Touran, A and Suphot, L (1997) Rank correlations in simulating construction costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), pp. 297-301. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In this paper the use of rank correlations in simulating construction costs is investigated. One suggested methodology for generating correlated random numbers using rank correlations is reviewed and compared with traditional methods based on Pearson correlations. This methodology is the basis for the design of several simulation software packages commonly used by analysts and estimators. Because of this it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in probabilistic analysis of construction costs. A set of real-life construction costs is used to test the effectiveness of the suggested methodology in simulating the distribution of costs. Several tests of hypotheses are executed to compare the distribution of simulated data with actual data. It is shown that rank correlations can model data dependency as effectively as Pearson correlations on this data set. Suggestions are made regarding future work in this area.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | software package, estimator, methodology, construction cost, effectiveness |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, profession, research methods, software systems, performance management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Quality Management |
| 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