Akintoye, S A and Skitmore, R M (1994) A comparative analysis of three macro price forecasting models. Construction Management and Economics, 12(3), pp. 257-270. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper examines the relative performance of three different systems of forecasting movements in macro building prices. The three systems analysed are the Building Cost Information Service system, the Davis, Langdon & Everest system and Akintoye and Skitmore’s reduced-form simultaneous equation. A battery of accuracy measures are used to compare the forecasts published by the Building Cost Information Service and Davis, Langdon & Everest systems and simulated out-sample forecasts made by the Akintoye and Skitmore system. The results indicate that, during the 3 year period commencing with the first quarter of 1988, the Akintoye and Skitmore system gives the most accurate forecasts for a zero to three quarters forecast horizon and the Building Cost Information Service system gives the most accurate forecasts for a four to eight quarters forecast horizon.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accuracy; econometrics; forecasting; tender price index |
| Index terms: | forecasting, cost information, econometric, price forecasting model, comparative analysis, accuracy, movement, tender price index |
| Subjects: | prediction and forecasting, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics, health behaviours and lifestyles, professional development, accounting and finance, quantity surveying |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
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