Han, S H and Diekmann, J (2004) Judgment-based cross-impact method for predicting cost variance for highly uncertain projects. Journal of Construction Research, 5(2), pp. 171-192. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Construction projects are very sensitive to project-specific conditions. Any possible combination of risk factors can significantly affect the success of a project's performance. Risk analysis has been used to predict the impact of various uncertainties that are inherent in construction projects. However, one key problem with present-day risk analysis methods is that they are basically mathematical or probability-oriented approaches which are not easy to adopt in real business because they easily become complex to capture the relations between the complex variables. This paper presents the use of a judgment-based method called Cross Impact Analysis (CIA) to model the cost risks of a construction project in a highly uncertain environment and to predict their impact on cost variance in the early stage of a bidding process. Then, a case study is performed to demonstrate the approach, which allows complex risk analysis to be performed simply by common users in capturing the risk variables' relations, while maintaining an acceptable accuracy limit.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | risk analysis; cross-impact analysis; cost variance; contingency |
| Index terms: | construction project, risk analysis, impact analysis, bidding, accuracy, risk factor, cost variance, judgment, case study |
| Subjects: | financial analysis, environmental hazards, production management, bidding, professional development, data analysis and analytics, dispute resolution, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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