Efficacy of Estimation Methods in Forecasting Building Projects’ Costs

Abstract

This paper investigates the adequacy of some nontraditional approaches to produce realistic forecasts of the final costs of building projects and compare them with forecasts produced by three traditional methods, the unit area costs (UAC), client detailed costs (UPA), and contract sums (CS). As a case study, data of the actual final costs and forecasts produced using the three traditional methods for 420 finished public building projects carried out in Turkey were collected. Based on 75% of the collected data (i.e., 316 projects), three cost models based on UAC, UPA, and CS were established. The remaining 25% of the data (104 projects) were used as control data for testing the accuracies of forecasts produced by the different approaches. Cost forecasts using five nontraditional approaches, namely multilayer perceptron (MLP), radial basis function (RBF), grid partitioning algorithm (GPA), reference class forecasting (RCF), and regression analysis (RA) were then produced and compared with the actual final costs of projects of the control data. The forecasts were compared using four standard error measures: root-mean-square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and overall index of model performance (OI). Results of the analysis have shown that although the efficacy of each method to produce forecasts closer to the actual final costs varied depending on the model used, in general however, RCF and RA seem to produce more accurate and realistic forecasts than the other methods. As such the work described in the paper represents valuable contributions to knowledge and practice, firstly because RCF has not been used or tested before for cost forecasting of building projects. Secondly such comparison among the various methods and approaches used has not been found in published literature. Finally the paper provides guidance as to what approach to use at what stage of the project as well as how realistic the expected forecasts are.

Construction Cost Estimation of Brazilian Highways Using Artificial Neural Networks

“…In addition, the activation function used was the hyperbolic tangent (tansig) in the two steps of the neuron processing of the hidden layer and the output of the network. This activation function is in accordance with previous studies on cost estimate [12], [13], [15], [18]. As mentioned above, the training was carried out from 13 projects.…”

Major Project Risk Management: Reconciling Complexity during Delivery with the Inside View in Planning

“…( (Awojobi and Jenkins, 2016;Batselier and Vanhoucke, 2016;Bayram and Al-Jibouri, 2016a;Bayram and Al-Jibouri, 2016b;Boateng et al, 2013;Bordley, 2014;Callegari et al, 2018;De Jong et al, 2013;Flyvbjerg, 2014;Flyvbjerg, 2009;Flyvbjerg, 2006;Flyvbjerg et al, 2016;Flyvbjerg et al, 2009;Flyvbjerg and Budzier, 2011;Flyvbjerg and Stewart, 2012;Kaiser and Snyder, 2012;Koch, 2012;Leleur et al, 2015;Love et al, 2016;Makovšek, 2014;Olsson et al, 2010;Prater et al, 2017;Salling and Banister, 2009;Salling and Leleur, 2015a;Salli...…”

An Algorithm for Construction Project Cost Forecast Based on Particle Swarm Optimization-Guided BP Neural Network

“…e uniformity in the field, for example, did not take into account the management level, professional capabilities of the travel industry unit, as well as project quality, safety, and construction period, and was unable to adapt well to the market economic system. As a result, traditional construction project cost forecasting [19,20] often fails to achieve satisfactory accuracy, and it often takes a long time. e construction project cost prediction loses its practical significance as a result of its low precision and time-consuming nature.…”