A study of clients' and estimators' tolerance towards estimating errors

Cheung, F K T; Wong, M W L and Skitmore, M (2008) A study of clients' and estimators' tolerance towards estimating errors. Construction Management and Economics, 26(4), pp. 349-362. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

Previous research on building pre-tender cost estimating stresses the importance of giving accurate estimates and minimizing estimating errors. Cost models, especially those mathematical models using mean square error or the like for model training and validation, often treat positive errors (overestimates) and negative errors (underestimates) of equal magnitude the same with an implicit assumption that the regret or disutility of positive errors (overestimates) is equal to that of negative errors (underestimates). A survey was conducted in Hong Kong to study estimating practice and in particular, the attitude of clients and estimators towards estimating errors. This involved the use of regression analysis to model the relative disutility of underestimates (in terms of overestimates) for four different building types. Both clients and estimators are found to be risk averse - tolerating overestimates more than underestimates - and, arguably, clients are satisfied with overestimates. However, they have contrasting views on the desired characteristics of estimates with clients considering the ability to identify cost sensitive elements to be more important than accuracy. In this regard, the formalization of value analysis as part of the cost advice function under typical cost consulting agreements should be the best form of improvement.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: accuracy; client; cost planning; expert judgement; survey
Index terms: Hong Kong, agreements, regression analysis, estimate, value analysis, accuracy, survey, mathematical model, cost estimating, estimating, cost planning, mean square error, expert judgement, estimator, validation, cost model
Subjects: Geography, probability and distributions, professional development, financial management, financial analysis, statistical analysis, risk assessment, profession, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, financial and cost management, contract formation
Topics: Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Contract Administration
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