Hauck, A J (1990) Development and evaluation of computerized construction estimating, pricing, and bidding programs using integrated applications software. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Abstract
The problem of this research was to develop a customized construction estimating package and associated training modules using an integrated spreadsheet, data base, and word processing program and evaluate this package relative to standards for interactive programs (Craig and Thomas, 1984). Following the guidelines of action research, the procedure for this study included four phases: (1) the selection of the participating contractor, appropriate applications software, and required hardware, (2) the development of the customized operations list and coding system, multiple computer files comprising the complete estimating package, program commands, and training modules, (3) the training of the contractor's estimating personnel, undergraduate students majoring in Construction Management, and university construction estimating faculty, and (4) the evaluation of the research hypotheses based on data from an instrument administered to the three groups of respondents trained in the use of the estimating package developed as part of this research. Two hypotheses were tested. The first stated hypothesis was that this estimating package would demonstrate twelve attributes listed as "desirable characteristics" of interactive estimating programs. Data collected from an evaluation instrument developed for this research generally supported this hypothesis in that mean scores exceeded a pre-determined criterion value for seven of these characteristics. In accordance with correlation coefficients calculated between these responses and measures of the perceived importance of each of these characteristics it was inferred that this package demonstrated best those characteristics considered to be most important by the user group. The second stated hypothesis was that the use of this package would generate sufficient cost savings to offset the development and training costs associated with this system. Using data from the evaluation instrument and the actual costs for developing this package, a cost-benefit analysis established a sample "payback period" of less than six months. The data and information gathered from the development and evaluation of this package supported the conclusion that the creation of powerful microcomputers and integrated applications software provides the small general contractor with the option of developing an "in-house" estimating system which is complete, customized, and cost-effective for meeting the specific needs of that contractor.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Mietus, W S |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | action research; bidding; estimating; personnel; pricing; standards; training |
| Index terms: | spreadsheet, pricing, package, undergraduate, hardware, module, cost saving, option, personnel, actual cost, action research, general contractor, user group, construction estimating, program, payback, bidding, estimating |
| Subjects: | curriculum development, contractual arrangements, bidding, economic analysis, practitioner, client relations, architectural elements, data science, financial and cost management, computer hardware, data collection methods, decision analysis, management, economics, software systems |
| Topics: | Procurement, Risk Management, Education, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Human Resources, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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