Kenley, R and Wilson, O D (1986) A construction project cash flow model: an idiographic approach. Construction Management and Economics, 4(3), pp. 213-232. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The paper introduces and supports the contention that an idiographic methodology is appropriate to the posthoc study and interpretation of individual construction project cashflows. A cash flow model based on the logit transformation is proposed to be consistent with this methodology. The model is based on historical data, and yields two parameters to describe each individual project. The model is tested using two samples totalling 72 projects. Goodness of fit for the model, using a measure of standard deviation from 1.0% to 4.6%, with a median of 2.5%, is found for individual projects. The experimental hypothesis (that there is substantial variation between projects) is supported by the graphical and statistical evidence of deviation, which is argued to be the result of the individual ontology of each project - systematic error - rather than random error from an ideal. The paper concludes that forecasts of individual cash flows are invalid when derived from analysis of grouped data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cash flow; construction management; estimating; idiographic methodology; logit transformation |
| Index terms: | cash flow, ontology, evidence, variation, methodology, construction project, estimating, transformation, deviation |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, business, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual condition, production management, research methods, education and knowledge transfer, financial management |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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