Vorster, M C and Sears, G A (1987) Model for retiring, replacing, or reassigning construction equipment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(1), pp. 125-137. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Retirement and replacement models for construction equipment have been based on the notion that there is an optimum time to sell a piece of equipment to the competition. One problem with these models is that they do not explain why one's competition may have a need for the equipment when one does not. The model presented here looks at the consequential costs of downtime for each piece of equipment when assigned to specific applications. Old and unreliable equipment therefore carries a significant consequential downtime cost when used in a key production application. Likewise, new and reliable equipment carries a significant capital recovery cost, which makes it less desirable in applications where consequential costs of downtime are low. This model provides a methodology to assign equipment optimally and to identify equipment for which its owner typically has no good applications.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | recovery, construction equipment, owner, methodology, competition, replacement |
| Subjects: | sociology, market analysis, research methods, construction equipment, operations management, materials science |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Plant and Equipment |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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