Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management process in building services costs estimation: Comment

Edwards, P J and Bowen, P A (1998) Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management process in building services costs estimation: Comment. Construction Management and Economics, 16(1), pp. 105-108. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

This note is a comment on Mok, C.K., Rao Tummala, V.M. and Leung, H.M. (1997) Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management process in building services cost estimation, Construction Management and Economics, 15(2), 161-75, which describes research into the risk perceptions and risk management practices of building services engineers in Hong Kong. The note questions statements made in the paper and parts of the research design and data analyses.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: cost estimating; risk; risk management; survey research
Index terms: survey, risk perception, cost estimating, data analysis, risk management, building services engineer, estimation, research design, building service, Hong Kong
Subjects: financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, engineering systems, research design and methodology, profession, risk assessment, data collection methods, environmental hazards, Geography
Topics: Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Sustainability, Risk Management, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

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