Adafin, J; Rotimi, J O B and Wilkinson, S (2020) Risk impact assessments in project budget development: Quantity surveyors' perspectives. International Journal of Construction Management, 20(1), pp. 13-28. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
One aspect of construction project budgeting requiring attention is the inaccuracy of early estimates during design development. Accuracy of estimates is important to project owners and their financiers. However, inconsistent risk information makes this difficult to achieve. Proper risk analysis could offer a partial solution by reducing the variance between design-stage elemental cost plans (ECPs) and final tender sums (FTS) of construction projects. This study first identifies risk factors that influence variability between ECPs and FTS. It further evaluates the identified risk factors through risk measurement to determine the most significant during design development. Data for the study were sourced from 62 practicing quantity surveyors (QS) through an online questionnaire survey. Survey responses were analysed by using descriptive statistics, risk mean analysis (RMA), degree of risk measure and Spearman's correlation. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software facilitated the analysis, and top ten risk factors were found important for practicing quantity surveyors in New Zealand (NZ). The identified risk factors were responsible for the variability observed. The values obtained from the analysis would enable greater accuracy in the forecast of FTS by quantity surveyors. As a main contribution, the study creates awareness of the risk factors that should be given considerable attention by consultants at project outset, to guard against wide variation between the design-stage ECPs and FTS. This knowledge could assist quantity surveyors to pro-actively manage their client's fund. In addition, these findings can assist in the development of a predictive model that construction industry practitioners in NZ could use for reliable estimation of FTS from the design-stage ECP.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | elemental cost plan; final tender sum; New Zealand; quantity surveyor; traditional building procurement; variability |
| Index terms: | design development, statistics, construction industry, estimate, variability, social science, risk factor, owner, estimation, quantity surveying, variance, traditional building procurement, package, New Zealand, risk analysis, final tender sum, construction project, variation, questionnaire, practitioner, risk impact, budgeting, accuracy, survey, elemental cost plan |
| Subjects: | measurement and scaling, sociology, industry analysis, environmental hazards, statistical analysis, financial management, theoretical framing, production management, contractual condition, Geography, professional development, design process, bidding, contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, data collection methods, profession, mathematical modelling, practitioner |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Information Management, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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