Chau, K W (1995) Monte Carlo simulation of construction costs using subjective data. Construction Management and Economics, 13(5), pp. 369-383. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper critically examines the problems arising from the assumptions of independence and triangular distribution in the risk analysis of construction costs. These two assumptions have been widely adopted by researchers and practitioners alike. However, they lead to bias in the analysis. With the aid of a spreadsheet and a risk analysis add-on program, the nature of the resulting bias can be illustrated using both empirical and simulated data. Various possible solutions which seek to reduce the bias are explored. Their practicality under real life constraints is examined. A tentative practical solution is proposed and evaluated against the existing approach. The method and logic of the solution are also discussed. The approach is applied to two sets of data to illustrate its use and to testthe reasonableness of the approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | costs; dependence; Monte Carlo simulation; probabilistic cost estimate; spreadsheet |
| Index terms: | Monte Carlo simulation, practitioner, bias, spreadsheet, construction cost, risk analysis, cost estimate, program |
| Subjects: | modelling and simulation, practitioner, software systems, data science, probability and distributions, financial and cost management, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Digital Applications |
| 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