analysis to account for the disputed 
events and workflow disruptions. The proposed 
models will assist claimants in presenting their 
cases effectively  and professionally. 

 
 

Keywords: Construction; Claims; Simulation; 
Modeling; Time Impact Analysis. 

 
 

INTRODUCTION   
 
 

The construction industry is known for its 
complex interrelationships and large number of 
parties involved in it. Due to this nature, work 
changes would occur and are considered 
indispensable part of the construction process at 

...I " ' ,..     T"',.."'- ,..a...,...... -,......  _.,,..,,. :..... ,....,,,.,,.. 
I 110::::::>0::::  viiGtii O::::::> "lviUUO:::: 

design errors, subsurface conditions, defective 
material, performance delays, additional work, 
and a host of other events and conditions. These 
changes may affect the time, cost and methoof 
performance of the parties involved in the proJect 
and will ultimately affect the project schedule, 
whether increase the overall project duration or 
decrease it. Finishing a project on schedule is 
therefore  a difficult task to accomplish in the 
uncertain, complex, multiparty, and dynamic 

environment  of construction (Kartam, 1999). 
Because of these changes and the associated 
impacts, a project will encounter unplanned 
circumstances that may lead to disputes. Delays, 
disruptions, and accelerations are considered 
the most recurring causes of contract problems. 
Levin (1998) listed the general circumstances 
that typically cause claims and change orders. 
Additional work not specified in the contract, 
strikes, adverse weather, third parties, contractor 
errors, change orders, and order directed 
suspensions, are among these causes.  In most 
of the cases, once a dispute has occurred, a 
claim for financial damage by either the owner or 
contractor  will arise. 
 
 
Many researchers have addressed  delay claims, 
as the most common type of claims. Alkass et al. 
(1995) stated that delays on a construction site 
are normally inevitable  and, as a result,many 
claims arise with few of them ending up in 
litigation. Assaf et al. (1995) outlined the main 
causes of delay in large building projects and 
their relative importance in Saudi Arabia. They 
found that the most important factors of delay 
included approvalof shop drawings, delays in 
contractors' progress payment by owners, design 
changes, conflicts in work schedules of 
subcontractors, the slow decision making 
process of the owner, design errors, and labor 
shortages and inadequate labor skills. Also, 
Ogunlana  and Promkunton (1996) studied the 
delays in building projects in Thailand as an 
example of developing economics. They 
concluded that the most important  problems 
causing delays are problems of shortages or 
inadequacies in industry infrastructure,maii11Y 
supply of resources; problems caused by clients 
and consultants; and problems caused by 
incompetence of contractors.Kartam (1999) 
provided a classification system for de   ys 
on their origin, timing, and compensabrhty. 
 
 
Among the widely offered methods  for analyzing 
claims due to delays and disruptions are (1) the 
As-Planned Method; (2) the As-Built Method; 



The Australian Journal of Constru<tion Economicsand Building [Vol 6, No 2]  13 
 

and (3) the Modified As-Built Method (sometimes 
called As-Adjusted Method). These methods 
focused on time impact analysis using time 
schedules (bar-charts) with deterministic 
durations. The paper is intended to introduce the 
general approach to utilize simulation in 
modeling these methods using probabilistic 
durations. 

 
 

STUDY OBJECTIVES   
 
 

The time impact analysis tools (bar charts, CPM) 
used to analyze and prove the basis for delay 
claims can be detrimental to the acceptance and 
success of a claim. This paper presents a 
generic approach for claims analysis using 
simulation as a promising tool. The models 
developed provide effective means for analyzing 
claims at different stages of the project. The 
approach proposed will assist claimants in 
presenting their case effectively and other 
parties, i.e. owners, arbitrators, courts, to 
comprehend and verify the case. 

 
 

BASIS OF CLAIMS PROCESS FORMULATION 
 
 

Kululanga et al. (2001) laid out the principles 
(behavior and awareness) that underlay 
construction claim process which were modeled 
and developed based on the theory of capturing 
behavior and awareness in order to measure the 
effectiveness of an organizational process.They 
also gave a generic framework that facilitates the 
management of construction claim process. 
Kululanga et al. (2001), Easton (1989), 
European (1996), and Kartam (1999) identified 
the variables needed in modeling and developing 
the construction claim process. The variables 
that are used to model the process are:claim 
identification, claim notification, claim 
examination, claim documentation, claim 
presentation, claim negotiation, and use of total 
quality management  tools to prevent claims. 

 
 

Claim presentation is one of the main elements 
that need to be well evaluated and addressed as 
it provides the ba3is for claim recovery through 
determining the impact of the claim and 
calculating the damage. 

ANALYSIS  OF CLAIMS 
 
 
A great deal of time is spent in analyzing 
documents, producing reports, attending 
meetings, writing letters, agonizing over 
negotiations, attending legal hearings, etc. Thus 
much of the time is spent focusing on processing 
the claim and not on analyzing the merit and 
potentiality of the claim (Bramble, 1990). 
Therefore, evaluating the effect of the dispute 
(whether delay, acceleration, or disruption) on 
project time requires not only comparing the as- 
planned activity dates with the actual 
performance dates,but  a thorough impact 
analysis of the event on the subsequent activities 
and future performance measures. McDonald 
and Baldwin, 1989,illustrated the factors that 
may delay or disrupt the contractor's 
performance and the associated effects that may 
become a basis for a delay or disruption claim. 
(see Figure 1). 
 
 
Just as network scheduling has become an 
important tool in managing a project, it has also 
become an important evidentiary tool in the 
presentation and defense of delay and disruption 
claims in litigation. Courts and boards have held 
that CriticalPath Method (CPM) schedules are 
the most effective model for evaluating 
construction  delays (Brennan et. al., 2002). 
There are various methods covered in 
construction literature that are considered 
professionally  acceptable for analyzing a 
schedule impact resulting from project delays 
and interruptions. Among the widely offered 
methods are (1) the As-Planned Method;(2) the 
As-Built Method; and (3) the Modified As-Built 
Method (sometimes called As-Adjusted Method). 
Abdulaziz et al. (1998) studied these methods 
and showed the difference in their applicability 
on genuine construction schedules. The results 
of the study indicated that the outcomes of delay 
analyses are often not predictable, that one 
method may not be used universally over 
another in all situations; or one method might 
prove to be the most desirable from the stand 
point of the contractor or the owner. Depending 
on the time and resources available, and the 
accessibility of project controldocumentation, 
one method may be more practical or cost- 
effective. 



11 The Australian Journal of Construction Economicsand Building [Vo16, No 21 
 

 

 
FACTORS -----AND -------EFFECT 

 
 
 

EXTENDED SCHEDULE 
 

STRIKES  
LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY 

 
 
 

INCREASED 
COORDINATION 

 
 

OUT OF 
SEQUENCE 
WORK 

DELAY 
 

 
INTERFERENCE 

ACCELERAnON 

 
ACCESS 

 
OVERTIME 

 
"----1------- ADDTI IONAL 
- EQUIPMENT 

 

 
INCREASED 
MATERIAL 
HANDLING 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACTS OF  ACTIIIA AT£ 

GOO  CHANGES 
 

Figure 1: Factors and effects of delays and disruptions (McDonald and Baldwin, 1989). 
 
 

SIMULATION AS A TOOL FOR ANALYZING 
CLAIMS   

 
 

Few studies were made to utilize the capabilities 
of discrete event simulation in quantifying time 
and productivity-related impacts. These studies 
are demonstrated in the works of Abou Rizk et 
al. (1993), Vanegas et al. (1993), and Cor 
(1998). Abou Rizk et al. (1993) simulated two 
scenarios; first is a model of an operation based 
on the construction method specified in the 
contract (As-planned) and the second model 
simulated the actual operation (As-built). The 
durations (in terms of man-hr) required to 
complete  the two models were used as a basis 
to estimate the reasonable range of cost to be 
awarded to the contractor. Vanegas et al. (1993) 
indicated that simulation can be used as a 
preventive  tool in the planning stage and as a 
toolto resolve disputes. They also proposed a 
framework  for use of simulation in claims 
analysis and dispute resolution. Cor (1998) 
simulated the As-Planned, As-Built, and As- 
Modified schedules to solve a dispute in an 
actual case study. 

It is clearly seen that most of these studies 
focused on analyzing specific case studies to 
demonstrate the robustness of simulation and its 
capabilities in quantifying productivity  related 
impacts under random conditions. 
 
 
FORMULATION OF GENERIC SIMULATION 
METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING CLAIMS 
 
 
While there are several techniques  for analyzing 
the impact of claims on time schedule and 
productivity, very few are considered adequate 
and comprehensive to consider risks and 
uncertainties. The proposed generic 
methodology as presented in th:s paper provides 
a good basis for a more elaborate approach  to 
better analyze claims and their impacts on 
project time and productivity utilizing discrete 
event simulation.Based on previous research 
(Cor, 1998), the features and advantages of 
process simulation modeling that will be 
integrated into the generic models are shown in 
Figure 2. 



The Australian Journalof ConstructionEconomics and Building[Vol6,No 21     IS 
 

 
 
 
 
 

• Capability to employ lo cal, 
decision nodes in the model. 

• Capability  to   involve   random    and   range 
definitions for all attributes 

 

 
 

• Capabihty  to  experiment  with  the  models 
under same conditions. 

• Convenience  in validating the models. 
• Capability to involve historical data. 
• Convenience for  both  before  and  after  the 

fact analysis. 
• Convenience  to  se€1ega.te impacts   of  each 

delay in case of multiple delays 
 
 
 
 
 

• Convenience to display impacts visually 

 

 
Effective 

modeling of the 
operations 

 
 
 

l    
Figure 2: Features and advantages of using simulation to identify claims impacts (Cor, 1998). 

 
The formulation of the generic methodology 
presented in this paper depends on three 
simulation models; As-Planned Model {APM), 
As-Built Model (ABM), and What-Would-Have- 
Been Model (WWHBM). Figure 3 outlines the 
system approach proposed for analyzing 
claims using simulation. The APM should be 
the base line for initial evaluation of the status 
of the project. As most construction projects 
deviate, to some extent, from original plans or 
schedules, actual formulation of the changes 
upon occurrence  should be incorporated in the 
APM to generate the instantaneous ABM. 
Upon the occurrence of a problem, ABM is 
referred to for settling the dispute. Depending 
on the nature of the dispute and its impact on 
future activities, two models could be 
formulated as shown in Figure 3. The As- 
Adjusted Model (AAM) which will be based on 
accepted changes  and their consequences, 
thus no claim shall be pursuit, and the other 
model which will be based on assumptions 
proposed by the claimant through a series of 
simulated scenarios (What-Would-Have-Been 
Model, WWHBM) to show and prove the 
impact and its consequences  on future 
activities' performance, time, and productivity. 
As Figure 3 shows, in case of a dispute, the 
AAM output is used as an input for the 
WWHBM pending that the changes occurred is 

not disputed but their consequences or 
impacts are disputed. The other WWHBM(s) 
formulated is the AAM including disputed 
changes. To account for these disputed 
changes, several scenarios could be 
generated to support the claim considering the 
varying effects of the change causes and their 
consequential damages (delays, disruption, 
loss of productivity, etc.) 
The detailed formulation of the different 
models discussed above will be presented in 
the following sections. 
 
 
FORMULATION OF THE AS-PLANNED 
MODEL (APM) 
 
 
The As-planned model (see Figure 4) is a 
simulation model built to show how the basic 
understanding of the contractor affects his 
choice of means and methods (Haldun, 1998). 
The (APM) is built during the bidding phase. or 
planning phase. to represent the expected 
behavior of the project and before the actual 
start of the project. As Figure 4 shows. the 
simulation model should incorporate all 
processes leading to the successful 
completion of the project along with their 
logical interconnection. Each process is also 



14   The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building (Vol 6, No 21 
 

decomposed into activities with specific time 
functions, resources  assignments and cost 
data. The input data used is the data available 
at bidding time or project inception phase and 
could include activities sequencing and their 
logical relationships (work plan), estimated 
activities durations, estimated resources 
production  rates, and expected methods that 
would be followed to execute the work in the 
field. The estimated activities  duration and 
production  rates would generally  be in 
probabilistic form to reflect the uncertainty and 
risk in estimation. Historical data of past 
records could be used to generate probability 
distribution functions (beta distribution could 

 
Formulate As-planned model 

be used as most frequently used in 
construction, Maio, et al., (2000)). If these 
records are not available, triangular  distribution 
functions could be used, where the user 
should only specify three values, maximum, 
minimum  and most likely. The output expected 
from the simulated model would include 
minimum, average, and maximum values of 
assigned activities durations, total project 
duration and resources utilization. The output 
of the APM will be considered as the baseline 
or reference for other models upon starting the 
project. 
 
 
 

Formulate  Actual model 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No 
 
 
 

Formulate What-would-have-been model 
 
 

Input Disputed 
changes ossible 

scenarios 
 
 

/A  -dj·- 
\...... (scenario3)   ..../ 

 
·.:::.·:··::::·::  ::::.::::::::·:· 
i Out put 3 i 
KA . -J!:! ! .) 

Formulate As-adjusted 
model 

 
 

Figure 3: System approach proposed for analyzing claims using simulation 



The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol6, No 21    30 
 

 
 
 
 

- +- 

 
Process  1.-------.,LJ 

 
,1 

Activit 

 
 

1 
- - ----.- 

 
 
Activity  : 

 
Legend 

-- -------il   Activity I  l 
y21--- 1 

---1 1 I Dsiarequired:  • 

-Time functions 
- Resources assigrunent.  Activity 3 Activity+- 

Planne 

II Actual I 
n;:: •••• ··-·-·-·-·-· ! Adjusted 

!-·-·-·---' 
 
 
 
 
 
 

API\I 
 

1  .. 
 

Time 
 

Figure 4: Formulation of the As-planned model 
 

FORMULATION OF THE AS-BUILT MODEL 
(ABM) AND AS-ADJUSTED MODEL (AAM) 

 
 

The As-built model (ABM) is built after the start 
of the project or during the implementation 
phase. The APM, reference  model, is  to be 
modified based on actual performance up to 
the status or evaluation date. As Figure 5 
shows,     the     simulation      model     
should incorporate actual processes up to the 
event of delay   and   those   planned   or   
rescheduled processes (i.e. process 2 
becomes process 2- 
1 to account for the event before the delay and 
process 2-2 to include the impact of the delay). 
As  illustrated  in  the  formation of  the  APM, 
each  process  is  also  decomposed  into 
activities     with     specific     time     
functions, resources assignments and cost  
data.  The input data used in this model is the 
actual data 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ABl\1 

and could include actual activities sequencing 
and their logical relationships and 
consequences with other future planned 
activities, actual activities durations, actual 
resources production rates, and actual 
processes  or methods  used  to  execute  the 
work in the field.The actual activities durations 
and   production   rates   could   be   used   to 
generate probability distribution functions that 
could be used, at a later stage, to either modify 
similar planned activities or account for delays 
or interruptions. Any agreed upon changes or 
variations should be incorporated into the ABM 
to generate the As-Adjusted Model (AAM). The 
AAM will then become the new reference 
model,  ABM, for future updates or changes. 
Figure 5 illustrates the ABM. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

··-·-·-·-·-·- ··-·-·-·-·-·..  ,.... ..... .. ·-·-·-·-..'"'\ 
i Plocess 2- Process 4:-i   Process 5- r  End  i 
··-·-·-·-· -· -' ---·-·-·---! ---·-·-·-·-J  i 

--·-·-·-· 
I 

!r·-·-·-·-·-·.,. I 

·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·_!. j  Process6-i 
- 

Scheduled 
 
 

Time 
 



16   The Australian Journal of Constlu<tion Economics and Building (Vol 6, No 2]  

Figure 5: Formulation of the As-built model 



The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol6, No 21    32  

I 

 
FORMULATION   OF   THE   WHAT-WOULD- 
HAVE-BEEN MODEL (WWHBM) 

 
 

The  goal  of  this  model  is  to  identify  the 
disputed event, the impact of this event, and 
the plan to complete the remaining work at the 
time the event occurred. As shown in Figure 6, 
to formulate this model, first, the status of the 
model must be established at the time those 
events  occurred  (reference  is  made  to  the 
updated  ABM  or  the  AAM  (see  Figure  3)). 
Second,   the   model   is  to   be   updated  to 
incorporate the direct events (delay, disruption, 
acceleration,  etc.)  Third, the model is  to be 
reconfigured   to  allow  for   different 
consequentional impacts through incorporating 
any  planning  changes  to  coincide  with  the 
claimant's  plan  for  pursuing  the  work,  thus 
allowing   for   scenario   analysis   or   what-if 
analysis.    A  what-if   scenario  allows  the 
claimant to see the impact of the event on the 
overall  project  duration  as  well  as  at  any 
specific  point  in  time  through  using  record 

modules.  Figure  6  illustrates  the  WWHBM. 
The   flexibility   in   building   the   model   and 
incorporating   changes   allow   for   the   most 
commonly used approaches in time analyses 
(as an output); namely, Time Impact Analysis 
and   Window  Analysis  (Contemporaneous 
Method).  Time  Impact   Analysis  looks  at  a 
particular point in time and utilizes a series of 
chronological  time  slices  to  evaluate  major 
scheduling variations that occurred during the 
project; while  Window  Analysis examines the 
critical path flow between two points in time 
and  assesses  the  delay  as  it  occurs.  This 
contemporaneous method is favored because 
it provides a baseline for measuring the delay 
or  other  disruption  event;  the  status  of  the 
project at the time a delay occurs; the impact 
of  delaying  events  on     remaining   work; 
changes to the path flow, and revisions to the 
plan  to  complete   (Brennan  and  D'Onofrio, 
2002). 

 
 
 
 

--·- - i-·-·-·-·, 
·•     Plooess 2-2j""!      Process4!-·-·-·-·-!    Process )!-·-·   ; End i 
i··-·-·-·-·-·-·- ---·-·-·--- ! --·-·-·-·

 

.  . r.·-·-·-·-·-·'"'..! 
· Process N! · ·!  Process6!-· 
---· ---·-·-·-·-J 

 
 

Time 
 

Figure 6: Formulation of the What-Would-Have-Been model 
 
 

The utilization of the Record modules in 
simulation software (i.e. ARENA, 2005) allows 
easily for tracking these time changes at specific 
points in the model, thus enabling for the 
comparison between the ABM and WWHBM. 

 
 

The input data used in this model is the actual 
,..a..-,+..-,   1 1n +n +hn ounn+ """' a rrl"'\1"'\1"\"  +ir'W'III"'\     ....,....,...,..._,., 
UCHQ Ut-' lV  U  I'C CV'Cif l VV\..rUII CIIVC UIII'Ci1 tJIGIIIII'CU 

data for the scheduled unchanged activities, and 
impacts data (anticipated and consequential). 
The impact data could include new activities (or 
events) durations, impacted resources 
production rates (considering effectiveness and 
efficiency), new performance methods to 
execute the work, changes in activities 
sequencing, etc. 

The simulated model will allow for the 
determination of several useful data that 
favorably support the claimant. The output 
expected from the simulated WWHBM models 
(based on various proposed scenarios) would 
include among other things minimum, average, 
and maximum values of the impacted activities 
durations, total project duration, and resources 
1 •+il i-;r.o:afinn  A lei"\   +ho ull"\rlrflruu ll"\ni,..  "!)nrl   c-onlaOr"\1"'>.0 
UUIIL.Q\1\,11 1. 1"""\l.;lVJ  \.1  IV YYVI"-11\,l''f'Y   IV I\,# Qll\,.1 ..:JV"tUVII'-'0 

impacts will be identified. 
 
 
ADVANTAGES OF SIMULATION COMPARED 
TO CPM SCHEDULING TECHNIQUE 
 
 
Although CPM has gained wide reputation in 
claims analysis, nevertheless, claim analysis by 
using  the    proposed    ABM    and    WWHBM 



18  The AustralianJournal ofConstructionEconomics and Building[Vol6,No 2)  

simulation models can be a promising  tool due to 
the following: 

 
 

• The  simulation   models   do  not  necessarily 
require the identification of the critical path or 
floats to see the effect of delay on the project 
duration. 

 

• The   simulation  models   allow   flexibility   in 
modifying  the  model  and  run  scenario 
analysis to see the impacts by just adding 
events  (or sub  models)  at  any  part  of  the 
model to reflect the expected impact. 

 
• The  simulation   models   can  allow  isolating 

part  of  the  model  through  the  formation  of 
sub models to study local or specific impacts 
on certain processes  or other sub models. 

 
• The  processes in  these  simulation  models 

can be assigned  priorities, thus  allowing  for 
critical  path    flow    identification   at    both 
planning and implementation stages. 

 
• Project   resources  can   also   be   assigned 

priorities, thus allowing for tracking utilization 
properly  at different  time frames  {whether  in 
the planning or implementation phase). 

 
 

These simulation models can be integrated  with 
CPM scheduling, whether through analyzing 
specific work segments or time frames or for 
optimizing the possible  scenarios based on 
available and impacted resources  utilization. 

 
 

CONCLUSION   
 
 

To allow for analyzing the impact of claims on 
time schedule and productivity considering  risks 
and uncertainties, a generic approach for claims 
analysis using simulation is proposed. Three 
simulation models; As-Planned  Model (APM), 
As-Built  Model (ABM), and What-Would-Have- 
Been Model (WWHBM) were developed. The 
As-Planned  Model (APM) serves as a base line 
for initial evaluation of the status of the project 
thus allowing for documenting the status of the 
project before commencing the work. The (ABM) 
is built after the start of the project or during the 
implementation phase. Based on acceptance  of 
the dispute event, two models can be generated; 
the As-Adjusted  Model (AAM) which will be 
based on accepted changes and their 
consequences; and the other model which will 
be based on assumptions proposed by the 
claimant through a series of simulated scenarios 
(What-Would-Have-Been Model, WWHBM) to 

show and prove the impact and its 
consequences on future activities' performance, 
time, and productivity. 
 

 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT   
 
 
The author would like to thank his graduate 
student Mr. Omar El Tabba for his assistance  in 
preparing parts of this manuscript. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
 
AbouRizk, Simaan, M. & Dozzi, P. (1993). 
Application of computer simulation in resolving 
construction disputes, J. Constr. Engrg. and 
Mgmt., ASCE, 119(2). 
 
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., Tribaldos, E., & Harris, 
F. (1995). Computer  aided construction delay 
analysis and claims preparation. Constr. Mgmt. 
and Economics, 13(4), 335-352. 
 
ARENA, (2005). Rockwell Automation, Inc. URL 
http://www.arenasimulation.com/ 
 
Assaf,S. A., Alkhalil, M., & AI-Hazmi M. (1995). 
Causes of delay in large building construction 
projects. J. of Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 11{2), 45- 
50. 
 
Bramble, B. B., D'Onofrio, M.F.& Stetson, J. B. 
(1990). Avoiding and resolving construction 
claims. R.S. Means Company, Inc. 
 
Brennan, F. & D'Onofrio, M. (2002). News from 
CPMI on construction claims analysis and 
resolution. Cause & Effect. Issue 1, spring. 
Capital Project Management,Inc. 
 
Bubshait, A. and Cunningham, M. (1998). 
Comparison of delay analysis methodologies, J. 
Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(4),315- 
322. 
 
Cor, H. (1998}. Using simulation  to quantify  the 
impacts of changes in construction work. Thesis 
submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia 
Polytechnic Institute. Virginia, USA. 
 
Easton, G. R. (1989). Construction claims.Dept. 
of Civ. Engrg., Loughborough University, U.K. 
 
European Construction Institute. (1996). 
Implementing total quality in construction 
industry. Thomas Telford, London. 

http://www.arenasimulation.com/


The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol6, No 21    34 
 

Kartam, S. (1999). Generic methodology for 
analyzing delay claims. J. Constr. Engrg. and 
Mgmt., ASCE, 125(6), 409-419. 

 
Kululanga, G. K., Kuotcha,W., McCaffer, R., & 
Edum-Fotwe, F. (2001). Construction 
contractors' claim process framework. J. Constr. 
Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 127(4), 309-314. 

 
Levin, P. (1998). Construction contract claims, 
changes, and dispute resolution. 2"d edition. 
ASCE Press. 

 
McDonald, P. R. & Baldwin, G. C. (1989}. 
Builder's and contractors  handbook of 
construction  claims. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 

 
Maio, C., Schexnayder, C., Knutson, K., & 
Weber,S. (2000). Probability  distribution 
functions for construction simulation. J. Constr. 
Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 126(4), 285-292. 

 
Ogunlana, S.O. & Promkunton, K. (1996). 
Construction delays in a fast-growing  economy: 
comparing  Thailand with other economies. Int. J. 
of Proj. Mgmt., 14(1),37-45. 

 
Vanegas, Jorge A. & Halpin, Daniel W. (1993). 
Use of Construction Simulation in Claims 
Analysis, Proceedings of the Fifth International 
Conference  Computing  in Civil and Building 
Engineering, Anaheim, California, June.