Kaka, A P (1996) Towards more flexible and accurate cash flow forecasting. Construction Management and Economics, 14(1), pp. 35-44. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated significant variation in actual cash flow profiles. However, the results from traditional cash flow forecasting models do not exhibit these variations. This suggests that further variables are needed to enhance to flexibility of the cash flow profiles produced. This paper presents a model designed to use more than fifty variables to calculate the cash flow of individual contracts. In addition, some of the risk associated with construction contracting was incorporated into the cash flow mechanism. This has been achieved by introducing stochastic simulation and extra variables that contribute towards that risk. The testing of the model demonstrated that by merging further variables, the flexibility and reliability of cash flow forecasting are enhanced. The tests also demonstrated that contractors' cash flow is highly sensitive to risk (variations, cost variances, duration overrun and undermeasurement), which further justifies the methodology adopted.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cash flow; financial planning; risk; s-curves; tendering strategies |
| Index terms: | variation, methodology, overrun, financial planning, cash flow, testing, duration, cash flow forecasting, cost variance, tendering strategy, s-curve |
| Subjects: | tendering, economics, research methods, financial management, contractual condition, project controls, financial analysis, financial and cost management, professional practice |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Time Control, Procurement, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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