Paquin, J P; Morin, P P; Lambert, A and Koplyay, T (2022) Assessing project contingency reserves with the expected cost overrun risk measure. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(10): 04022102, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper proposes a coherent risk measure to assess project cost overrun contingency reserves: The project expected cost overrun (ECO). It is shown that the traditional project cost-percentile metric does not qualify as a coherent risk measure and, therefore, that the ECO metric should be adopted. Obtained from the tail expectation of the project cost probability distribution, it measures the average value of project costs exceeding, at any significance level, the project cost baseline. A positive, unique, and exact closed-form solution to the ECO risk measure is devised under, among others, the normal probability distribution. The resulting project cost overrun contingency reserve may be interpreted as an insurance contract covering contingent risk factors and claimable by project managers from their project director once preidentified and agreed-upon contingent high-risk cost impacts are taken into account. The project ECO risk measure is extended to assess the project expected time overrun (ETO) and the project expected time overrun penalty (ETOP) risk measures, quantities that will prove indispensable for successfully tendering under any contractual form the minimum value of project time and project cost bids. They will be covering, at the very least, all relevant potential low-probability high-risk contingent risk factor impacts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | risk factor, insurance, project manager, time overrun, probability distribution, cost overrun, contingency reserve, penalty, project cost, overrun |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, economic analysis, profession, project controls, regulatory law, environmental hazards, statistical analysis, economics, financial risk |
| Topics: | Time Control, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice |
| 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