Alavipour, S M R and Arditi, D (2018) Optimizing financing cost in construction projects with fixed project duration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(4): 04018012, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Although a few studies have considered financing cost in the construction project, no research has been conducted to select the optimal financing alternatives out of those offered by financial institutions. This study presents a model that minimizes financing cost by considering different financing alternatives and a work schedule with normal activity durations. The proposed model creates a cash flow forecast based on a work schedule generated by the critical path method (CPM). The output includes optimized schedules of financing inflow (borrowed money) and outflow (repayments of principal and interest). The proposed model has advantages compared to models developed in previous studies because the contractor: (1) pays less financing cost, (2) avoids extending the project duration and avoids liquidated damages, (3) provides an optimal financing schedule, and (4) reduces the risk of ending up with a work schedule composed of more critical activities. The model has been tested in three cases and sensitivity analysis has been performed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cash flow forecast; finance; interest; loan; project financing optimization; project financing schedule |
| Index terms: | liquidated damages, critical path method, construction project, cash flow, financing, sensitivity analysis, duration |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, contractual remedy, operations research, financial management, project controls, production management, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Sustainability, Cost Management, Time Control, Business Strategy, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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