Blyth, K; Lewis, J and Kaka, A (2004) Predicting project and activity duration for buildings in the UK. Journal of Construction Research, 5(2), pp. 329-347. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
This paper reports on the development of a computer model that will predict both overall project and activity duration, based on a number of pre-determined project characteristics. Fifty-six programmes of work were obtained. The data from the programmes of work of fifty of these buildings, encompassing a total of 11 different project types, were analysed, and used to develop the proposed model. Multiple linear regression analysis of the data showed that the duration and time lags of between 20 (for a single storey building) and 39 (for a seven-storey building) standardised activity groups, can be predicted using combinations of the twenty one most influential project variables. The regression equations produced were tested on all of the activity groups for six new projects to determine their accuracy. The absolute percentage error in predicting overall duration varied between 0.38% and 6.68%. The mean absolute error in predicting the duration of activity groups varied between 1.38% and 22%. The accuracy in predicting overall duration was comparable with limited information available from previous studies, but the high level of detail in the programme generated means that the model is more flexible and capable of a broader range of applications than previous models.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction duration; forecasting; multiple regression; planning; programme of work |
| Index terms: | multiple-regression, duration, programme, accuracy, level of detail, forecasting, regression analysis |
| Subjects: | prediction and forecasting, statistical analysis, professional development, technical documentation, project controls |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Time Control, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
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