Chin, C S and Russell, J S (2008) Predicting the expected service level and the realistic lead time of rfi process using binary logistic regression. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
This research describes an investigation into the development of predictive Request-For-Information (RFI) performance models, particularly to aid contractors and owners in predicting the expected service level of RFIs and establishing realistic review times. Two quantitative models have been developed and are discussed. Four input variables were developed and employed to construct binary regression logistic models. Results show large discrepancies on average between the contractor-want-time and actual lead time and between the expected CWT and realistic lead time to achieve a particular desired service level. Contractors can use the model to predict the service level for more reliable planning. Owners in turn can use the model to verify the expected RFI process time and to gain a valuable internal benchmark for process improvement. With higher awareness of the possible outcomes of a project and how likely each is to occur, project teams can better determine which options amongst those available are likely to yield the most favourable results.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | actual lead time; binary logistic regression; contractor-want-time; on-time rate; risk |
| Index terms: | process improvement, logistic regression, owner, investigation, lead time, project team, option |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project delivery, management, project controls, sociology, decision analysis, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Time Control, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Business Strategy, Project 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