Fortune, C and Lees, M (1997) Cognitive errors of judgement, learning style characteristics and clients' early cost advisors. In: Stephenson, P (ed.) Proceedings of 13th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1997, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
The formulation of early stage building project cost advice for clients requires professionals to exercise judgement. The exercise of judgement is a human cognitive process that can be subject to errors, bias and heuristics. The propensity to make errors is an individual human characteristic. Humans may have their characteristics classified by their preferred learning style. This work seeks to ascertain whether there is a link between an individual's learning style and the type of errors made in the formulation of strategic cost advice. The paper reports the development of an appropriate measuring instrument and the results of its application to a group of thirty four subjects. The subjects were a convenient sample drawn from two cohorts of final stage part-time degree students in quantity surveying. Subjects were tested to ascertain their propensity to make errors and their preferred learning style. The responses were analysed using regression analysis. The results of the work revealed no correlation between error and preferred learning style. The paper concludes by setting out the case for further work in this area with professionals being asked to make intuitive judgements about issues related to their own field of expertise.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | early cost advisors; errors; judgement; learning style |
| Index terms: | regression analysis, bias, measuring instrument, learning style, cost advisor, project cost, exercise, surveying, heuristic |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, probability and distributions, economics, health monitoring assessment and metrics, analytical methods, learning methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, profession, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Education, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here