How to prevent delay in EPC projects
Why Projects Get Delayed
Delay in EPC projects is a problem that plagues the industry and leads to millions of dollars in losses every year. Here we break down problems at each stage of the project lifecycle that contribute to that delay.
During Planning & Scheduling
- A weak Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): when the WBS is not detailed enough or the deliverables, dependencies, and scope are unclear, there will be a lack of ownership of packages and activities, which results in accountability gaps.
- Unrealistic Durations & Dependencies: when durations are estimated optimistically without considering resource availability, site constraints, or procurement lead times, there can be incorrect sequencing or missing dependencies which create a false picture of progress.
- Improper Weightages: if you have incorrect allocation of weightages, progress measurement will be distorted ie could appear better or worse than the reality.
- Planned S-Curve Misalignment: the planned S-curve often assumes smooth progress but actual execution is uneven due to approvals, mobilization, and unforeseen events.
During Execution & Monitoring
- Delayed Status Updates: if progress is captured weekly, by the time slippages are noticed many interdependent activities may already be affected. Also float in non-critical activities gets consumed unnoticed until the situation becomes
- Slow Corrective Actions: even after delays are identified, decision-making on corrective actions is slow and by the time catch-up measures are approved, recovery becomes impossible without major rework.
- Poor Root Cause Analysis: the underlying reasons for delays (e.g., manpower shortage, material delays, design approvals, weather) are not properly investigated, and as long as the root causes go unaddressed, the delays will keep repeating.
- Ineffective catch-up Planning: catch-up requires detailed re-sequencing, reallocation of resources, or schedule crashing which in turn requires time, analysis, and management approval, and these are often delayed and so the result is further slippage.
- Difficulty in Impact Assessment: since assessing the impact of a delay on downstream deliverables and linked packages is complex, accurate impact assessment, reforecasting is not realistic, and that could lead to surprises later.
In Dependencies & Constraints
- Delayed Predecessors Block Progress: some critical downstream activities can only start after specific deliverables are completed, and if predecessor tasks are delayed and not prioritized, bottlenecks result.
- Constraints Not Captured in Time: site readiness, design inputs, or approvals are often not captured as constraints in the schedule, and so execution teams face stoppages not reflected in the baseline plan.
In Quality, Safety & Risk Factors
- Quality Issues: rework due to poor quality consumes additional time and resources, which pushes activities beyond their planned dates.
- Safety Incidents: accidents or unsafe practices lead to stoppages, investigations, and delays in execution.
- Unmitigated Risks: risks identified during planning are not continuously monitored, and when they materialize (e.g., supplier failure, equipment breakdown, weather), they cause schedule disruptions.
In short, projects get delayed because status is tracked too infrequently and so slippages accumulate before they are noticed, corrective actions are delayed or avoided because they require effort and tough decisions, root causes are not addressed and that leads to recurring delays, dependencies are not properly managed and that causes bottlenecks downstream, and quality, safety, and risks are not proactively controlled and that leads to unplanned stoppages.
The solution is an integrated system that resolves each problem at the root.
What would such a system look like?
During the Planning & Scheduling Stage, the solution would allow for structured WBS creation ie a deliverables-driven WBS linked to documents, drawings, BOQ, and activities, with ownership assigned at package and activity level; this would eliminate the accountability gaps.
The system would integrate procurement, engineering, and construction plans, and that would ensure that the durations reflected real lead times and resource availability.
Automated Weightages would be auto-calculated based on volume, effort, or cost, and that would allow for dynamic S-curve Generation where Planned vs. Forecast S-curves were auto-updated as inputs/approvals change, thereby avoiding the “smooth but unrealistic” baseline trap.
During the Execution & Monitoring Stage the system would have real-time Progress Capture so that instead of waiting for weekly reports, progress would get updated daily into the system by engineers from the site and from the procurement, and design teams via mobile/web. This would eliminate the lag. The system would also have some kind of early warning system ie automated alerts when float consumption, slippages, or productivity deviations occur and the alerts would be sent out well before criticality. Also, reasons for delay would be captured per category (manpower, material, approvals, weather) so that the dashboards showed recurring issues and that would force management to focus on actual causes.
Catch-Up Planning Tools like “what-if” simulations would allow planners to test resequencing, resource reallocation, or crashing scenarios before seeking approvals, while automated Impact Analysis would include slippage auto-updates, so that downstream activities and package-level forecasts were visible with no need for manual recalculation.
Deliverables would be linked within the system and every downstream task would be tied to specific documents, materials, and approvals so that if a drawing or permit was delayed, the linked activity would be immediately “blocked”. The built-in constraint tracking (site readiness, clearances, inputs) would also have to be “green” before work was allowed to start, thus avoiding stoppages.
The system would have built-in Quality Checks where QA/QC deliverables (like inspection requests, checklists) would be embedded in the schedule and Work would not be allowed to progress until quality clearances were closed, thus preventing hidden rework.
Safety incidents would get logged, investigated, and linked to delays in the schedule and preventive actions would be tracked to closure.
Risks identified during planning would be tracked live, with triggers and mitigation tasks assigned so that if a risk became reality, its impact on the schedule would be instantly visible.
In short, an integrated digital system helps prevent delay through real-time tracking which eliminates the possibility of“too late to act” surprises, automated alerts & dashboards which trigger corrective actions early, visibility into root causes which ensures that recurring issues get highlighted, digital dependency management so that bottlenecks are forecast and not discovered at the site, and integrated quality, safety, risk modules which ensure unplanned stoppages get minimized.
With such a system, project planners could move from Post-Mortem Reporting to Proactive Control.