international comparisons of cost and productivity in construction: a bad example

Clicks: 119
ID: 249491
2012
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #26 of 29 articles by views in journal of foot and ankle research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract

In a report published in June 2012 the Business Council of Australia (BCA) reported that it costs considerably more to build a variety of types of infrastructure in Australia than it does in the US. Airports (90% more costly) and hospitals (62%) were quoted as the worst cases with other projects ranging from 26% to 43% more. They used these figures to conclude that Australia is a high cost, low productivity environment for building infrastructure projects. These claims were based on cost/m2 figures published by a major international construction consultancy. The method used by the BCA is flawed in two ways: one is the in the use of costs that are recognised as giving only the broadest of indications of probable costs and the second is the use of exchange rates to convert Australian construction costs to US dollars. Careful analysis of the methodology used, supported by a series of other comparisons based on other data sources and other conversion factors (purchasing power parities or PPPs), suggests that in real terms it probably costs no more to build in Australia than it does in the US and that it may well be cheaper to build in Australia than it is in the US.

Reference Key
best2012australasianinternational Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Rick Best
Journal journal of foot and ankle research
Year 2012
DOI
10.5130/ajceb.v12i3.2662
URL
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB/article/view/2662
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.