Kaka, A and Lewis, J (2003) Development of a company-level dynamic cash flow forecasting model. Construction Management and Economics, 21(7), pp. 693-705. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Current methods of predicting cash flow have a number of significant weaknesses. At the project level, previous models are simple and incorporate only some of the variables affecting cash flow. On the company level, budgeting is performed on an overall basis (i.e. no account is taken of individual contracts). This is mainly due to the fact that a considerable amount of any year's turnover is contributed by contracts that have yet to be won (or even known of) at the time of the budget. This approach, in addition to being inaccurate, precludes the role of budgeting as a tool for strategy evaluation. This paper presents a dynamic cash flow forecasting model that would assist contractors to effectively plan and manage the cash flow of individual projects and at a company level. The advances made in the model can be represented by three of its main features. First, the development of a more accurate and complex cash flow calculation mechanism. Second, the development of an information system that will help the contractor enter the data necessary for this mechanism. Third, the development of a company-level model that is based on individual projects, both known and unknown to the contractor at the time of the forecast.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | budgeting; cash flow; financial planning; management information systems; simulation |
| Index terms: | information system, strategy, cash flow, financial planning, cash flow forecasting, budgeting, turnover, management information system |
| Subjects: | management, data management, information systems, financial and cost management, business management, financial management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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