against the current could result in an increase of unnecessary disputes. Disruption Finally, another area where the 2016 Draft has excelled is in Disruption Analysis, now with its own Section.28 This special treatment reflects its status as a squarely separate albeit related concept in need of its own discussion and set of recommendations. The objective of disruption analysis is to demonstrate productivity loss in the execution of work activities in either labour or plant in order to claim the loss and expense caused by the Employer- triggered disruption.29 The quantum is the “difference between realistic and achievable productivity and that which was actually achieved in carrying out the impacted work activities”.30 However, the real upgrade comes with the list of disruption analysis methods, their straightforward explanations and how they are compared with each other. In addition, their preference is dictated by their order in the list from most recommended option to the least. There are two groups of methods: (1) productivity- based methods measure loss of productivity in resources before the loss is priced and (2) cost- based methods measures the difference in actual versus planned cost first.31 For productivity-based methods, the 2016 Draft explores: (1) project specific studies such as the measured mile – which keeps its title as the recommended method – earned value and programme analyses, work or trade sampling and system dynamics modelling; (2) project-comparison studies; and (3) industry studies.32 For cost-based methods, only estimated v incurred cost and estimated v used labour are mentioned.33
Vocabulary One of the most useful contributions of the 2002 Edition was that it provided the industry with a vocabulary with which to discuss precisely these types of complex and divisive issues. It has already been mentioned how the 2016 Draft has discarded the use of the term ‘concurrent effect’34 even though the existence of the concept is still acknowledged.35 However, the use of an Appendix36 to compile a list of definitions and glossary has not been abandoned. There are six new terms in the Appendix: two of them relate to programming, i.e., ‘level of effort’ and ‘programme narrative’; two more relate to delay analysis, i.e., ‘as-planned versus as-built windows’ and ‘time slice analysis’; and the last one is ‘disruption event’. However, some new terms appear elsewhere such as those used to describe previously unrecognised types of delay analysis, e.g., time slice windows analysis, longest path analysis and earned value analysis. In addition, the enhancement of certain sections such as the aforementioned records and programmes section and the disruption section, together with the section regarding delay analysis time-distant from the delay event discussed in this author’s previous article on the Rider, will surely help frame the delay and disruption discussion for years to come.
Conclusion Whereas the 2016 Consultation Draft of the Second Edition of the SCL’s Delay and Disruption Protocol includes some very welcome enhancements, there are other areas in which there is still room for improvement.