Hwang, S (2010) Cross-validation of short-term productivity forecasting methodologies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(9), pp. 1037-1046. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Frequent and regular prediction of productivity is needed to effectively manage construction operations in progress. This need is proven by significant deviations in productivity between estimated values and actual values, and the dynamic and stochastic changes in productivity over time. Five statistical methodologies that are appropriate for contemporaneous time series were cross validated in the present study. Validation was conducted by comparing the performance of forecasting models constructed using the methodologies. Performance was measured by evaluating the residual sum of squares and the correlation coefficients. As a result, univariate time series analysis was found to be the best-performing methodology. The univariate time series model is particularly beneficial in two respects. Using a single series of contemporaneous productivity data in numeric form, it reduces the effort expended in collecting and analyzing data, and improves the objectivity of analysis.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | estimates; forecasting; productivity; short-term prediction; stochastic; time series |
| Index terms: | estimate, forecasting, time-series analysis, construction operation, deviation, productivity, validation, methodology, time series |
| Subjects: | data science, construction operations, financial and cost management, prediction and forecasting, management, research methods, professional development, research evaluation and metrics |
| Topics: | Site Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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