With the rapid growth of digital scheduling tools, data analytics, and artificial intelligence, it is easy to assume that delay analysis has become a purely technical exercise. Programmes are more detailed than ever, software outputs look increasingly precise, and analyses can be produced at the click of a button.

But anyone who has spent time on real projects or in front of a tribunal knows this is not how delay analysis works.

Despite all the advances in tools and technology, the fundamentals have not changed. Delay analysis is not a mechanical or automated process. It is, and always has been, a balance of science, art, and common sense.

This article is not about promoting one methodology over another. It is simply a reminder that credibility in delay analysis does not come from methodology alone. Tribunals want to understand what was planned, what actually happened, why it happened, and whether the conclusions make sense when viewed against the reality of the project.

What Tribunals Expect From Delay Analysis

At its core, delay analysis exists to assist the tribunal. Its purpose is not to showcase technical sophistication or methodological purity, but to explain the project, with reference to the factual evidence, in a way that allows decision-makers to understand the sequence of events, the causes and extent of the delay.

In practice, this means delay analysis should be clear rather than complex, logical rather than formulaic, and persuasive without being partisan. Tribunals are rarely helped by dense scheduling theory or overly elaborate models. What they are looking for is a sensible explanation of events, one that reflects how the project actually unfolded on site.

Courts have been making this point for years.

In a recent Australian case,[1] the court was critical of an expert who relied heavily on window analysis while giving limited weight to contemporaneous records. The problem was not the use of window analysis itself, but the fact that methodology was allowed to override the factual reality of the project. The message was clear: Methodology cannot replace evidence or judgment.

A similar theme appears in a case in Canada,[2] where the court confirmed that no single delay methodology is universally applicable. Experts are expected to adapt their approach to the available records and the circumstances of the project. Industry guidelines[3] may be helpful, but they are not rules to be applied rigidly.

More recently, in a separate Australian case,[4] the referees reinforced that delay analysis is neither pure science nor pure theory. Structured techniques such as as-planned versus as-built or window-based analysis can provide a useful framework, but they are only tools. What ultimately mattered was whether the analysis explained what actually happened on the project, based on evidence and experience.

The consequences of ignoring this approach were clearly illustrated in another construction case.[5] In this instance, although both experts agreed on the as-built programme, they disagreed on methodology and its application. The judge described the competing analyses as “impenetrable” and preferred a common-sense approach over excessive technical complexity. Once again, the court made it clear that complexity does not equal credibility.

All of these decisions point to the same conclusion: Delay analysis is not about finding the “right” methodology in isolation. It is about applying appropriate tools with judgment and realism.

This is where the idea of delay analysis as a mix of science, art, and common sense becomes important.

Science – The Analytical Framework

The science of delay analysis includes:

• Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling
• Logical sequencing and float analysis
• Identification of critical and near-critical paths
• Recognised methodologies such as time slice analysis or as-planned versus as-built in windows
• Retrospective or contemporaneous identification of the delaying event

Science provides structure and discipline. Without it, delay analysis lacks credibility and transparency. As explored by my colleague Haris Katostaras in his article[6] on construction disputes, programme-based methods are valuable tools, but their outputs must be tested against site reality and contemporaneous records. Science on its own, however, does not answer the question of causation in context.

Art – The Contemporaneous Perspective

The art of delay analysis lies in understanding how the project was actually managed at the time. This includes:

• Decisions made under pressure and with incomplete information
• Practical constraints affecting construction progress
• The contemporaneous understanding of cause and effect

Art requires judgment. It ensures the analysis reflects how the project unfolded in reality, not how it appears when reconstructed with the benefit of hindsight.

Common Sense – The Credibility Check

Common sense acts as the final and essential filter:

• Does the outcome align with the overall project narrative?
• Would those involved on site recognise the conclusion?
• Can the result be explained clearly to a tribunal?

If an analysis is technically correct but counterintuitive, implausible, or disconnected from reality, tribunals are unlikely to accept it. Common sense does not replace analytical discipline; it ensures that analytical outcomes remain grounded in the factual reality of the project.

When science, art, and common sense are applied together, delay analysis moves beyond theory. It becomes reliable expert evidence.

Conclusion

In the end, delay analysis is not an exercise in software manipulation or methodological purity. It is a forensic evaluation grounded in evidence, experience, and judgment.

• Science provides structure.
• Art provides context.
• Common sense provides credibility.

The best experts are those who understand the tools, respect the facts, and never lose sight of the real project behind the programme.