Crowley, L G (2000) Friedman and gates: another look. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), pp. 306-312. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A lack of consensus surrounds probability estimates provided by the two leading bid models, one by Friedman and the other by Gates. Each model relies on essentially the same information but arrives at different probabilities of submitting the winning bid. A synopsis of both Friedman's and Gates's models is provided, followed by a descriptive chronology of literature dealing with this controversy. To date, attempts to resolve this debate have been unsuccessful in formulating a consensus view of which model supplies the correct probability. Using a third bid model proposed by Carr as a base, sensitivity curves visually demonstrate both similarities and differences in the models resulting from hypothetical shifts in the underlying location and scale parameters of the bid problem. It is clear from these curves that both models are simultaneously correct and incorrect. Friedman's model is theoretically correct, yet the bid problem is incorrectly specified. Gates's model is practically correct, yet the formula is incorrectly specified.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | estimate, chronology |
| Subjects: | time analysis, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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