Skitmore, R M (2002) Raftery curve construction for tender price forecasts. Construction Management and Economics, 20(1), pp. 83-89. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
John Raftery (1993), in his Inaugural Lecture at the University of Greenwich, suggested that project cost estimates be presented in the form of cumulative probability functions (termed here 'Raftery curves') rather than the current practice of single-point estimates. This paper describes a method for the empirical construction of Raftery curves for tender price forecasts, which then is applied to ten previously published data sets gathered throughout the world. In comparing the resulting curves, the most consistent feature is shown to be the shift associated with to the number of bidders entering bids for contracts. This is examined both in terms of bias and consistency. Contrary to some previous studies, no evidence is found of any trends related to the value size of projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidders; cost; forecasting; probability; range estimates; time |
| Index terms: | estimate, bidder, forecasting, bias, evidence, tender price, project cost, number of bidders |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, financial and cost management, prediction and forecasting, bidding, probability and distributions, economics, tendering |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
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