The importance of contextual factors on the accuracy of estimates in project management: An emergence of a framework for more realistic estimation process

Lazarski, A (2014) The importance of contextual factors on the accuracy of estimates in project management: An emergence of a framework for more realistic estimation process. PhD thesis, University of Bradford, UK.

Abstract

Successful projects are characterized by the quality of their planning. Good planning that better takes into account contextual factors allows more accurate estimates to be achieved. As an outcome of this research, a new framework composed of best practices has been discovered. This comprises an open platform that project experts and practitioners can work with efficiently, and that researchers can develop further as required. The research investigation commenced in the autumn of 2008 with a pilot study and then proceeded through an inductive research process, involving a series of eleven interviews. These consisted of interviews with four well-recognized experts in the field, four interviews with different practitioners and three group interviews. In addition, a long-running observation of forty-five days was conceptualized, together with other data sources, before culminating in the proposal of a new framework for improving the accuracy of estimates. Furthermore, an emerging framework – and a description of its know-how in terms of application – have been systematically reviewed through the course of four hundred twenty-five days of meetings, dedicated for the most part to improving the use of a wide range of specific project management tools and techniques and to an improvement in understanding of planning and the estimation process associated with it. This approach constituted an ongoing verification of the research’s findings against project management practice and also served as an invaluable resource for the researcher’s professional and practice-oriented development. The results obtained offered fresh insights into the importance of knowledge management in the estimation process, including the “value of not knowing”, the oft-overlooked phenomenon of underestimation and its potential to co-exist with overestimation, and the use of negative buffer management in the critical chain concept to secure project deadlines. The project also highlighted areas of improvement for future research practice that wishes to make use of an inductive approach in order to achieve a socially agreed framework, rather than a theory alone. In addition, improvements were suggested to the various qualitative tools employed in the customized data analysis process.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: accuracy; best practice; knowledge management; project management practice; research practice; professional; inductive approach; interview
Index terms: buffer, investigation, best practice, project management, estimate, platform, estimation, practitioner, research practice, emergence, knowledge management, data analysis, proposal, interview, project management practice, accuracy, inductive approach
Subjects: business, research design and methodology, data collection methods, financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, professional development, project management theory and practice, systems engineering, practitioner, project planning, financial risk, digital design, research methods
Topics: Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Digital Applications, Project Management, Engineering Principles
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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