Disney, O and Fahlstedt, O (2021) Site overheads: The lost dimension of improved productivity? In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-7 September 2021, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
Contractors routinely use site resources, such as site accommodation and fences, but not necessarily in an efficient manner. Often only loosely calculated the costs are accounted for as site overheads. The aim of this paper is to scrutinize these types of costs theoretically; empirically and analytically in the context of a Swedish contractor; and to improve the definition and categorization of these costs. Internationally, in practice and literature, there are many definitions including 'overheads' and 'site preliminaries.' In Sweden a frequent term is 'allmänna kostnader' (AK); i.e., 'common cost'; which is used by the case company. The study consisted of a literature and documentation analysis; including waste theory and costing methods; interviews; a survey and a qualitative analysis. This helped understand what costs are included in AK. An official company AK definition proved insufficient as employees used it very differently. Managers categorized resources differently from project to project, making comparison and identification of efficiency improvements difficult. A less ambiguous definition and structure of AK; was developed; focusing on the operating cost on-site; rather than any particular activity or zone. Activity-based costing and digital aids such as EquipmentLoop may improve the understanding of costs and allow more accurate
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | common cost; cost categorization; preliminaries; productivity; site overheads. |
| Index terms: | Sweden, survey, documentation, productivity, manager, efficiency, interview, overheads, dimension, costing, operating cost, qualitative analysis, preliminaries |
| Subjects: | financial analysis, Geography, professional development, management, performance management, accounting and finance, financial and cost management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, practitioner, data collection methods, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| 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