Munns, A K and Al-Haimus, K M (2000) Estimating using cost significant global cost models. Construction Management and Economics, 18(5), pp. 575-585. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Cost significant models have been suggested as one way of overcoming criticisms of the amount of detail contained within the traditional bill of quantities. Recent research into these models reveals a lack of formal rules for the selection of work packages to be used within the models, and a potential to overestimate the cost of projects. This paper presents a methodology for selecting work packages, and recommends a refinement to the technique that reduces the variability in estimates produced using cost significance. Estimates are produced using both the traditional method of producing cost significant models, and a refined global cost methodology. Both techniques are tested against unpriced bills to measure the difference in results, with significant improvements being achieved with the new technique.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bill of quantities; cost estimating; cost modelling; cost significance |
| Index terms: | cost significance, package, estimate, bills of quantities, modelling, variability, cost estimating, estimating, methodology, cost model |
| Subjects: | research methods, statistical analysis, financial and cost management, analytical methods, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | 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