Wing, C K (1999) On the issue of plan shape complexity: Plan shape indices revisited. Construction Management and Economics, 17(4), pp. 473-482. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Plan shape indices are based on the geometry of the plan shape rather than on empirical data, and are problematic as they embrace implicit assumptions that are not tested empirically nor justified theoretically. Empirical research using data in Hong Kong confirms that these plan shape indices are much poorer predictors of unit construction costs than the variables used to construct the indices. This study also develops a method for constructing a plan shape index that is free from the unjustified assumptions implicit in existing plan shape indices; it involves an empirical cost model. Different functional specifications of the cost models are tested. The result rejects the linear model and other special case models such as semi-log and log-linear models. However, the reciprocal model is not rejected. This result suggests that a linear plan shape index can predict the amount of floor area that can be constructed with a fixed sum of money better than the construction cost per floor area.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | box-cox transformation; building cost models; construction cost; design variables; plan shape |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, geometry, construction cost, transformation, cost model, complexity, specification |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, contractual condition, Geography, financial and cost management, business, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| 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