Newton, S (1991) An agenda for cost modelling research. Construction Management and Economics, 9(2), pp. 97-112. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
There is little order or formal direction to current cost modelling research. This paper proposes a basic classification system with which both to set out the overall topology of cost modelling as a distinct subject, and to provide the much needed points of reference on which individual research contributions can be located. The taxonomy is used to review over 50 reported cost models. The analysis of this review highlights that current emphasis lies with non-specific, macro, price models which use abstract units of measurement, and are intended to be used at the sketch design stage. These models generally use simulation techniques based on functional dependencies, with implicit assumptions and a deterministic outcome. On current trends, the preferred models of the future will use as-built units of measurement, and make considerably more use of stochastic techniques. One criteria for which there appears far too little concern, is in making the assumptions within the model more explicit.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | classification; cost modelling; research; review |
| Index terms: | topology, cost model, design stage, taxonomy, modelling |
| Subjects: | geometry and topology, analytical methods, financial and cost management, professional practice, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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