Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

[Extract]
Successful project management has long been characterised in terms of delivering
projects on time, within budget and to the required standard of quality (Ebbesen
and Hope 2013). There are other performance indicators as well, including
risk management, innovation, stakeholder satisfaction, value for money, environmental impact, defect minimisation, conflict avoidance, team development
and continuous process improvement (Toor and Ogunlana 2010). Nevertheless,
project cost is normally a key success factor for projects and therefore features
prominently in benchmarking exercises aimed at identifying best practice (Bryde
and Robinson 2005; Tabish and Jha 2012). Benchmarking concerns drawing
comparisons between projects; in the case of cost, benchmarking is complicated
by differences in scope, quality standard, timing and location (Atkinson 1999).
Investigations of comparative project cost performance may involve domestic
or international benchmarking. The latter introduces the additional issue of different currencies. The routine approach is to first convert all costs into a common
currency, usually taken as the US dollar (USD), so that a direct comparison can
be made. Most practitioners appear to follow this approach. Yet currency rates
can be quite volatile. For example, the currency exchange rate between Australia
and the United States was about AUD 1 = USD 0.50 in 2001 and AUD 1 = USD
1.08 in 2012 (Best 2012), By late 2017 one Australian dollar (AUD) was buying around USD 0.75, and price levels in Australia and the United States still
remained much the same as they had been
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationAccounting for Construction
Subtitle of host publicationFrameworks, productivity, cost and performance
EditorsRick Best, Jim Meikle
Place of PublicationAbingdon
PublisherRoutledge
Chapter10
Pages181-191
Number of pages11
ISBN (Electronic)978-1-315-23178-5
ISBN (Print)978-1-138-29397-7
Publication statusPublished - 11 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Construction costs
Costs
Benchmarking
Industry
Currency
Process improvement
Project management
Defects
Best practice
Quality standards
Exercise
Exchange rates
Key success factors
Performance indicators
Environmental impact
Stakeholder satisfaction
Value for money
Avoidance
Management innovation
Price level

Cite this

Emmett, G., & Langston, C. A. (2019). Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience. In R. Best, & J. Meikle (Eds.), Accounting for Construction: Frameworks, productivity, cost and performance (pp. 181-191). Abingdon: Routledge.
Emmett, Gary ; Langston, Craig Ashley. / Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience. Accounting for Construction: Frameworks, productivity, cost and performance. editor / Rick Best ; Jim Meikle. Abingdon : Routledge, 2019. pp. 181-191
@inbook{3e2d7f85321e4053a6e47e537802ff7e,
title = "Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience",
abstract = "[Extract] Successful project management has long been characterised in terms of deliveringprojects on time, within budget and to the required standard of quality (Ebbesenand Hope 2013). There are other performance indicators as well, includingrisk management, innovation, stakeholder satisfaction, value for money, environmental impact, defect minimisation, conflict avoidance, team developmentand continuous process improvement (Toor and Ogunlana 2010). Nevertheless,project cost is normally a key success factor for projects and therefore featuresprominently in benchmarking exercises aimed at identifying best practice (Brydeand Robinson 2005; Tabish and Jha 2012). Benchmarking concerns drawingcomparisons between projects; in the case of cost, benchmarking is complicatedby differences in scope, quality standard, timing and location (Atkinson 1999).Investigations of comparative project cost performance may involve domesticor international benchmarking. The latter introduces the additional issue of different currencies. The routine approach is to first convert all costs into a commoncurrency, usually taken as the US dollar (USD), so that a direct comparison canbe made. Most practitioners appear to follow this approach. Yet currency ratescan be quite volatile. For example, the currency exchange rate between Australiaand the United States was about AUD 1 = USD 0.50 in 2001 and AUD 1 = USD1.08 in 2012 (Best 2012), By late 2017 one Australian dollar (AUD) was buying around USD 0.75, and price levels in Australia and the United States stillremained much the same as they had been",
author = "Gary Emmett and Langston, {Craig Ashley}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "11",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-138-29397-7",
pages = "181--191",
editor = "Rick Best and Jim Meikle",
booktitle = "Accounting for Construction",
publisher = "Routledge",
address = "United States",

}

Emmett, G & Langston, CA 2019, Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience. in R Best & J Meikle (eds), Accounting for Construction: Frameworks, productivity, cost and performance. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 181-191.

Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience. / Emmett, Gary; Langston, Craig Ashley.

Accounting for Construction: Frameworks, productivity, cost and performance. ed. / Rick Best; Jim Meikle. Abingdon : Routledge, 2019. p. 181-191.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience

AU - Emmett, Gary

AU - Langston, Craig Ashley

PY - 2019/4/11

Y1 - 2019/4/11

N2 - [Extract] Successful project management has long been characterised in terms of deliveringprojects on time, within budget and to the required standard of quality (Ebbesenand Hope 2013). There are other performance indicators as well, includingrisk management, innovation, stakeholder satisfaction, value for money, environmental impact, defect minimisation, conflict avoidance, team developmentand continuous process improvement (Toor and Ogunlana 2010). Nevertheless,project cost is normally a key success factor for projects and therefore featuresprominently in benchmarking exercises aimed at identifying best practice (Brydeand Robinson 2005; Tabish and Jha 2012). Benchmarking concerns drawingcomparisons between projects; in the case of cost, benchmarking is complicatedby differences in scope, quality standard, timing and location (Atkinson 1999).Investigations of comparative project cost performance may involve domesticor international benchmarking. The latter introduces the additional issue of different currencies. The routine approach is to first convert all costs into a commoncurrency, usually taken as the US dollar (USD), so that a direct comparison canbe made. Most practitioners appear to follow this approach. Yet currency ratescan be quite volatile. For example, the currency exchange rate between Australiaand the United States was about AUD 1 = USD 0.50 in 2001 and AUD 1 = USD1.08 in 2012 (Best 2012), By late 2017 one Australian dollar (AUD) was buying around USD 0.75, and price levels in Australia and the United States stillremained much the same as they had been

AB - [Extract] Successful project management has long been characterised in terms of deliveringprojects on time, within budget and to the required standard of quality (Ebbesenand Hope 2013). There are other performance indicators as well, includingrisk management, innovation, stakeholder satisfaction, value for money, environmental impact, defect minimisation, conflict avoidance, team developmentand continuous process improvement (Toor and Ogunlana 2010). Nevertheless,project cost is normally a key success factor for projects and therefore featuresprominently in benchmarking exercises aimed at identifying best practice (Brydeand Robinson 2005; Tabish and Jha 2012). Benchmarking concerns drawingcomparisons between projects; in the case of cost, benchmarking is complicatedby differences in scope, quality standard, timing and location (Atkinson 1999).Investigations of comparative project cost performance may involve domesticor international benchmarking. The latter introduces the additional issue of different currencies. The routine approach is to first convert all costs into a commoncurrency, usually taken as the US dollar (USD), so that a direct comparison canbe made. Most practitioners appear to follow this approach. Yet currency ratescan be quite volatile. For example, the currency exchange rate between Australiaand the United States was about AUD 1 = USD 0.50 in 2001 and AUD 1 = USD1.08 in 2012 (Best 2012), By late 2017 one Australian dollar (AUD) was buying around USD 0.75, and price levels in Australia and the United States stillremained much the same as they had been

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-1-138-29397-7

SP - 181

EP - 191

BT - Accounting for Construction

A2 - Best, Rick

A2 - Meikle, Jim

PB - Routledge

CY - Abingdon

ER -

Emmett G, Langston CA. Comparative construction cost data for industry: A case study of Turner & Townsend's experience. In Best R, Meikle J, editors, Accounting for Construction: Frameworks, productivity, cost and performance. Abingdon: Routledge. 2019. p. 181-191