Jaafari, A and Mateffy, V K (1990) Realistic model for equipment replacement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(3), pp. 514-532. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The work described in this paper attempts to review briefly the field of construction equipment replacement with the intent of highlighting the gradual development in the last six decades of quantitative models and associated terms and concepts. Various features as well as shortcomings of the models presented in the literature are outlined. The work also incorporates a realistic economic model developed by the writers and programmed on a standard microcomputer for ease of application. This model is described in some detail. Although it reflects realistically the taxation situation that currently prevails in Australia, the writers feel that owing to the similarities of economic systems in many free-trading countries, the model would be of interest to managers and planners around the world. Finally, a sample problem is included to illustrate the application of this model.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | economic model, Australia, construction equipment, taxation, planner, manager, replacement |
| Subjects: | modelling and simulation, profession, materials science, practitioner, policy economics, Geography, construction equipment |
| Topics: | Regulations & Compliance, Roles and Professions, Plant and Equipment, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| 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