Ji, S H; Park, M and Lee, H S (2012) Case adaptation method of case-based reasoning for construction cost estimation in Korea. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(1), pp. 43-52. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Case-based reasoning (CBR) utilizes old solutions to solve a present problem. However, as no past situation is ever exactly the same as a new one, old solutions should be fitted for new circumstances, which is called case adaptation. Thus, the success of CBR depends on the ability of case adaptation. Generally, the case adaptation method can be categorized by two methods: decreasing the need for adaptation and increasing the capability. Nevertheless, previous research has focused on applying the method itself and rarely examined the adaptation or candidates selection. As an effort to enhance the performance of CBR, this research develops a case adaptation method that is balanced for both methods. To validate the method, a CBR cost model was developed that has an adaptation function using 129 military barrack projects in Korea, and then the method was tested by using 13 test cases. Furthermore, an applicability test was conducted based on 164 Korean public apartment projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptation; case-based reasoning; cost; estimation |
| Index terms: | estimation, test case, adaptation, case-based reasoning, construction cost, cost model |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, cognitive psychology, user focus, professional practice |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| 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