Tah, J H M; Thorpe, A and McCaffer, R (1994) A survey of indirect cost estimating in practice. Construction Management and Economics, 12(1), pp. 31-36. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of an investigation into the current practices of estimating the indirect costs involved in tendering for construction work. It shows the results of a survey of current practices and attitudes in seven firms towards the quantification and allocation of general overheads, risk contingencies and profit in a tender. The survey indicates that the methods used are highly subjective and are based on past experience. Quantitative methods involving statistics and probability, even though advocated, are rarely used. This suggests that future methods adopted in a computerized estimating environment should reflect the subjective nature of the process and should be simple enough to be applied.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | general overheads; indirect cost estimating; profits; risk contingencies; subjective decision making |
| Index terms: | survey, profit, estimating, decision-making, quantitative method, quantification, indirect cost, statistics, overheads, investigation, construction work |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, measurement and scaling, cost management, financial analysis, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, operations management, data analysis and analytics, financial and cost management, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Procurement, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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