Wilkinson, S (1996) The current and potential use of life cycle costing in the New Zealand construction industry. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 1(3), pp. 43-52. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
This paper examines the current and potential use of life cycle costing in the New Zealand construction industry. The paper discusses empirical research from a survey of construction companies and property owners in New Zealand which examined how the life cycle costing technique is being used and what future expansion of the technique's use is likely. The paper discusses the way in which the technique is currently being used in New Zealand extending this discussion to the types of projects, stage in the project, and appraisal techniques employed when using the life cycle costing technique. As a concept the technique appears to be understood. However, full use of the technique is currently limited. Reasons for this are discussed in this paper.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | discounted cash flow, life cycle costing, New Zealand, payback analysis |
| Index terms: | construction industry, costing, life cycle, New Zealand, appraisal, property owner, payback, construction company, survey, discounted cash flow |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, sociology, value management, data collection methods, financial analysis, Geography, accounting and finance, factor and component analysis, economic analysis, organization |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Project Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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