Lam, K C; Cheung, S O; Tang, C M and Ng, S T (2002) Capital budgeting evaluation practices of building contractors in Hong Kong. Construction Economics and Building, 2(1), pp. 81-93. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an investigation into capital budgeting evaluation practices in the construction industry of Hong Kong. The aim of this study was to identify the popularity and extent of usage of various techniques for capital budget evaluation, investment appraisal, risk analysis, and management science. The current study was compared with a similar survey conducted in 1994 to establish the changes in the capital budgeting evaluation practices of contracting firms over time. The results indicate that there was a general increase in the popularity and extent of usage in certain capital budget evaluation techniques such as “best/worst estimate” and “formal financial evaluation”. In addition, the evaluation techniques examined were fitted into a discriminant function analysis (DFA), and a model has been developed which allows contracting firms to be classified accordingto their predominant characteristics in capital budget evaluation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capital budgeting; Hong Kong; investment appraisal; risk analysis; management science; discriminant function analysis |
| Index terms: | survey, estimate, construction industry, capital budgeting, risk analysis, management science, investment appraisal, building contractor, investigation, evaluation technique, Hong Kong, discriminant function analysis |
| Subjects: | management, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, practitioner, Geography, financial and cost management, budgeting, environmental hazards, economic analysis, statistical analysis, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| 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