Forecasting Infidelity: Why Current Methods for Predicting Costs Miss the Mark

被引:9
|
作者
Swei, Omar [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Civil Engn, 6250 Appl Sci Lane, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
关键词
Construction; Costs; Endogeneity; Error-correction model; Forecasting; Multivariate; Time series; Univariate; OIL-PRICE SHOCK; SCORING RULES; GREAT CRASH; CONSTRUCTION; ESCALATION; MODELS; REGRESSION; TESTS; INDEX;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001756
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
High-fidelity forecasts of construction cost indexes and material prices are critical for the successful delivery of infrastructure work projects. Unfortunately, existing models tend to underperform because they either (1) ignore relevant explanatory factors or (2) incorrectly specify system feedback and structure. Through a case study with bitumen, a construction material of prime concern for transportation agencies, this paper presents a novel multivariate cost forecasting approach that overcomes these two gaps. Specifically, based on several diagnostic tests, an autoregressive distributed lag and equivalent error-correction model is specified that correctly captures the feedback structure between bitumen and energy commodities. The study then characterizes the relative merits of the approach by introducing robust deterministic and probabilistic out-of-sample forecast measures. The proposed forecasting approach greatly outperforms conventional methods: 6-month-ahead price projections are at least 25% better across the available deterministic and probabilistic metrics. For state planning agencies, this improved forecasting model will allow decision makers to better predict capital budgeting requirements and resource-planning risks. Furthermore, the proposed performance measures will better equip the construction research community to evaluate future forecasting models. (C) 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] WHY ECONOMISTS MISS THE MARK
    NORTON, R
    [J]. FORTUNE, 1992, 125 (02) : 24 - 24
  • [2] Why competency tests miss the mark
    Nagel, G
    Peterson, P
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, 2001, 58 (08) : 46 - 48
  • [3] Try not to think about it: Why expert shooters miss their mark
    Diekfuss, Jed
    LaFave, Chase C.
    Suss, Joel
    Raisbeck, Louisa D.
    Ward, Paul
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 2013, 35 : S26 - S26
  • [4] METHODS OF FORECASTING CURRENT IMMISSION
    DIETZE, G
    [J]. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR METEOROLOGIE, 1976, 26 (01): : 35 - 41
  • [5] THE HYBRID TRAP: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark
    Suarez, Fernando F.
    Utterback, James
    Von Gruben, Paul
    Kang, Hye Young
    [J]. MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2018, 59 (03) : 52 - 57
  • [6] EQUIPMENT COSTS BY CURRENT METHODS
    DOUGLAS, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION-ASCE, 1978, 104 (02): : 191 - 205
  • [7] Why preferring parametric forecasting to nonparametric methods?
    Jabot, Franck
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY, 2015, 372 : 205 - 210
  • [8] The Singleton Fallacy: Why Current Critiques of Language Models Miss the Point
    Sahlgren, Magnus
    Carlsson, Fredrik
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2021, 4
  • [9] Off the mark Current lung cancer screening guidelines miss those most at risk
    Printz, Carrie
    [J]. CANCER, 2015, 121 (15) : 2477 - 2478
  • [10] Efficacy of Estimation Methods in Forecasting Building Projects' Costs
    Bayram, Savas
    Al-Jibouri, Saad
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 2016, 142 (11)