Love, P E D; Tse, R Y C and Edwards, D J (2005) Time-cost relationships in Australian building construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(2), pp. 187-194. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Project time-cost relationships were examined by using project scope factors as predictors for 161 construction projects that were completed in various Australian States using the multiple regression technique of weighted least squares. The analysis was performed between project duration (i.e., time), project type, procurement method, tender type, gross floor area (GFA), and number of stories. An alternative model to that proposed by Bromilow more than three decades ago for forecasting time and cost performance is proposed. It is shown that GFA and the number of stories in a building are key determinants of time performance in projects. Furthermore, the results indicate that cost is a poor predictor of time performance. Limitations and practical implications of the research are also presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; costs; project management; time factors: least-squares method |
| Index terms: | multiple-regression, project management, Australia, duration, gross floor area, building construction, time performance, cost performance, forecasting, determinant, construction project, project scope, procurement method |
| Subjects: | Geography, risk assessment, statistical analysis, project controls, contractual arrangements, building construction, scope management, prediction and forecasting, project management theory and practice, production management, building performance, economics |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Design Practice, Project Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Procurement, Cost Management, Construction Technology, Time Control |
| 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