Boo, J H S (2001) Improving the accuracy of approximate estimates of building projects. Building Research & Information, 29(4), pp. 312-318. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper investigates the level of estimating accuracy in Singapore between 1992 and 1998. It compares the actual estimating accuracy against practitioners' expectations, and past studies. Forty-two sets of project data were obtained from six Singapore based quantity surveying firms. The estimating accuracy was found to be 1.09. This level of accuracy is below the expectation of 41 quantity surveyors (QS) who were surveyed. There is therefore a need to increase estimating accuracy further. Results also showed that there is no significant difference in estimating accuracy between this study and a previous study by Gunner and Skitmore (1999a). The implication of this finding is that longitudinally, there is no improvement in estimating accuracy over time. Moreover, for future studies on estimating accuracy, researchers can rely on cost data sets that are relatively dated, and from one source. Thirteen possible methods to improve estimating accuracy were tested in the fieldwork. It was found that the more important methods relate to having good quality and sufficient quantity of design information to prepare estimates.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | approximate estimating; cost planning; pre-bid forecasting; procurement; quantity surveyors; Singapore |
| Index terms: | estimating, quantity surveying, project data, accuracy, forecasting, future study, quantity surveying firm, Singapore, estimate, cost data, practitioner, cost planning |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, professional development, profession, research design and methodology, Geography, data collection methods, practitioner, financial management, prediction and forecasting, accounting and finance |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Geographical Context, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| 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